Hillary was interview today on Fox News Sunday. Here's one question and answer I thought was very illuminating:
WALLACE: Senator, the high profile your husband has had on the campaign trail has raised, as you no doubt know, new questions about the issue of a co-presidency.
Have you thought if you were to win how you would set up the White House to make it clear who was the boss?
CLINTON: Oh, I don't think there'll be any doubt about that, Chris, you know, just as there wasn't any doubt that he was the president and the commander in chief. And all of us, including everyone in the White House, and that was me as well, were there to support his efforts.
That's what it will be when I'm in the White House. I will be the decision-maker. Obviously, I'm going to seek advice from a wide range of people who have expertise and experience that will be helpful in making decisions, and that certainly includes him, because I think he'll play a very important role in representing our country around the world.
But at the end of the day, I know very well, having been there for eight years, that the weight of decision-making falls on the president. I'm ready to accept that responsibility. I don't believe in government by advisers. (my italics)
I believe we need a president who is a hands-on manager of the government. I think that's what I offer, and that's what I intend to do.
On one hand she says she wants advisors . . . then on another she thinks a government let by advisers is a bad idea. What is it? Is the president supposed to be a manager? Or is the president supposed to be a leader? There's a big difference between leading and managing.
The whole interview can be found here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327951,00.html
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.