The case against Hillary Clinton’s “greatness”

Low IQs in ample evidence as this parade of brain-dead comments from the Democrats at Politico will attest to!

First of all, when you can’t list Hillary’s “accomplishments” as SOS, you go Alisnky, and simply shoot the messenger:

Brit Hume? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Oh, I am sorry… I thought I was reading one of them funny fake news items from The Onion for a second. I mean, who actually collects the opinion of Brit Hume, or anyone else at Fox for that matter?

Then there is the Senior Circuit:

Nobody will beat Joe Biden for the Dem nomination.

But there are still plenty of drones who think she’s perfectly qualified:

Better get used to her. Hillary will be the next president!

Why should we be surprised the Fox talking heads, or very many on the right, don’t think much of Hillary. It doesn’t matter much since she will be our first woman president if she chooses to run.

I think that Hillary Clinton introduced a new dimension or perhaps gave practical shape to the ideal of foreign policy with a human face as opposed to realpolitik. Her work for the children, women and the weaker segments across the globe is outstanding. She and Obama did not give into the impulse of invading Iran, Syria or to deepen the exhausting US engagements across the globe.

And yet, there are some rare voices of sanity posting there:

Try herding cats for four years! The fluidity of the world in this period was unprecedented!

So, there’s every reason to question Hillary’s (non)accomplishments. Women and children around the world love her…but was that enough to be secretary of state?
She had no international diplomatic experience, so between her lack and Obama’s lack of diplomatic experience, the result became a glaring US absence in international leadership…even though her body was present, present, present by globetrotting at taxpayer expense.

By this time, she should have had a tangible record of success…and it’s lacking.

And my personal favorite, from a Mole at State:

Both Brit Hume and John Cassidy raise valid points, particularly since Mrs. Clinton has obvious presidential ambitions. A look at her diplomatic legacy at State is both fair and necessary. That much said, I would also recommend a close inspection of her managerial style at State. I have seen her in action first hand, and I was startled to see that staff seemed to be walking on eggshells, as if they were terrified of her.Dissent appeared to be a risky proposition, and that would be a big problem at State, where dialogue and exchange of differing points of view are essential.

Del Dolemonte on January 31, 2013 at 11:10 AM