I have left-of-center friends who say, with a completely straight face, that Hillary Clinton is “the most qualified person in history”.
Qualified? Perhaps. Let’s leave her marriage and serial covering for a sexual predator out of it; her resume includes quite a number of punched political tickets.
But “most qualified in history?” Someone please explain. Because “history” is a very long time (although I’m pretty convinced liberals understand it as poorly as they do economics).
Because she’s a former Secretary of State? Leaving aside the fact that she was a terrible SecState who may have bested (worsted?) Madeline Albright for the title of “Worst SecState of my lifetime” (and possibly all time), what was her big accomplishment, other than racking up a lot of miles in VIP jets? And leaving that aside – there’ve been six Secretaries of State who became President, many of them with records much better than Clinton’s. Even James Buchanan, who went on to become one of the worst presidents of all time, left a more positive legacy as our nation’s top diplomat than Clinton did.
In the Senate? She was thoroughly undistinguished. But for her name and PR presence, she was a mediocre senator at best.
If she were a man, and not the (ahem) “spouse” of a former president, she’d be waaaay back in the pack. A nobody. An also-ran – assuming that analogous male could have gotten elected to anything anyway.
Seriously – what is her “qualification?”