The ease of Carlyology

In regard to Carly Fiorina, there are two schools of thought (within the boundaries of actual thought). The first is an academic view, such as that of Trump-cited Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, Yale professor of management and leadership, who writes in Politico:

[Fiorina's] behavior — sidestepping accountability by resorting to demagoguery and deflection — is exactly why she failed as a leader the last time.

The second is more subjective, more personal, such as that of Carly's

first husband, Todd Bartlem, a Stanford classmate who’s told other reporters that in the years they were together, she had no political opinions and considered Dress for Success her bible. When reached by phone recently [by Bloomberg's Melinda Henneberger], Bartlem said only, "You’re wasting your time, and I don’t want you to waste mine. In the clown car that is the Republican Party, she’s the ultimate clown." (Click.)

In its cold, detached, clinical analysis, I often lean to the first view. But I am fond of, and partial to, the second school of thought as well.

I am torn, adrift between two commensurate worlds of thoughtfulness — one, where Carly is a blistering harpy of consistency; the other, where Carly is an acutely superior Republican clown, right up there with Trump.

Should I give this more thought? Carly's first husband has the answer to that, I think.

 

Comments

[Peter G]

In his very popular quote on the subject of known and unknown knowns Donald Rumsfeld covered all the permutations but he failed distinctly when it came to elucidating whether a thing is worth knowing at all. There may indeed be, for me at least, additional unknown factors that would render Carly unsuitable for the office she seeks. But I already feel sufficiently well informed enough to render an opinion. And I am pretty confidant that a sufficient number of people who can vote will share that opinion as to dismiss this potential concern to the worried about being struck by lightening category.

[Bob]

To recap, Fiorina is an extreme conservative, refuses to learn from failure, plays fast and loose with highly misleading metrics, makes irresponsible decisions, is intolerant of dissent and resorts to personal attacks. She really is a female Dick Cheney, who nearly wrecked Halliburton by merging with Dresser Industries. Logically her being a blistering harpy of consistency doesn't preclude her from also being an acutely superior Republican clown. In fact the two things might be inseparable in modern conservatism. Along with being one of the worst business leaders she might also have one of the shortest polling bumps in history.

[teabow]

re: "harpy," unless you would use the same term for a man, then it's sexist.

Not that I disagree with your views about Ms. Fiorina.

[Jason]

How is that sexist?

[William Caulfield]

At the very least it is sex specific. I would use Gorgon to be even more sexist :)