There’s yet another NBC-Wall Street Journal poll out this week which seeks to peer deep into the minds of the electorate and see precisely what they’re looking for in a new president next year. Much of it is the usual pablum you’d expect to find, but one question in particular attracted the attention of Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post. (emphasis added)
A big part of Hillary Clinton’s perceived appeal as a presidential candidate in 2016 is this: No one — or, at least very few people outside of the ranks of the most conservative Americans — doubts that she could do the job. Her resume is stuffed with just the sort of jobs — Senator, Secretary of State etc. — that most people see as a proving ground to be president. Her argument in the campaign to come is almost certain to highlight that background, that she will be ready to go on day one in office.
For the record, I asked Chris on Twitter to expand on the line, “stuffed with just the sort of jobs…” I didn’t get a response, but then again Chris doesn’t follow me. Still, I would ask anyone else to finish that sentence. Exactly what sort of jobs are on Hillary’s resume which are the ones people see as a proving ground to be president? I agree that she was elected as a member of the Senate, and there aren’t really many examples of her doing anything wrong. But then, speaking as a resident of New York who witnessed the entire thing first hand, it’s hard to recall her doing anything at all. And yes, she was Secretary of State. But aside from setting records for frequent flyer miles, what did she do during her tenure there? Anyone? She couldn’t list one significant accomplishment herself when asked.
But circling back to the question for Chris, what are these other jobs? First Lady? That’s not a job. Being a lawyer? Well, I suppose that counts, but by current estimates that puts her on the same footing as roughly half a million other people. Is he perhaps talking about her work at the Clinton Foundation? Yeah… that must have been a tough job to land. The woman has literally done almost nothing.
As to the poll question itself, this is something of a retread as far as I can tell. The wording is shown here, along with the top line response.
The only thing interesting about this poll when the results are attached to Hillary Clinton is that she seems to fall into neither category. Some percentage wants someone experienced and tested, even if they don’t bring change. As noted above, her experience is dubious at best and the tests she has faced seem to involve long times spent typing now vanished emails on her phone during tedious plane trips while doing “jobs” which she obtained by virtue of:
– marrying someone
– being given a coronation by the DNC in a not even remotely competitive Senate race
– or being handed as a consolation prize after losing a primary
If we look at the second option in the poll we might well say that she lacks the experience, but does she bring change? What sort of change does she represent aside from lacking the same genitalia as all of her predecessors? She’s a creature of Washington and at the head of one of the biggest political machines in modern history. She is part and parcel of the same team which has been fighting the other team since most of you have been alive. This is change?
There should have been a third choice in the poll… none of the above.