posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 04:40 PM
I understand your points about Mr. Bush. When we voted for him, we got a team of handlers and close-in advisors AND George W. as President. HJere
again, this was something I predicted in my book. That particular trend (as I see it) was begun with Jimmy Carter, who brought with him a very few
advisors as he asumed office.
Reagan may have been the first truely managed President. His team was large and diverse. His handlers were able to talk to him about the finer
points of whatever they thought he needed to do. Bush 41 came in to office with a similar advisory team, but fewer handlers. Bush sr. failed to heed
much of the economic advice given to him, and he paid for it.
When Bill Clinton steps in, he's got no handlers to speak of other than Dick Morris, but he does have an active advisory team. They can talk to him
about the finer points. His graps of public image is much like Reagan's, and he isn't afraid to use it when it works. Until the Monica thing
erupts, he fights with Dick Morris but he does listen to what the man says. There's a character in my book patterned after Dick Morris.
Bush 43 comes in to office with what could be one of the best advisory teams of all time. Trouble is, he's not his own man. His handlers are a
troika of men who make up his official chain of command. Chief of Staff, Vice President, and Secretary of Defense. George turns out to be pretty
good at following orders. He trusts the people who are his handlers. Trouble is, they've given him bad advise.
Hillary will come in to office with a small cadre of advisors and very few handlers. In many respects, she will know what she wants to do before she
takes office. I expect her staff to have a high rate of turn-over. She'll be hard to work with. She may even turn out to be a micro-manager.
It's quite posible that her public image may be one of the most closely maintained aspects of her Presidency.
I'm not trying to look at this through a partisan lense. I'm trying to look at this from a technical standpoint.