To be president that is……in my opinion it is a definite….NO!
Okay she has experience but that does not mean that she will be the best person for the job.
The world is imploding and we are about to elect the person to be the navigator of this decline. Who do you want leading the team….a surgeon or a plumber?
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has dismissed Sen. Bernie Sanders questioning her qualifications to be President as “silly” – and looking at her résumé alone, she’d be right – but there is also the need to judge her performance in her various jobs.
What is troubling about Clinton’s record is that she has left behind a trail strewn with failures and even catastrophes. Indeed, her highest profile undertakings almost universally ended in disaster – and a person’s record should matter when voters are deciding whether to entrust him or her with the most powerful office on earth.
In other words, it’s not just a question of her holding one prestigious job or another; it’s also how well she did in those jobs. Otherwise, you have a case of the Peter Principle Squared, not just letting someone rise to the level of his or her incompetence, but in Clinton’s case, continuing to get promoted beyond her level of incompetence.
You nailed it in one by bringing up the Principle; it’s been embedded in politics for almost a century.
But, then, the idea of ANYONE qualified to do the job, as it is supposed to be done, is ludicrous to begin with. There is no person alive who is qualified to lead people. Period. Every one who has EVER had the opportunity has failed. I submit there is no human who has, by historical record, ever been in a position of such power who did not become corrupted by it. Moreover, I submit there is no one alive today who could do such a task; if there were, they could NOT be persuaded to do it, for by being qualified, they would realize the futility of it.
So, no, she isn’t qualified. No human is capable of handling such power without a failure of spirit…. at least, not if we go by the record.
gigoid, the dubious
I do not believe that experience is a qualification….chuq
Reblogged this on The Militant Negro™.
THanx my friend chuq
Always my pleasure.
No one who comes to The White House for the first time as primary occupant is ever “Qualified” for the job of being President. It has always been an on-th-job-training experience and it has always exacted a terrible tole on whoever finally gets saddled with the job. The job of being President has its own unique set of exponentially demanding qualifications and most of them are earned by going through the fire of experience while in the office. The one you are talking about is more than qualified if you are going to be satisfied with the kind of administration she would bring because the kind of administration that follows a new President is always moulded to the ambitions, desires and talents of the President insofar as the Congress will allow and if you want the kind of admin she will bring then she is most sincerely qualified. If you do not want the kind of administration she would bring then she is nowhere near qualified. All a matter of perspective.
To borrow a well known catch-phrase from her hubby…”It all depends what your definition of the word “is qualified” is.”
As a former Senator, Secretary of
EmpireState and longtime White House resident, I can’t immediately think of any candidate whose been more “qualified” (on paper!) to do the job. Her learning curve would be minuscule. But do her qualifications make her the right choice for the job? Two VERY different things.Hillary may be a “surgeon”, but too many of her “patients” have died from “complications of surgery”. And a lot of innocent civilians walking past the hospital have been killed or wounded during her “surgical strikes”.
If I were an American voter, I’d be looking for a “second opinion”.