Fortunately, as far as I know, she never claimed to be the most qualified candidate ever. (Her opponent, on the other hand, claimed to be the best president ever.) What mattered is that she was the most qualified candidate in the 2016 election and, as I said, I’m astonished that anyone chose the other candidate.
True- she never made such a claim but it was the running narrative of the campaign: kneel before her vast experience. It’s 100% sure that she would have been a better president, but those claims made about her being head and shoulders the most qualified ever were quite a bit overblown.
Jillions of pores, one smell: Stale alcohol.
And you know, I believe that’s true, at least on paper. She had more experience and qualifications than anybody I can think of.
Arguably she was a sub-par campaigner, arguably her political strategy wasn’t up to snuff, but I don’t think the breadth and depth of her education and qualifications are really debatable.
Clinton also made a number of important contributions to children’s law and family policy throughout her career, and heavily promoted the rights of women and girls during her tenure as SoS (plus she had a support role in the Nixon impeachment). She was a proper policy wonk - her work on healthcare wasn’t just a Kushner-level sinecure for a family member, and her proposals were fairly solid if not something America was ready for (although it gave the GOP one more thing to smear her for).
She didn’t remotely have the charisma her husband had and she certainly was a political wheeler-dealer of the old school (with all the shades of grey that implies), but the idea that she had no significant qualifications of her own other than Bill’s coattails owes more to the smear campaign against here than to reality.
Also worth noting… at the time of the 2016 election, Hillary received more popular votes than any candidate in history except for Barack Obama (an extremely popular American president).
Although she had some faults, it’s laughable to suggest that she was unqualified and unpopular and incompetent. The reason she got defeated is that Trump is very strong in ways that are uncomfortable for both sides to admit: Republicans are perfectly content, even pleased, to have a President who, though shallow and stupid, is an extremely effective carnival barker and insult comic. (And it’s the honest truth - Trump is a very funny man in his own horrible way).
Republicans are too embarrassed to admit that intellectual persuasion is essentially a dead letter in elections nowadays. Democrats are too depressed and daunted to confront it.
Then why do you, and pretty much you alone, keep bringing them up?
I partially blame Hillary for allowing the monster that we had to live with for the past 4 years. Comey is the main culprit, Facebook is the second most responsible, then Hillary herself. Anyone else would have won the election and we wouldn’t be in danger of losing our democracy. I just don’t want to make her seem to be the greatest president we never had. She isn’t the villain that the right portrayed her as, but I hold her in the least esteem of any Democrat I’ve ever voted for, and I’ve voted for every Democrat since Jimmy Carter.
I was never a Hillary fan and didn’t really vote for her in 2016. My vote was for her Veep, Tim Kaine. I just totally liked almost everything about him.
I believe the idea that Hillary was the more qualified, more experienced candidate did not come from the 2016 election when she was actually the nominee. It came from the 2008 primary after her campaign ran the “when the phone rings at 3 am . . .”
The add was made to highlight Obama’s relative lack of experience compared to herself. It was not going to play well against McCain if she had become the nominee; it was widely believed McCain could weather a crisis also. (You know from his war hero status.) It was made to knock Obama out of serious consideration late in a pretty contentious two person race- and it did make me think that between the two of them she was the more proven quantity.
I am almost certain McCain offered Hillary the VP spot on his ticket. He had wrapped up the GOP nomination weeks and weeks earlier, and Clinton was in a: can’t mathematically win the nomination- but can still spoil Obama’s nomination situation. Then suddenly, she went dead silent for about a week or two and all the news organizations were stating flat out that the Obama campaign was asking for her endorsement but she was refusing to give it.
I honestly believe with all my heart that moderate maverick John McCain (who probably wanted Lieberman as his VP anyway) offered the VP gig to Clinton and THAT is why she did not endorse her close friend Barack. She mulled over the offer and Obama had to indicate that Sec of State was a much better role than VP and then she announced her support for Obama.
If you remember the words she used it barely mentioned the Democratic nominee but called McCain by name many times, but in an odd way. No John McCain, no way! Not now, not ever . . . Why was she mentioning him so much except that she had been pretty close to being his running mate. (*)
Back on topic, the gal who cut my hair today claimed that some Secretary of State for ONE of the states had all the evidence of the stolen election, but no one would listen to him or her. Sincerely believes that with all of her heart. Then she bitched and moaned about having to undergo testing each week since her religious exemption to vaccinate was approved by her employer. (At a hospital - working with some COVID patients??) She also claimed that every patient they have in her hospital with COVID is vaccinated and they are the ones who are spreading the disease. So as an authoritative source she claimed the pandemic is being spread by the vaccinated (where the Delta variant was incubated by-the-way), and that some high ranking elected state official in one of the battleground states has all the proofs of fraud.
I did think to ask why none of it has ever come to light or even be presented to a court (during those 60 court challenges perhaps). her answer was that - well, Democrats are in power now so . . .
There is more than enough proof for those who already fully believe the entire election was fraudulent. None of them have offered one scrap of evidence that would hold up to anyone who is old enough and wise enough to question the existence of Santa Clause.
(*) Once Clinton turned him down, McCain asked if the Republican Party had a smart, moderate policy wonk similar to Hillary Clinton who might help bring some Democratic voters to his campaign. The answer was “Um, no.” Well is there any woman smart enough to be a VP candidate? “Um, no. But we do have an attractive woman who fits the Joe six pack demographic you are seeking out. She is plain spoken, doesn’t own luxury homes in San Tropez or Florence, but she can see Russia from her front porch?”
We are getting a bit off topic, but while we’re here:
I also think that her experience as first lady is down played. Generally there is a very steep learning curve when a new president finds himself in the oval office. Everything from international protocol to how secret service protection works. Four years working hand in hand and looking over the shoulder of the guy who did it before day in and day out gives you the experience to hit the ground running when you get in.
I also don’t think that she was the only one who could lose to Trump. Yes Sanders generally had better head to head poll numbers vs Trump than she did, but he never had to face the Russian GOP disinformation machine, which in fact had been working to support him. If he had won the nomination the narrative would have shifted instantly to make the election a polemic between Good solid (white) American Capitalism as exemplified by Donald Trump, vs Evil Stalinist (Jewish) Comminuism as exemplified by Bernie Sanders. And Trump would have walked away winning the popular vote.
Agreed with your post, just a nitpick, it was eight years.
It was actually twelve years, eight in the East Wing then later four in the West Wing and all over the world. As much as I did not want to acknowledge it back when I was in the cul – when I was a Republican, she was highly qualified and highly experienced.
She was not likely to be the worst Democratic President of my lifetime if she had been elected (despite my error), far from it, but even if she was she would have still been head and shoulders above Trump and his clown car administration.
Awfully low bar. A dead cat would have been a better president than T**** – at least it can’t lie.
Well, okay, that’s all it could do but you know what I mean.