Let me ask you something: What, in your opinion, are the
qualifications for serving as president?
A couple of weeks ago, a reader called to challenge me about
my recent “Waiting
for Hillary” column – in particular, my insistence that Hillary Clinton “is
certainly qualified” for the presidency.
While he often agrees with my columns, the reader said, that
one left him baffled. Would I, he urged, tell him specifically what I see that
makes her qualified?
He wasn’t the only reader who asked me that question. And
the issue popped up on the second Republican debate, with Carly Fiorina’s cutesy,
much-quoted “If you want to stump a Democrat, ask them to name an
accomplishment of Hillary Clinton.”
Partisan politics aside, it’s a topic
worth thinking about. What do we think are the qualifications for president?
And does Clinton have them? You can do your own research about Clinton, but
I’ll give you my thoughts.
Let me say first that I’m not at all enthusiastic about
Clinton. I wish someone better were running. As I mentioned in that September 9
column, I’m becoming convinced that she can’t be elected – and that if she is,
she’ll run into the same Republican obstruction in Congress that has plagued
Obama. That’s not good for anybody.
I’m also not happy about some of her positions on important
issues, particularly her militaristic tendency.
But I do think she’s qualified. She’s smart, and she’s well
educated. She has had extensive, significant experience in a variety of
public-policy areas – in Arkansas government, in the Clinton White House, in
the US Senate, and in the State Department. She knows people, in Congress and
in foreign affairs, and they know her. She has management experience.
She’s a longtime advocate on issues affecting women and
children. Her early career included working for the Children’s Defense Fund,
serving on the staff of the committee that advised the House Judiciary
Committee during the Watergate investigation, and teaching law and running
legal clinics for the poor in Arkansas.
During Bill Clinton’s several terms as governor of Arkansas,
she continued her efforts related to poverty and also chaired the state’s
Educational Standards Committee. When he became president, she was an
exceptionally active First Lady, chairing his Task Force on National Health
Care Reform, advocating on health care and poverty issues, helping create the
Office on Violence Against Women in the Department of
Justice, and traveling around the world, advocating for women’s rights.
As a US Senator, she may not have had her name on
groundbreaking legislation, but she was active and hardworking – respected, if
I’m remembering correctly, by Republicans and Democrats. And, of course, she
was Obama’s Secretary of State.
You can find negatives in that career, obviously. She has to
bear heavy responsibility for the failure of the Clinton health-care reform.
And while Republicans are obsessing over Benghazi, some Democrats criticize her
tenure at State, too.
Finer minds than mine will have to pass judgment on the
Benghazi tragedy. But on the whole, I agree with the assessment of a 2013 Foreign
Affairs article, which called her “a highly competent secretary of state,
but not a great one.” And, by the way, one of her Republican predecessors,
Henry Kissinger, went further, saying
Clinton “ran the State Department in the most effective way that I’ve ever
seen.”
This is a complicated country facing enormous challenges in
a very complicated world. The Republican candidates include not only several
people with dubious qualifications but also some whose opinions on science,
foreign policy, health care, and the constitution are, frankly, frightening.
And in my humble opinion, any of them would take us down a very destructive
path.
Having a Democrat succeed Barack Obama, then, is critical. I
hope the Democrats don’t choose Hillary Clinton as their candidate, but her
qualifications aren’t the reason for my concern. Not every president is Abraham
Lincoln.
This article appears in Sep 23-29, 2015.
Give me some time on this one. I will write a response, but it will take some time. One thing is sure, (if I read this correctly) republicans, with the exception of Henry Kissinger, all suck. They are just not worth considering. An ISIS candidate would be better. Lastly, it doesn’t matter who or what enters the White House after our current Commander in Chief (God it hurts me to say that) s long as it is a Democrat.
I’ll be back!
Less people in the workforce in decades. More people living off of the sweat of others. Americans income is drastically lower. There is more violence in our streets. Schools and urban areas are in shambles. The current president, when he does do something, almost always does the wrong thing for America and Americans.
Mary Anna spends this whole column touting the merits of the democratic frontrunner and then won’t endorse her. (WHAT???)
Yes, we need another democrat in the Whitehouse.
Like a hole in the head.
Ok, I will give this a try. The approach is not going to be a bashing of Hillary Clinton, nor will it be the bashing of the Democratic Party. I am what’s known as an Independent. I can’t get into the “sheep” mentality. So, I don’t “follow” or stand in the Democrat line and I don’t “follow” or stand in the Republican line.
So let’s not talk about Hillary Clinton, but instead discus the process. How you come to vote for a certain individual. What process do you use, is that process fair to the candidates, do you really listen to all the debates or just your guy or gall.
Mary Anna, you have already selected your candidate and it will be a Democrat for sure. You make no bones about that. No discussion, no open mind, no facts, no proof, no nothing. It is a Democrat in the White House or,…..or,…. this country is doomed. It will decline in the world standing, increase it’s national debt robbing from our grandkids, unemployment will skyrocket, poverty will be rampant, education will suffer, health care will suffer, the race issue will boil over, we will be divided instead of united, world politics in shambles, another country about to gain a nuclear bomb with the bonus of $150,000,000,000.00 to spend on wreaking havoc word wide and on and on.
