Before I started this blog in July 2008, how incredulous I was over how satisfied Democrats seemed to be over their choice between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Of course, their contest was over before the blog, but I was astonished: neither candidate had credible private or public sector administrative experience, neither had a signature legislative accomplishment or policy expertise, served in the Senate leadership or had exhibited bipartisan leadership with the opposition party. Barry had barely served one session of Congress before commencing his run, and Hillary had just begun her second term in office. Their voting records and stands on the issues were highly consistent with the party line.
So on what grounds was either Obama or Clinton qualified to be President? Some want to give Clinton credit for her husband's tenure in office as a governor or President, which is patently absurd. It's true that Hillary Clinton had a major role in Bill's "healthcare reform effort", eventually abandoned, and arguably in conjunction with his tax increase, responsible for losing control of the Congress his last 6 years in office. But more qualified than Biden, who had served nearly quadruple the tenure in the Senate and two terms as Vice-President--or Gore, who spent more time in Congress and also 2 terms as Vice-President? Not to mention the GOP has a deep bench of multi-term governors, the freshest policy ideas from either party, and a distinctively pro-liberty Senator.
What about Clinton's experience as Secretary of State? In terms of executive performance, not only do we have a hypocritical standard of "do as I say, not as I do" email policies, but we have someone who maintained diplomats in Benghazi, even after Britain withdrew theirs, and refused to bump up security despite numerous requests. The Obama Administration has had an incoherent policy, silently standing by as the Green Revolution in Iran was crushed but getting caught flatfooted by the Arab Spring and the spread of radicalized factions, while the Administration tried to blame a Youtube video for inciting terrorist violence. (Whereas Clinton is not responsible for Obama's decisions or the actions of other members of the Administration, she did almost nothing to correct the record or to take responsibility for anything (except for paying lip service to the concept under questioning), including her department's lack of responsiveness to Benghazi security issues, basically throwing her direct reports under the bus, arguing she was far too busy to manage her subordinates.)
So as Shania Twain might sing, Hillary Clinton's one term as Secretary of State "don't impress me much". I don't doubt that Hillary Clinton is competent and has a decent work ethic, but there are tens of millions, including myself, who are similarly qualified on those grounds. But is being a Secretary of State key preparation for the Office of the Presidency? Only about half a dozen have been elected, all before the Civil War and most of those in the early nineteen century when the Federalists imploded leaving the Republican-Democrats the dominant party for a generation.
Hillary Clinton lacks the personal charisma of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. She has been hyper-partisan, her judgment and integrity undermined by the Emailgate scandal, she has voted for unsustainable, morally corrupt, failed, economically illiterate domestic spending programs, the fact that the Clinton Foundation did blockbuster business with foreign parties during her tenure as Secreteary of State is ethically troubling, her political positions have been at the expense of individual liberty and local autonomy, I see no end to domestic or international meddling in the affairs of others. Her reckless Twitter tweet in the response to the Daraprim price hike kerfuffle was totally political and irresponsible (Turing recently raised the list price of the drug, prescribed about 10,000 times a year; the drug is off-patent, but generics have to pass through expensive FDA approval. Hints of even more Draconian regulation of drugs caused a huge correction in the biotech industry, one of the crown jewels of our economy. The correct response is to eliminate barriers to entry, and government regulation is the biggest one.)
Much has been made by how many votes Hillary Clinton got during the 2008 campaign, but this had less to do with Clinton herself, but a change election year in which the Democrats were favored to add to their 2006 Congressional sweep and a misguided belief that Bill Clinton's economic policies were responsible for the strong 1990's recovery/economic boom. What about her most important political criterion, i.e., her gender? The fact is if Hillary Clinton had been a man, she never would have made the US Senate from NY; her role as First Lady gave her a priceless political advantage. Many of us conservatives admire women like Ayn Rand, Margaret Thatcher, and Angela Merkel. The closest "progressives" have in that category is Elizabeth Warren.
