Yesterday’s statement by FBI Director James Comey indicating that his agency will not recommend an indictment of Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server while serving as Secretary of State raises an important question.
Exactly why is Mrs. Clinton qualified to be president?
Read the transcript of the FBI’s findings and one has to ask if it really makes sense to elevate a person who while Secretary of State presided over an operation that was “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
And it wasn’t just some nameless faceless career service people acting irresponsibly in which case Clinton might plead some foggy knowledge of such a mess operating on her watch. No, it was Secretary Clinton herself.
For example, Director Comey cites seven email chains including Top Secret/Special Access Program level material in which she both sent and received emails. He concludes that “[t]here is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”
He goes on to address her generally poor overall management style noting that the FBI “also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.”
In other words, if the country is looking for the most qualified Obama Cabinet official to become the next president of the United States, Hillary Clinton’s poor management style and judgment would put her fairly far down the list. And that’s just government officials in charge of federal agencies. Throw in governors, senators, congressmen, and her skills or lack thereof as a manager likely drop her even much further down the pecking order of contenders for the highly coveted top spot.
Last week’s Benghazi report isn’t exactly resume padding material either. Also consider some of the foreign policy decisions undertaken during her term as State Department secretary and one has to wonder what “accomplishments” she plans to feature in her campaign. As Carly Fiorina noted during the primary campaign after Clinton bragged about the miles she logged on the job, “Flying is an activity, not an accomplishment.”
So what will she run on? Yes, she was First Lady, but the idea that marrying a powerful man is an accomplishment should outrage feminists everywhere (but likely it won’t). She served as a U.S. Senator, but her list of achievements in that role isn’t particularly long. In fact, when asked to list them in interviews at various times she’s hesitated to commit naming any.
Democrats will point to her thoughtful command of issues. Well if that’s the main criteria then there are lots of bloggers over the age of thirty-five who are equally (or more) qualified.
So what is she left to run on? Apparently, her name and sex. And if that’s all it takes to become president these days then our nation is in sad shape indeed.