Although his Administration might not have had a direct influence (although their taking a blind eye to some pretty shady financial practices - helped), I was referring primarily to the Media cheer-leading for what was clearly a Potemkin economy. A 'New Economic model' based on the number of 'eye ball' hits on a website. The Media cheered it along, because their guy was in the White House. They would not have taken that stance with a Republican in the White House.
The Clinton Administration, though, had a lot to do with propping up the Enron fraud. Not related to the dot com bust - but an extension of some pretty shady accounting practices that were going on at the time.
Getting back to Carly -- you very well might be correct. The Lucent vets weren't too pleased with her performance either -- I just don't have enough information on the subject. They were tough times - and it would have been difficult for anyone to get HP through the rough waters. They had grown fat and happy living off of their high margin instrument business, and competition was in the midst of killing their fat cash cows. That said, a CEO is judged based on winning and losing - and she lost.
And I don't believe DC has any idea about investing or Wall St.
In fact, after having spent much time on Wall St, I am not sure Wall St gets Wall St.
I make my living, such as it is, on Wall St.
Common sense is the answer. But be careful about greed and ambition...they are always knocking at the door and promising more than they can deliver.
Serious investors do not listen to the media.
My family made a massive amount in the internet run up and then sold before the crash.
This crash/bubble was easy to spot.
It didn't even try to hide.
We rode it up..and then got out before it crashed.