So What IS She Good At?

I would like to think that the principal themes of both of the major-party presidential campaigns are evident to the voting community here in the good old USA.  Masked though they may be by the meaningless or irrelevant slogans and barbs (and by actually important things like Hillary's obstruction of justice and perjury), the main points somehow lay amidst the campaigns' messages.

In Hillary Clinton's case, that "main point" has to do with her capacity to do the job.  That is supposed to be based on her "experience", which consists of a few years practicing law, then eight years as the wife of the governor of Arkansas, then eight years as the wife of the president.

Thereafter, she moved to New York, where her "experience" after campaigning for the Senate in a state in which she had never previously lived, consisted of eight years as a senator (the last few of those spent running for president) and four years as Secretary of State.  She has been running for president again ever since.

From that, Barack Obama called her the "most qualified person who has ever run for president."  As if a compliment from Obama holds any weight.

That is admittedly a non-fan's quick appraisal of her experience, but it is quite accurate.  And it's important, in the sense that, if she is running on "experience" and on being "qualified" to be president, we need to discard the irrelevant years and focus on accomplishment and in achievement.  Because if truth be told, once you get to Hillary Clinton's career by the year 2000, Hillary Clinton was exactly as experienced as, say, Laura Bush by 2008.

Would you have voted for Laura Bush if she had run for president in 2008?  Of course not, and I have only respect for Mrs. Bush.

My point, then, is that in assessing Hillary's experience -- and we have to, because it her major argument -- nothing prior to the 21st Century is of any value.

Sitting in an office, occupying a position, flying all over the world, well, that is not "experience", unless you are trying to accumulate time for a pension.  And that is not the question at hand.

No, the question is much simpler, and the answer unfortunately much more troubling.  The question is this: What is Hillary Clinton actually good at?

Hmmmm.  Well, she's one for two in running for office, so as a campaigner she's just OK.  She won a Senate seat but it was in New York, which as a Democrat is like running unopposed for dog catcher in a village of cats.  She didn't have to be a good campaigner, just good enough.  And certainly in this campaign she is already failing to gain a lead over an otherwise flawed candidate.  Just yesterday in fact, she admitted as such, presumably to lower the bar in advance of the debates.

When her supporters are asked to list Hillary's accomplishments, you can hear the crickets.  Senators simply don't do all that much.  It's not an executive position, you're not running anything except your staff, and the legislative process is so dull, so generally ineffective, and not a place to claim credit for much.  Ask Ted Cruz, or Marco Rubio.  Or Tim Kaine.

The only position of actual potential leadership she has ever had was four years as Secretary of State.  And that, friends, is a frighteningly bad track record, from the Russian "reset" to the withdrawal from Iraq right after the surge gave the Allies a strong position there, to the overthrow of Khaddafi in Libya that led to the utter power vacuum there -- and more ISIS territory -- to the backing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, to our "red line" posture in Syria that led to more ISIS territory ...

And while doing that, she found ways to enrich herself by selling out the country for speech fees to her husband and huge donations to the Clinton Foundation.  In fact, knowing that was her plan, she planned right from the start to hide her communication from prying FOIA eyes by using a private email server.  She was good at that, at least ... oh, wait, she got busted.

Well, at least she can say she flew a lot of miles.

I'm sorry, but at 69 years old, she has a lifetime track record completely devoid of tangible achievement.  It behooves the American voter to take a serious look at that, and ask himself or herself the logical question -- What is she good at?  Because it's really hard to tell.

And when, some day, the first female president actually is elected, one can hope that the voting public will have done so not because of her chromosomal situation but because of a track record of actual accomplishment.

As to Hillary, sorry, but the next thing she does well will be the first.

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.