Shot in the Dark

A Sincere Question

I have left-of-center friends who say, with a completely straight face, that Hillary Clinton is “the most qualified person in history”.

chanting_points_200px

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?”

 (I’ll acknowledge all the usual “she has ovaries” responses in advance.  I’m actually trying to figure out why libs think what they do.  I have my suspicions).

Posted

in

, ,

by

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

29 responses to “A Sincere Question”

  1. Emery Incognito Avatar
    Emery Incognito

    “If she were a man, and not the (ahem) “spouse” of a former president, she’d be waaaay back in the pack.”

    On identical logic, the fact that Trump is running proves that there is no bias against white males either. Are you now embracing that view?

  2. Deplorable Swiftee Avatar
    Deplorable Swiftee

    WTF? That makes absolutely no sense, Dik. It doesn’t even rise to the level of shitty snark; it’s just nonsensical blather. I didn’t think it was possible for a moron of your caliber to get any less interesting, but you’ve pulled it off, Dik.

  3. bikebubba Avatar
    bikebubba

    EI, few of Drumpf’s supporters would claim he’s the most qualified in history. The question here is why the left persists in what is, to independent observers, transparent nonsense.

    My take is that the Obama legacy really depends on misleading low information voters. Maybe someone on the left can prove me wrong, but it will take some doing, to put it mildly.

  4. Isidor Ottavio Baldassare Fosco Avatar
    Isidor Ottavio Baldassare Fosco

    It’s a shell game. Her long experience as the wife of a powerful politician somehow counts as political experience, except for the disgusting bits and the law breaking, and, BTW, don’t you dare take into consideration the certainty that Bill will actually be running the show in the White House if she is elected.

  5. Emery Incognito Avatar
    Emery Incognito

    I’ll be the first to admit I underestimated the potential of Donald Trump. After months of dismissing Trump as an amusement whom voters would reject during the primaries. I had to acknowledge the power of his nativist populism. There are clearly a lot of Americans who are prepared to go through with Trump to the bitter end. Trump made Hillary’s many failings seem comfortably safe and familiar.

  6. Isidor Ottavio Baldassare Fosco Avatar
    Isidor Ottavio Baldassare Fosco

    Throughout the early part of this year, I was continuously frustrated by the unwillingness of the other GOP candidates to hijack Trump’s issues. Politicians are supposed to do that, it is a good thing.
    In a normal, functioning democratic process, you would have seen Rubio or Cruz or Bush inch themselves towards Trump’s positions on immigration and defense until they had peeled enough of his followers away to marginalize him. I am appalled that they did not. For the most part, I blame the US chamber of commerce and other open-borders interest groups inside the GOP for this, as well as the power of the neocons.

  7. Penigma Avatar
    Penigma

    Ah, I thought your question was, “Is she the most qualified person in history?” That answer is clearly “No.” Jefferson was easily moreso, as was John Adams. From a competency question, Lincoln was the most able and probably the wisest. Roosevelt (Teddy) had among the deepest convictions and greatest fire, which enabled his cousin to be successful (with Eleanor’s help and guidance).

    Is Hillary qualified? Well, was Dan Quayle? Was George W.? For that matter, was Palin? If we use your litmus of accomplishment, none of those three were yet I’d guess you’d say they were. Clinton sponsored, really founded the CHIPS program, I suppose you forgot that one. She was the architect of getting our allies to topple Q’hadaffi (sic), which obviously ultimately turned south but was pushed for by Republicans (very strongly) at the time. She did so in a way Republicans said couldn’t be done but wanted (namely for our allies to carry the load).

    You say she wasn’t accomplished in the Senate but let’s remember, shall we Mitch, that she was in the minority party the whole time, what exactly would you have her accomplish when Republicans took the stance that ANYTHING Democrats wanted was to be stopped and was deeply suspect? Perhaps the better question for you is, what defines sufficient qualification? Does being a governor do so just on it’s face? If so, why? The governor of Rhode Island (for example) has far fewer challenges than does the Secretary of State.

    So, a serious question, Mitch, what are your qualifications (not party qualifications, job experiences, what job experience do you demand? When you’re done with your list, see just how many of your own recent Presidential candidates pass, and try really hard to not cherry-pick before-hand.)

