I have encountered a recurring theme in almost every discussion about my views on Hillarity’s qualifications. It seems I am painted as either a misogynist or someone wholly out of touch.
And yet I continue to ask the question, “What makes Hillarity qualified to be President?” The usual answers are the campaign rhetoric she has posted on her campaign site. None of which are personal accomplishments and several of which are merely speeches she has given. Or some basic facts that she is the wife of a past governor, the wife of a past President, the recipient of a Senate seat, or appointed to be Sec of State.
I actually think the first two accomplishments are sexist to proclaim as qualification. The senate seat an obvious outcome of having been given the nomination by the party and the Sec State job as a consolation prize for losing a Presidential election.
Still, I realize these can be considered as “accomplishments” even though none of them provided many progressive laws or accomplishment.
There are names throughout history that carry some immediate thought upon hearing them. John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, etc. Even some names that trigger very negative thoughts.
But the name Hillarity Clintoon evidently doesn’t trigger much memorable response because I never hear of any of those ringing accomplishments attached to the mere mention of her name. Except maybe, “She gave a speech about women at the U.N.” or something equally innocuous. Or some claim that was an obvious failure, such as Hillaritycare, or was the work of others that she tagged her name to.
MjL 28 May 2016, 4:58 a.m.
Another aspect I find increasingly worrisome about Hillarity is her cavalier attitude about security of communications. It is bad enough she appears clueless to the extent she failed to safeguard records —— she lies about the facts continually even after having been proven wrong.
About
