Bernie Sanders once vowed never to speak ill of his chief rival for the Democratic Party presidential nomination.
He said he wanted to stay on the high road. He barely mentioned her by name while stumping across places like Iowa and New Hampshire.
That was then. Today he went straight after Hillary Clinton, contending in New York that the former secretary of state, U.S. senator — from New York! — and first lady isn’t “qualified” to become the 45th president of the United States.
Why is Clinton now unqualified to hold the nation’s highest office? According to the Vermont independent-turned-Democratic senator, her acceptance of money from “big Wall Street banks and other establishment political action groups makes her no longer qualified.
Hmm. That’s an interesting accusation.
You see, from my perspective, Hillary Rodham Clinton is the most qualified candidate — among the five people in either party still seeking the presidency — to become the next president.
She served several terms as first lady as Arkansas; she became first lady of the nation for two terms and had a profound influence on her husband’s rather successful presidency; she was elected twice to the U.S. Senate from New York; she served as secretary of state during President Obama’s first term.
Surely, there have been other candidates over the years who’ve brought more sparkling resumes to the Oval Office. I keep thinking that of the presidents who served in my lifetime, the one with the glossiest history was George H.W. Bush. World War II fighter pilot, CIA director, member of Congress, U.N. ambassador, Republican Party chairman, vice president? The man had chops to be president.
As for Sanders’ own qualifications, well, he’s marginally so.
But the tone of this Democratic primary campaign has changed dramatically.
Now the nation is paying attention.
That’s the way it goes. Negativity works.
Come on. Political ideology aside, Kasich’s resume is far more impressive: four years in the Ohio Senate, 18 years in the US House, including 6 years as the chairman of the budgeting committee responsible for doing the grunt work for which Hillary and her husband take so much credit, and 5 years as Ohio’s governor.
That trumps (no pun intended) serving one lackluster term in the Senate, a few scandal-ridden years as SecState and a couple decades of “standing by your man” while watching from the outside.
Maybe that is why you ask a Hillary supporter what she has accomplished and you get a blank stare. Make sure you’ve got a while before you ask the same thing of a Kasich backer.
I agree that Kasich is supremely qualified. Perhaps you missed the blog posts I wrote extolling his work as Budget Committee chairman to help balance the federal budget. But I’ll stand by my critique of Clinton, who was in the mix at the WH, not merely “watching from the outside.” If lightning were to strike in Cleveland this summer and Kasich somehow emerges as the nominee, I just might vote GOP for POTUS for the first time in my life.
I’ve probably read more of your writing in the last decade than all but a very small handful of people. I’m well aware of your posts saying you might actually vote for Kasich in the primary (though I’d bet real money you found some reason not to).
Regarding the experience of being a first lady, I wouldn’t let a surgeon step aside while his wife tries her hand at the operating table. I wouldn’t. count your decades in newspapers towards the journalistic credentials of Mrs. HighPlainsBlogger. Likewise, I don’t think I’ll credit Sen. Clinton with her husband’s successes. Just as you have told your readers not to lay his failures or indiscretions at his wife’s feet. Bill is not on the ballot. That, I think we can agree on.