  8. Penigma Avatar
    Penigma

    Isidor, I think Trump’s success over the likes of Cruz and especially Bush speaks to the enormous disaffection with the economic realities of the US, created by trickle-down economics. They (many middle-class folks) see the unfair, 2 tier system and are searching for why it’s happening. They were told (wrongly) that it was due to high taxes, on them, but moreso on the rich, and that if only the rich weren’t taxed, they’d create lots of good paying jobs. So, taxes were lowered, dramatically, yet, the jobs went overseas. They were told it was due to lazy blacks or Hispanics stealing their jobs, but when we cut discretionary programs by 1/3rd and Mexican immigration fell off the table, again, the world was not rosey. So, along comes Trump, promising to “bring back” those good paying, blue-collar UNION jobs, but that’s fatuous bloviation, can’t be done and he never meant to try. So I see the appeal, the appeal to a time of fairness, of a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work. but what I find ironic is not that Cruz didn’t channel it, because after all, he represents the monied interest of mega-corporations, but rather why the DEMS didn’t hijack Trump. They had the appeal of sincerity (in Sanders) and could have defrocked Trump as the people’s candidate quite simply because he’s a colossal fraud who never meant a person he wasn’t trying to con and never meant to do the things he said (other than maybe build a wall).

  9. Mitch Berg Avatar
    Mitch Berg

    Ah, I thought your question was, “Is she the most qualified person in history?”

    It wasn’t my question. It was a statement by quite a few liberal friends of mine.

    Is Hillary qualified? Well, was Dan Quayle? Was George W.? For that matter, was Palin?

    Let’s accept your premise than none of them was qualified. OK. None of them were.

    How does that make Clinton qualified?

    And I presume you’re referring to the SCHIP program. She can have it; it’s nothing to be too proud of.

    You say she wasn’t accomplished in the Senate but let’s remember, shall we Mitch, that she was in the minority party the whole time, what exactly would you have her accomplish when Republicans took the stance that ANYTHING Democrats wanted was to be stopped and was deeply suspect?

    In other words, did the job they were elected to do?

    But sure. Fair enough; she was in the minority, so she had plausible deniability.

    So, a serious question, Mitch, what are your qualifications (not party qualifications, job experiences, what job experience do you demand? When you’re done with your list, see just how many of your own recent Presidential candidates pass, and try really hard to not cherry-pick before-hand.

    Er, the entire exercise is the very definition of cherry-picking. I’m picking the guy I wanted for president.

    But among the GOPers who could have walked into the office on day one and done a specacular job?

    • Walker
    • Jindal
    • Kasich
    • Christie
    • Pence (he wasn’t a candidate last year, but he could and perhaps should have been
    • Perry (I’d forgotten he was even in the race

    . In a just world, John Hoeven would be a contender, and I don’t just say that out of homerism.

  10. Isidor Ottavio Baldassare Fosco Avatar
    Isidor Ottavio Baldassare Fosco

    Walker
    Jindal
    Kasich
    Christie
    Pence (he wasn’t a candidate last year, but he could and perhaps should have been
    Perry (I’d forgotten he was even in the race

    Any one of them would be the GOP candidate, if they adopted Trump’s positions on immigration, free trade, and military interventions abroad. None of them did. That is dispiriting. If the GOP establishment says that there are no good, conservative reasons to restrict immigration, protect American workers from foreign competition, and to avoid adventurism abroad, it is not a conservative party. It is instead the party of business and the almighty buck, just like the Democrats.
    I thank God I never registered as a Republican.

  11. Emery Incognito Avatar
    Emery Incognito

    Those in the Republican Party who voted for Donald Trump in the primaries have caused a cataclysm for the GOP of historic proportions. Not since the 19th century, has a major party nominated a candidate more poorly suited for the Presidency. 

    Once the November 8th debacle is behind us, Republicans of goodwill need to battle to make the GOP once again the party of Reagan – that is, the party of optimism, good sense, and common decency. All things Trump must be rejected.

  12. Penigma Avatar
    Penigma

    Ok, you didn’t actually name anything as points of experience or qualifications which would have allowed me (or anyone) to vet candidates against such a set which is exactly avoiding the question. I asked you for non-partisan experience (or even CV if you had liked), but you didn’t.

    So, let’s go with your list as an example.

    Jindal – my parents live in Louisianna, Jindal is REVILED in that state. So much so that it elected a Democrat to replace him. That state has moved FAR into the Red column yet they wanted anyone but Jindal or another conservative sock-puppet. Jindal gutted the state’s coffers and the state’s universities. The state’s ability to compete for new, good paying jobs has plummeted due to crumbling infrastructure. And, to borrow your phrase, the man’s an idiot.