But WAIT!!!,……..that’s exactly what we have now! There must still be a Republican in Washington, to say nothing of the Bush “after affects” that are still hounding us. President Obama will not, must not, own this economy, debt, division etc. until the last republican is removed.
In reality the presidential vote in NYS is all locked up for any Democrat who wants it. So why are we even discussing the process, when it is a done deal.
I just have a real problem with a president who doesn’t know a Kernel from a colonel and calls himself a Commander in Chief.
Semper Fi,
A Marine and proud to be in America, still one of the greatest and generous nations in the world. Oorah!
Ms. Towler: If your only requirement is that a Democrat be elected president, what do qualifications matter? Americans are looking for outsiders and non-politicians for a much-need change in Washington. Hillary Clinton is an insider’s insider. Her email problem is of her own making (not the result of a “vast right-wing conspiracy”) and typical of the Clinton’s nature: they are defensive, secretive, controlling and they operate like the rules don’t apply to them. In a country of 320 million can’t we find anyone else besides the same old same old? Whoever coined the term ‘Clinton Fatigue’ got it right
Something is missing with Hillary Clinton, but maybe, maybe she will find it.
Remember the Wizard of Oz? Remember when the Wizard is expose and he gives something to the Scarecrow, to the Lion and the Tin Man? Each lacked something essential. Here is a clip from the movie on that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky7DMCHQJZ…
What does Hillary lack? Maybe it is something like a computer screen, maybe an IPad, where she can illustrate her plans for the future.
Whatever it is, I hope she finds it, soon.
http://www.SavingSchools.org
After 8 years as First Lady, time as a Senator for New York and a stint as Secretary of State, I will say Hillary is definitely qualified to be President.
However, even after all that time in the public eye, people still ask the question “who is Hillary Clinton”? So maybe this question represents Hillary’s ultimate failure. Hillary has always seemed very scripted to me…very stiff, somewhat unfriendly and cold and not at all genuine. When ratings are not good, it is simply time for Hillary to find a new script writer. In the end, Hillary comes off as trying too hard to connect with voters and seeming to fail miserably.
The writing is on the wall. Voters are looking at outsiders like Trump and Sanders because, I assume, they are tired of politics as usual. Voter are probably still waiting for the hope and change promised by President Obama. Sadly, Hillary represents corporate, big money politics and the stagnation that comes with it.
Would we rather see this campaign come down to a Clinton-Bush rematch, where despite their party affiliation, the candidates are ultimately very similar. Would we like a clear choice between the current ends of the political spectrum where the choice is clear and easy?
Beyond Hillary, Bernie and Donald, there are third party candidates. If you like Bernie, take a look at Jill Stein. Failure to know all the candidates may mean you are not qualified to vote.
Just how many times can you RE-BRAND yourself. And what are you doing when you re-brand yourself? Well,….in sense you are admitting that you lied about your self during the previous months and are now in the mode to see if you will except the next few months of “acting” at best,…. and just plain lying at worst.
Acting might just be a better career choice for Hillary.
The above comment that all “republicans suck” is indicative of how little some people know about the current candidates. If one looks at Jeb Bush, for example, he is much more of a “centrist” and some of his views are consistent with democratic candidates. And the “ISIS candidate would be better” (albeit in jest) should have red flagged this person’s comment as inappropriate and unfit to be published. Not amusing.
. This writer had made two predictions on 28 December 2012 in article – Stars of Hilary Clinton and 2016 US Presidential election – published at astrologyweekly.com/blog/stars-of-hillary-clinton-and-2016-us-presidential-election/
One was that she has favorable planetary position to run for the 2016 US Presidential election. The other was that though she has favorable planetary position for running and winning as well the 2016 US Presidential election, her actual becoming US President would be concluded after taking into account the planetary posture in birth charts of her opposing Presidential candidates in the election. So by now by her declaration to run for the election, this writer’s first part of prediction has come precisely accurate. Her emergence as winner in first debate of Democrats on 13 October 2015 is also seen an additional factor of accuracy of this writer’s prediction of 2012 that her stars in 2015 would be favorable for her. It may be stated here that this writer’s coverage of 2012 US Presidential election when Barack Obama was elected for the second time, was also precisely accurate distinguished by pivotal aspects of the election being also accurate then.
Carly Fiorina’s big mouth has served her well during her rise to the pinnacles of corporate power. However, a sharp wit is neither an activity nor an accomplishment. It’s an attribute.
Clinton would be a far better president than candidate. We all know this. Nobody can guarantee the health of someone for four years. She’d get plenty of help during her decline, and she’d be replaced by someone when she could no longer do the job. This happens all the time in the corporate world (just ask Carly Fiorina about it). Hillary’s replacement would be far better than Donald Trump and his family could ever be.
As for being a non-book-reading-con-man and pathologically-lying-narcissist. It’s too bad that this country has such a long presidential campaign that overly values numbers of viewers. Showmanship and media savvy at the expense of everything else, while tolerable during a campaign (it shouldn’t be) is clearly unacceptable for a president.
So, is logging millions of air miles as Secretary of State an accomplishment. Well, Hillary bragged about. It’s worth repeating, “better president than candidate, better president than candidate”.