That’s the question being asked by the WP. Mark Graber finds this question rediculous considering the experience levels of our previous presidents, and the experience levels of her opponents on both sides of the aisle:
Clinton’s resume does pale in comparison to Golda Meir or Margaret Thatcher. What the piece fails to note is that her resume is as good or better than that of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George Bush the Younger before they took office, and as good or better than any present aspirant for the White House with an actual chance other than John McCain. Clinton is the only Democratic contender who stands a chance who has actually been reelected to the Senate (and has headed an executive department task force). No one who looks at Rudy Guiliani’s or Mitt Romney’s resumes is likely to confuse them with John Quincy Adams (and let’s not get started on what Fred Thomson has been doing for the last decade). None of this is mentioned in the piece. Has Hillary’s marriage helped her political prospects? Of course. So did every male candidate who married into a family with money or who appeared on TV or who was simply photogenic.
I’m with Graber. And the more I listen to Hillary, and the longer I’m forced to wait out Bush, the more I like her. I’m still undecided, but she’s continually moving up the list. Hillary is smart, she’s been around the block. She knows what it means to work hard, really hard. All of this makes her the exact opposite of our current head-honcho.
Marrying Bill was not something she was born to. It’s a happy coincidence, no doubt. And there was likely some calculation involved, a gamble on his future that payed off, big time. But, she wasn’t born rich. Her first “real job” wasn’t owner of a baseball team. She wasn’t snorting coke in college. She hasn’t had a DUI. She’s responsible. We need someone responsible. It’s been a while.