    Walker, like Jindal, is becoming increasingly unpopular. He cut state pension programs ostensibly to balance the budget but then gave that money away, mostly to Koch Industries, and his state’s reputation for having an educated workforce as well as the funding for it’s schools and universities, is critically short.

    You also liked Fred Thomson, if memory serves, a lazy man who NEVER worked hard enough, never had the stamina to be President, and frankly whose only qualification was that he was a senator for what, one term? So I think your objection to Clinton isn’t really about qualifications.

    Incidentally, you were the one who said her time in the Senate was undistinguished but now who says it’s because her opposition prevented it.. so who exactly is to blame for the lack of movement? Oh, yeah, the Republican Senate that rubber-stamped the Iraq War, not just at the start, but for 5 more years. Yes, they “did their job” of opposing anything resembling oversight, bi-partisan achievement or fair play, but it hardly helped the country.

    And as far as W, Palin and Quayle went, well Mitch, those were three people of which two of them you never complained about their competency or qualifications.

    Look, I don’t love Clinton, not at all, but I’d never vote for that fascist Trump. You’ve been willing to abide him because of party, solely party. At some point, you put country above party. My question for you is, what are you going to do in 2020 when the Republican base puts some other crazy, anti-liberty candidate up like Trump? Someone who we should fear, who will attack freedom of the press or freedom of speech, will you complain about lack of qualifications or will you rubber-stamp the candidate like you did Palin, or just sit idly by like you did Trump and let him (or her) be elected despite their obvious flaws and instead make complaints about qualifications which you don’t substantiate and which run counter to your past complaints?

    It seems to me here that your statement isn’t about complaints, it’s about policy positions. The people you’ve named as qualified weren’t and aren’t more experienced than Clinton, haven’t been more successful (in fact less so), they simply have more conservative positions. That’s not a complaint about qualifications, it’s just a thinly masked complaint that you don’t like her. No shock there, but the real question is, do you dislike her so much you’d rather have someone like Trump? Really?

  13. kel Avatar
    kel

    peeve unlike Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, HW Bush, Bill Clinton, and W Bush, Hillary has NO Executive Experience let me repeat that only louder, HILLARY CLINTON HAS NO EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE!!
    Believe it or not that does make a difference see Obama presidency as an example of executive failure.

  14. bikebubba Avatar
    bikebubba

    Pen, you can point to the GOP all you want, but that does not change the fact that a person who has clearly compromised U.S. security by mishandling confidential information, perjured herself before Congress, lied to investigators, destroyed government records, stolen White House furnishings, failed to comply with subpoenas in the Whitewater case, and a whole bunch more does not belong at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. She belongs at 1000 University Dr. SW, Waseca MN 56093. Look it up.

    I’m sorry, folks, but it is that simple.

  15. Mitch Berg Avatar
    Mitch Berg

    Pen,

    Why do you keep talking about Quayle and Palin? Neither of them were candidates.

    I listed my preferred candidates because all of them were/are excellent governors. Your complaints about Jindal and Walker all pretty much standard Democrat spin; Jindal has had a few terms to try to undo eighty years of Democrat incompetence. And…idiot? He may be the most intelligent governor in America today. Same with Walker; the left picks about the edges of what he’s done to draw attention away from the fact that he’s made an unsustainable situation manageable, and started turning round 60 years of “progressive” fecklessness in dealing with the state’s entitlement nightmare.

    Someone who we should fear, who will attack freedom of the press or freedom of speech

    You mean, attack freedom of speech the way Clinton is fighting to gut the First Amendment over the power to censor a movie…critical of her? The way the left is destroying has nullified freedom of speech on campus?

    I’m no huge Trump fan – and I caucused for someone other than him, which means I did more to oppose him than you ever will – but the left has nothing to scold the right – even Trump – about.

  16. Deplorable Swiftee Avatar
    Deplorable Swiftee

    The only thing Clinton is qualified for is federal prison. To help her realize her potential, and to protect the sanctity of the office of POTUS, congresses first order of business must be to draw up articles of impeachment.

  17. RickDFL Avatar
    RickDFL

    It is basically a simple measure of years in high state or Federal office. Depends on how you count years as First Lady.

