The crowd pleaser vs the honest intellectual

I watched the VP debate tonite and before I go any further I must add that I do not have biased political affiliations nor am I eligible to vote in this upcoming election. However, as HR professionals our job is to judge candidates and here the entire country is judging candidates for the most imp. jobs in the world. So I thought I would share my pearls of wisdom gained from so many hiring assessments I have performed of leadership candidates. I always start by listing out what is important for the role and weigh candidates against that objectively and I hope that everyone who votes will do that as well. I found it very interesting and ironic that Palin the "crowd pleaser" actually did not please me one bit and Biden the "who joe biden" really touched a chord in my heart once and appealed to my intellect overall. Of course I am not the average american voter but in my view, palin failed to meet expectations on what is supposed to be her basic strength i.e she looks real. I thought she came across as a big fake. And Biden, who is supposed to be an old, jaded washington hand came across as honest and real. If I were judging them as I do all the other leadership candidates I meet, I would say that both candidates had strengths in having a pleasing personality and presence and reasonably good delivery/presentation. Here is what I would say of their unique strengths (+) & weaknesses(-) : 

Palin

+ ability to talk in simple terms and use simple sentences that the common man/woman gets

+ emotional appeal for some because of her ability to use simple sentences

-  lacks depth and content for this job

-  appears "fake" and resorts too much to cliched statements about america and americans

- Poor global exposure and experience

Biden :

+ High on content. He stated facts and was prepared even when it was a spontaneous question as happens in a live debate

+ Adaptable. Smart to see that Palin was using a "i am just like you, average american" strategy and throwing the "kitchen table" into every discussion and he adapted his strategy to that and ended up making more powerful statements revolving around the kitchen table also ( I thought those tables were meant for eating). 

+ Global exposure & experience

+ Honesty and therefore emotional appeal. Once Palin peeled the polish off him and seemed to have pushed him over the edge by her silly comments about being "hockey mom" . "joe 6 pack" etc and implying that Biden wasn't all of those things, I thought Biden made a great comeback with a few comments about his son, his family, himself that to me had a lot more emotional appeal than anything Palin said in the entire 90 minutes.  It did not appear to be a gimmick and I thought he spoke from the heart. 

- He was intellectual and for someone relatively smart as me (ahem!), there were one or two words I didnt get either. Its probably from his law education or something. The average american may have found it hard to understand some of the things that he said. 

But see, heres the thing : The average american does not need to understand everything that someone like Biden says. As long Biden understands what he says and does and is able to translate the main issues into simple edible chunks for the people, which I think he did well on a number of issues ranging from the war, foreign policy and healthcare, we dont need to understand everything. If we did, we would be up there on that stage. Well - one could argue that if Palin can be up there as was Bush then anyone can be up there so maybe that wasnt a good argument. But the point is that when we hire for our organization, our team, we are very critical of every candidate we interview as we want the best person for the job and the country needs to be just as critical and vote/hire someone who can do a good job. When we hire for organizations, we bet on future performance and hire for values. Values such as honesty, integrity and teamwork. I did not think Palin was honest today and I certainly did not think that isolating other countries was an indication of future teamwork. With regards to performance, dont we believe in our behavioural interviewing techniques etc that past performance is a predictor of future performance -- if so, she doesnt have sufficient past performance and it isnt extensive enough. Sure- one can take a risk on a candidate but this aint the time for it with everything going on in the economy and the world. For gods sakes, shes from Alaska. I hear its a beautiful vacation spot but right now the country needs someone who understands the global economy and the impact of various levers on the US & the world. A fish from a small pond will be overwhelmed or eaten alive in the ocean. She is likeable yes but if I had to predict, she would be tactical in the white house and Bush was anything but strategic and she seemed a lot like Bush -- just as dumb, also pronouncing nuclear as "nookilur"and she maybe a great hockey mom, a great drinking buddy to joe six pack etc but she just doesnt seem to be best person for the job - not this job. Whoever the president may be, I would rather have Biden in the room with the President vs. Palin. You know, when your team, your home, your organization or country is in deep shit, you get the person who can get you out. You sideline the cheerleader and get down to action. Palin seems to be  great cheerleader material but there are plenty of those and if you hire the smart guys and gals for the top jobs, they will hire cheerleaders if and when required. Thats why we pay them - to do the right thing and think about whats best for us. 

Off to the kitchen table I go as it seems to be the most happening place.