Read about Clinton and her run for the White House and phrases like “most qualified” come up often. I have read that she is “the most qualified person to run for President.” Recently, I read a story where a women noted that her over-qualification for the Presidency is a sign of how good women have to be to achieve office. It is, if the stories are to be believed, almost unfair how ready she is to be President. Says one article:
Like most of the one-quarter of these young women who told me they’re gung ho for Clinton, Clarke cites the candidate’s extensive experience—the same experience others use to knock her as a “career politician”—as a prime factor in her support. Clinton, says Clarke, is obviously the most-qualified candidate in the race. “But that’s the story of being a woman,” she says. “You have to be ten times better than everyone else to even get your foot in the door.”
Now she certainly wants to be President, maybe ten times more, or at least as much as Al Gore, but her qualifications would sadly not stack up that well even to Mr Gore’s!
Clinton is certainly not the the most qualified person ever to run for the White House (even unlucky James Garfield* does well in comparison) and her qualifications are not “amazing.” If anything, Clinton’s main attraction is that she is a woman running for the White House.
It is hard to know what qualifies a person to be President of the United States. Some great Presidents have had few qualifications (Lincoln) and poor Presidents many (John Q. Adams).
What are Clinton’s credentials? Clinton was Secretary of State from 2009-2013 under President Obama, senator from New York from 2001-2008, and First Lady from 1993-2001. She earned a law degree at Yale and was a partner of her law firm (Rose Hill). She had a short, but very distinguished law career in the 1970’s that showed high promise. She has served on numerous corporate boards.
Mrs. Clinton is more qualified (on paper) than several people running for the office, but we can leave the Donald Trumps out of the comparison. Let us compare her qualifications with a serious Republican candidate like Jeb Bush and see if she is “ten times” more qualified than Mr. Bush.
Mr. Bush served as governor of Florida of 1999-2007. He is the son and brother of a President of the United States. He has a degree in Latin American Affairs from University of Texas and speaks fluent Spanish. He had a successful career in real estate and banking, including setting up a commercial venture in Venezuela. He served as Florida Secretary of Commerce from 1986-1988. He has served on numerous corporate boards.
Mrs Clinton was First Lady for eight years and makes up much of her active role, though her one policy initiative (health care) was a failure. Mr Bush was actively consulted in both his father’s and brother’s administrations (twelve years). This included a role in selecting members of the Bush administration. This strikes me as equal “qualification” if one counts this sort of familial role as a qualification. I am dubious that it means much.
Mrs Clinton has four years in the Executive Branch as Secretary of State and seven years in the Senate. She won a safe seat in the New York State senate. While well liked in the Senate, she was not there long enough to become a player or to put her mark on any particular piece of major legislation. Her time as Secretary of State was a mixed bag. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that she was a complete success in her time there . . . getting credit for all the positives (killing Osama) and none of the negatives (the Arab Spring debacles).
Mr Bush has eight years of executive experience in the large, swing state of Florida. He ran against a tough opponent after losing his first race. He had great success in getting his agenda through the Florida legislature and won a second time handily. He was popular when he left office with Florida voters. His limited role as Secretary of Commerce in another administration has little value in a run for the White House.
I would argue that Bush’s eight years in elected office as chief executive of a large swing state is more relevant to White House service than Clinton’s eleven years in office. Clinton served four years in an appointed office advancing the President’s foreign policy. She won her Senate seat in an almost uncontested set of elections against underfunded opponents.
Both Clinton and Bush have had successful stints in the private sector. Both benefited by family connections. Mrs Clinton was a much more successful lawyer (as far as I can tell) than Bush was a business leader. Clinton has a graduate degree, but is monolingual. I would argue educationally this is a wash. Clinton has been tarred by more scandals than Bush, though Bush has received some criticism.
Mrs. Clinton is one times more qualified than Mr. Bush . . . at best. Let’s assume that as a Republican I am biased in favor of Bush (who is my third choice in the GOP primaries). My point is simply this: Clinton is not some amazingly qualified person. There is a sexism of low expectations and we must not apply those low expectations to Clinton.
Lest I be seen as cherry picking, let me summarize the qualifications of a “lightweight” to gain the office, Ronald Reagan, who was about Clinton’s age when he finally won the White House and was criticized when he ran as too old and not particularly well qualified.
Ronald Reagan was governor of California from 1967-1975. He upset a powerful incumbent to win his first term. He managed to go to college during the Depression out of a poor family earning a BA in economics. From 1937 through the 1960’s he was broadcaster, television, and movie star. He was twice elected President of the Screen Actor’s Guild. He served four years in the Army during World War II making training films for the Armed Forces. He served as a corporate spokesperson for GE.
I would argue that two successful terms as governor of California equal any executive experience held by Mrs Clinton. Mr Reagan was more successful in his chosen field (acting/communication) than Clinton ended up being in her own (law). Reagan served as SAG President at a time when many important changes to the film industry were happening.
Reagan created his career with no family help. Clinton received and receives significant help by being married to President Clinton.
Clinton has a much better formal education from her upper-middle class family, though Reagan’s attendance at any college given his family background and the era is amazing. Reagan also wrote hundreds of his own radio commentaries and I can see no evidence of comparable literary output on Mrs Clinton’s part.
I can see two potential advantages on Mrs Clinton’s part over candidate Reagan. Her time as First Lady gives her a knowledge of the Washington players that Reagan may have lacked.
This is offset by her lack of any leadership executive experience. California is a country size state and Reagan ran it. He faced many political challenges in doing so and surmounted them. Mrs. Clinton has never run anything approaching the complexity of the state of California.
Mr Reagan also created his own political career while Mrs Clinton inherited her own. Reagan had a huge cadre of “Reaganauts” there for him while Mrs Clinton relies much more on Clinton Inc. Reagan was a leader of a movement in Washington he helped create. This arguably offsets the dubious political advantages of being First Lady in terms of coming to Washington “ready to govern.”
Mrs Clinton’s time as Secretary of State also gives her a better grasp of world affairs on paper than anything in Mr Reagan’s resume would have indicated.
I don’t see how anyone can call Mrs. Clinton ten times more experienced than Mr. Reagan . . . and recall that the media of the time roasted Mr. Reagan as a lightweight.
Mrs. Clinton is not far and away the most qualified person to run for President. She is not nearly the most qualified person to run. If she were the third President after George Washington and John Adams, she would be the third most qualified of the three. If she was the fourth President after Washington, Adams, Jefferson, then she would be the fourth most qualified. You would have to get to Andy Jackson before you would reach a candidate less qualified than Mrs Clinton . . . at least arguably. It would be more interesting to make a list of ten Presidents even two times less qualified than Mrs. Clinton when they took office. That list would start with the candidate who beat her in her last try at office: Mr. Obama.
——
Garfield: out of poverty to college, classics professor, college President, Ohio legislature, successful Union general in the Civil War, eighteen years in Congress (first as a protege of President Abraham Lincoln) where he became a leader.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In