    Obama: 4 years Senate
    W: 6 years Gov
    Bill Clinton: 12 years Gov
    HW: 8 years VP, 5 years various Sub-cabinet, 4 years Congress
    Reagan; 8 Years Gov
    Carter: 4 years Gov
    Nixon: 4 years Cong, 2 years Senate, 8 years VP
    JFK: 4 years Cong, 8 years Senate
    Ike: 8 Years hi-level Military

    HRC: 4 years SOS, 8 Years Senate. That puts her ahead of Obama, W, Reagan and Carter. Bill and JFK have 12 years, but lesser offices. HW and Nixon have more years, but HRC has 8 years US First Lady and 12 years ARK First Lady.

  18. bikebubba Avatar
    bikebubba

    Per Rick’s note, it’s also worth noting that Hilliary would also post a substantial lead in terms of “prosecutable felonies.” Send her to Waseca, give her a basement cell. (the whole town flooded due to heavy rains this fall)

  19. Bill C Avatar
    Bill C

    A single term state governor has more relevant experience to shoot for the presidency than any senator, representative and most cabinet positions. The first lady positions are nothing but figurehead/PR positions. They don’t LEAD anything other than maybe their own personal staff, and they certainly don’t EXECUTE anything.

    (Clinton body count notwithstanding)

  20. Emery Avatar
    Emery

    In an attempt to stay on topic, I see posters are trying to get more mileage out of recycled talking points.

  21. kel Avatar
    kel

    emery whinged: “I’ll vote for the establishment over some self-loving blowhard with nothing but empty slogans.”

    that all you ever do, whats your objection?

  22. RickDFL Avatar
    RickDFL

    Bill C:
    So Jimmy Carter was better prepared than Nixon or JFK? As for leading and executing, historians and contemporary journalists would disagree, at least as to HRC as First Lady. If she was just a figurehead, how did HRC generate so much hostility among the GOP? You don’t get mad at someone with no policy impact.

  23. bikebubba Avatar
    bikebubba

    If she was just a figurehead, how did HRC generate so much hostility among the GOP?

    Because she’s a crook, Rick. A crook who has consistently used whatever power she possessed at the time to abuse her enemies, be it Bill’s paramours, the White House travel office, cattle futures investors, Whitewater investors, citizens who care about confidential information (should be all of us), Benghazi diplomatic mission staff, Vince Foster, taxpayers who fund the White House (she and Bill stole $200k or so of furnishings when they left and destroyed more), and the like.

    A crook who, apparently, almost delights in mistreating the men and women who guard her life, as well as other subordinates.

  24. RickDFL Avatar
    RickDFL

    BB:
    What did HRC do to Vince Foster? (come on, you know you want to put it in print)

  25. bikebubba Avatar
    bikebubba

    Well, for starters, tied him in with her crimes in Whitewater, and apparently the day of, or the day before, he took his life, she ripped him a new butthole in front of his peers–knowing he struggled with depression.

    That much is known for sure, Rick.

  26. RickDFL Avatar
    RickDFL

    BB: Well aside from the fact that that didn’t happen and that is not what Foster said in his suicide note, if you look at your likely source
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/1/ronald-kessler-how-hillary-clinton-triggered-vince/

    the info you are citing wasn’t “revealed” until 2015. So it can’t retroactively explain hostility to HRC in the 1990’s.

    Once again, the problem with the floating swirl of right wing nuttiness is that even you people can’t keep it straight.

  27. bikebubba Avatar
    bikebubba

    OK, Rick, you’ve provided two named sources for the claims I made. Notice, by the way, that I didn’t mention at all when this particular thing became apparent. Besides, at the time of the death investigation, U.S. attorney Miguel Rodriguez resigned in protest because in his opinion, there were too many unresolved issues to call it a suicide. Many others with an informed view of the death also disputed the “official” story at the time.

    So to claim that it was “just” two FBI agents involved in the case speaking up 20 years later is simply false. Congratulations, however, on backing me up with a good link.

  28. RickDFL Avatar
    RickDFL

    BB: I have no desire to re-litigate the Foster suicide. You will have to shoot a watermelon on your own time.

    But I didn’t say “it was “just” two FBI agents involved in the case speaking up 20 years later”. I am too well versed in RW paranoia to make that mistake. What I said was that when citing reasons for RW hostility to HRC in the 90s you cited a specific allegation (HRC chewing out VF) that was not made public until 2015. You can’t even keep your own BS straight. Every new allegation has to be retconned back into the original plot.

  29. bikebubba Avatar
    bikebubba

    Sorry, Rick, but Hilliary’s abuse of others was well known at the time, including of Mr. Foster. If you want to see someone who needs to keep his BS straight, shave.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.