In Defense of Classic Politics

white-house2

The politics of running for President of the United States involves a bevy of handlers, advisers and top strategists; they can be thought of as a hidden iceberg with only the candidates sticking their heads above water. There is a reason for this. At a level where every utterance is scrutinized, no isolated human being can run for the highest office in the land without a lot of advice.

Running for President of the United States comes with a bevy of handlers, advisers and top political strategists; they can be thought of as a hidden iceberg with only the candidates sticking their heads above water.

Advisers such as pollsters and campaign consultants receive more than their fair share of criticism, but they endure it, secure in the knowledge of the vital role they play. No one may understand this better now than Donald Trump.

With his recent criticism of John McCain, a veteran and war hero whom even the Democrats respect, Mr. Trump has shot himself in the foot, and only time will tell whether the damage ruins the rest of his candidacy. But, more than anything, his error proves the inviolable need of a professional political staff when running for President of the United States. Even the most accomplished business executive wouldn’t dream of making decisions without appropriate input. Why should the President of the United States be any different?

Of all the candidates, Hillary Clinton is running the best campaign. Recognizing she is on a glide path to the nomination, Ms. Clinton has limited press appearances and interviews for one primary purpose: avoiding the kind of error Mr. Trump made over the weekend. And she is succeeding in this strategy despite the vocal protestations from Fox News and the Republicans. Hillary shows why listening to your advisers is a good idea just as Donald shows why failing to do so is a bad one.