Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
She strikes me as a dark horse candidate. I find myself agreeing with everything she says, and she handled Katie Couric's gotcha! questions like a pro. She has all the experience and none of the political baggage as someone who has been in politics all of their life.
If you have a chance, watch her yahoo interview with Katie Couric. Smart woman who is also likable.
Probably because she was a failed CEO and an abysmal failure as a Senate candidate. She's by no means qualified for the job and seems as though she will end up running on the Hillary Clinton platform: "I have a vagina therefore you should vote for me."
I don't think that Ms. Fiorina can be blamed for the decline in the PC sector which happened to occur during her time as CEO.
She was made CEO of a company that mostly made printers and scientific equipment. It was her bright idea to spend HP's capital on taking over Compaq and so become a company that made mass-market PCs, at the exact time when the PC market tanked. And this wasn't unopposed, either - the son of one of HPs founders fought her idea tooth and nail. As it happened, he was right and she was wrong.
In an nutshell, she spent assets belonging to very robust company (HP) selling a market leader product with solid market share - all to take over a company that produced, essentially, a commodity. When the market for the commodity dropped, so did the company. Sure, HP/Compaq had higher revenue than just HP, but much lower profitability - essentially, it cost HP a mountain of money to achieve a lower ROI.
This is the exact sort of stuff a CEO is paid to not do.
Of course, Fiorina got herself a bigger trainset to play with and she was apparently very happy with that. Apart from, apparently, not being fast enough with her 30,000 layoffs.
She was made CEO of a company that mostly made printers and scientific equipment. It was her bright idea to spend HP's capital on taking over Compaq and so become a company that made mass-market PCs, at the exact time when the PC market tanked. And this wasn't unopposed, either - the son of one of HPs founders fought her idea tooth and nail. As it happened, he was right and she was wrong.
In an nutshell, she spent assets belonging to very robust company (HP) selling a market leader product with solid market share - all to take over a company that produced, essentially, a commodity. When the market for the commodity dropped, so did the company. Sure, HP/Compaq had higher revenue than just HP, but much lower profitability - essentially, it cost HP a mountain of money to achieve a lower ROI.
This is the exact sort of stuff a CEO is paid to not do.
Of course, Fiorina got herself a bigger trainset to play with and she was apparently very happy with that. Apart from, apparently, not being fast enough with her 30,000 layoffs.
Not exactly, Compaq's main business was network servers, a market they dominated and which is not a commodity business. Both companies were strong in their respective lines of business. They key was to develop synergy between the two. This is where she had no strategic vision and failed miserably. This could have been predicted because of her and AT&T's failures during her entire career at the company.
No one should waste time talking about her. Other than self-promotion, she has no other executive skills. She can spin her losing record at Lucent and HP as much as she likes, but a lot of big money investors lost a significant chunk of change because of her idiotic business decisions. They will make sure she never gets the funding to get past New Hampshire. She won't win Iowa, but she will limp along enough to garner speaking fees and sell ghost written books to any idiot stupid enough to care.
She strikes me as a dark horse candidate. I find myself agreeing with everything she says, and she handled Katie Couric's gotcha! questions like a pro. She has all the experience and none of the political baggage as someone who has been in politics all of their life.
If you have a chance, watch her yahoo interview with Katie Couric. Smart woman who is also likable.
I do see how the Republicans are smart enough to use her as an attack dog. No one can call her a misogynist when she serves it up to Hillary during the debates.
She will never debate Hillary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
