Is It THAT Historic?

Hillary Clinton, if she is not in prison by then, will be the first female to be a major-party presidential candidate on an Election Day.  She clearly thinks that it is a big deal, and historic, and that it is so important that people should vote for her because she has a uterus and no Y chromosomes.

I certainly discount the historic aspect of the whole thing, and I think that I have a strong position in doing so.  She certainly isn't the first female to run for the presidency, that's been done before -- shoot, she did it herself in 2008.  Carole Moseley Braun, Margaret Chase Smith, they ran for the major party spot.  Michele Bachman ran in 2012, Carly Fiorina this year, and that's just a few, dating back to Victoria Claflin Woodhull in the very distant past.

That's just the presidential side, of course.  Two women have already been on the major party ballots in November in the past, one on each side, as vice-presidential candidates.  We certainly recall Sarah Palin, who ran as the vice-presidential candidate with John McCain in 2008 when she was governor of Alaska.  And Geraldine Ferraro, who was in the House at the time, was on a Democrat ticket,  also as VP, with Walter Mondale in 1984.

Both, as you will recall, lost.

The difference between Hillary and those other female candidates is stark and profound.  And it bears repeating, and repeating loudly, every time Hillary tries to make it sound like she is some kind of crusader for women everywhere, and not just Hillary being out for the advancement and self-adulation of Hillary.

That difference is that Sarah Palin was governor because she wanted to be governor, competed to get known widely enough up there to get elected, and got elected on her own prior record and accomplishments.  Geraldine Ferraro was a teacher, then a lawyer, a prosecutor and was then reasonably qualified to run for the House of Representatives.  Having never served in office herself, and having only been a lawyer in Arkansas,  Hillary Clinton would never, ever, not on your tintype, lady, have been a candidate for the Senate from New York had she not been married to Bill Clinton.

Think of it this way.  She was married to the president of the United States, then moved to New York (where she had not previously lived) for the purpose of running for a Senate seat that was going to be open in her preferred time frame.  She ran with exactly zero experience in elected office, zero experience in government, having not really worked for a living since before hubby Bill was governor of Arkansas.

Unlike the other candidates, who had risen to being considered as a major-party candidate because of their own lives, Hillary Clinton rose to her lowest level of incompetence by capitalizing on name recognition associated with the person she married -- not on her own accomplishments, of which there had been none.

And the people in New York who voted for her because she was married to Bill Clinton, and the part of the country who voted to make Barack Obama the president and applauded as he appointed her as Secretary of State, got exactly what they deserved.  They got a track record of nothing in the Senate, and a track record of failure after utter, epic, USA-threatening failure, corrupt act after corrupt act as Secretary of State -- Russia, Libya, Syria, Iran, email servers, FOIA obstruction, foreign nations buying influence with contributions to the Clinton Foundation.  The list goes on and our suffering goes on.

So what do you think about the historic importance of her nomination?  Me, well, I think it is ironic that the first major-party presidential candidate with a uterus got there having failed miserably in her previous position, one she got only for whom she was married to.  After all the "glass ceiling" crap over the years, instead of the first female presidential candidate being someone of accomplishment who earned her way to consideration, we have someone who married her way into public consciousness. 

And was then a spectacular failure and a model of corruption, when she got there.

I have great faith in the ability of Donald Trump and his advisors to blunt any speechifying that Hillary tries to do to overstate the story of her "rise."  Supposedly he will not wait past next week to start putting forth example after example of her corruption and making sure everyone is aware.  Trump spends a lot of time defending things he has done or said, but he is one tough bird when he is going after someone, and he is not going to let go.

Hillary will not look very good trying to defend millions of corrupt foreign donations to her family foundation while she was Secretary of State, if she pulls out that woman card in her defense.
Corruption and incompetence in office know no gender.

This is is simply not the historic milestone Hillary fervently wants us to believe it is.

Copyright 2016 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.