Fiorina: Candidates Not Qualified to Run Corporations

Is this a fair comparison? I would have guessed that corporations and government have somewhat opposing objectives. One is almost exclusively profits, while the other is charged with security of person and property, collecting taxes, investment in infrastructure and academics, distribution of social services and facilitating law.

Sent by robert | 3:59 PM | 9-16-2008

It's not like the president has any power outside of the will of the military industrial complex. And the vice-president has even less power.

Sent by Jody Sol | 4:12 PM | 9-16-2008

Running a company, a country, any organization requires the characteristics which define leadership.
The ability to inspire others to accomplish great things, the honesty and humility to admit mistakes,the wisdom to know whom to trust to carry out organizational objectives and the compassion to put human needs before greed and power are all traits which allow a leader to be successful. Without these traits in it's leaders, an organization is in great danger.
Experience in "running" something is one of the least important job qualifications if one is looking for a leader.

Sent by Wayne Houchin (HOWchin) | 4:42 PM | 9-16-2008

After those utterances, does anyone really think she'll still get that Secretary of Comerce position she so obviously lusts for and is so emminently unqualified for?

Sent by oliver | 4:43 PM | 9-16-2008

Fiorina is just plain ignorant. The irony of the situation is in fact, the United States is a corporation. That is exactly what it is and why it was created. I refer you to the UNITED STATES CODE (note the capitalization, indicating the corporation, not the Republic) Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C). It is stated unequivocally that the UNITED STATES is a corporation. Realize, too, that the corporation is not a separate and distinct entity from the government. It IS the government. YOUR government.
Quoted from http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm. Check your history Lady, and realize how stupid ignorance just made you look.

Sent by Nathan Crowe | 6:56 PM | 9-16-2008

Jody: au contraire! Dick Cheney has successfully performed the largest Vice-Presidential power grab in our country's history, making the VP slot a position that, for practical reasons, even outranks most cabinet members in the power structure of the Administration. (Note that although they ARE all supposed to stand when the Veep walks into the room, the constitution doesn't actually vest the *office* of VP with any real power WHATSOEVER except breaking ties in the Senate.)

It just remains to be seen whether the next Vice President will return the office to the oft-ignored political appendix it has typically been, or if they will use and continue to expand the unconstitutional powers Cheney has vested it with. I'm not sure about Biden, but I'm fairly certain that I know which way "a'-fixin'-an'-a'-shakin'" Palin will go.

Sent by Kasreyn | 8:12 PM | 9-16-2008

Are you joking - The Presidency is THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH of government. Must we go back to 8th Grade Civics already?

And job of ANY Executive is to successfully oversee the operations of a company, or town, or state or or country so that the its "product" (or "Democracy" in our case) prospers.

SIMPLE.

Palin as Executive of Wasilla left the town a $15 to 20 Million debt. Bush bankrupted two oil companies and then his own country. If Palin can't be Executive of a company - how can she possibly lead the Highest Office in our country - Executive Branch?

If you want your Executive to just be a character - the guy at the end of the bar or the Hockey / Moose Huntin' Mom then you deserve to not only have the WORST Executive Oversight in American History - but the WORST Corporate Executives and Corporations in our history.

Sent by Kevin Caldwell | 8:27 PM | 9-16-2008

Agreed - the Governor is the "Executive" of Alaska, so while she shouldn't be expected to hop into Merrill Lynch and turn it around, the responsibilities are identical: You must oversee the entity you have responsibility for...every aspect of it.

To do anything else in any Executive position to be irresponsible whether its government or business.

Sent by Regina Caldwell | 9:21 PM | 9-16-2008

Isn't the question more specific? Could any of the candidates run Hewlett-Packard corp. It's reasonable to say no. I would never expect the CEO of toys r us to jump into the shoes of the top Goldman Sachs position. Nor would I have confidence in the toys r us leader to be the treasury secretary. Leading a community and leading a financial concern are very different.

Sent by robert | 10:18 AM | 9-17-2008

Am I missing something? Wasn't Carly Fiorina fired after only a few years as CEO of Hewlett Packard because she failed to make the company profitable?
And now she's the expert on who's qualified to run a company, not to mention the country?

It's interesting that she seems to have replaced Phil "The Recession Is All In Your Head" Gramm as McCain's economic spokesperson.

Sent by Gary Cooper | 11:05 AM | 9-17-2008

You are all missing the point...Obama's campaign lied when it edited her comments to only apply to McCain.

Sent by mptc | 11:34 AM | 9-17-2008

Fiorina was the most-hated executive at HP. She had bodyguards with her on most of her travels... unlike all previous CEO's at HP... to protect her from HP EMPLOYEES. Her take-over of Compaq was a pointless "legacy" gesture that in the end was useless to HP.

Sent by Charles Roth | 4:59 PM | 9-17-2008

Given her performance as CEO of HP, "No I don't - and neither am I", would have been a truly candid answer from Fiorina.

Sent by John Barry | 9:10 PM | 9-17-2008