Lucid people get it: the towering edifice of modern, secular progressivism is constructed with the brick-and-mortar of reality-denial; stubborn, unflinching self-delusion. Unborn babies are not human beings? Marriage doesn’t necessarily require a man and woman? Providing government cash to peeps who refuse to get a job — courtesy of hard-working taxpayers — won’t increase unemployment? Punishing business owners and corporations with strangling taxes and regulations doesn’t hamper the economy?
It’s bread-n-butter stuff for the politico-cultural Left.
Still, one could only look on in stunned silence at Barack Obama’s recent, slobbering paean to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. “I can say with confidence there has never been a man or a woman … more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as President of the United States of America,” he enthused while lately addressing his party’s national convention.
This wasn’t the first time the president uncorked that claim. At an early-July Charlotte, NC rally — their first joint campaign appearance — he made essentially the same statement about the former First Lady.
Granted, a smidgen of playful exaggeration isn’t unheard of in the game of politics — but: “never a man or woman more qualified”? NEVER?
VOX’s Libby Nelson flagged it “a little hyperbole”. Well, yes — except it’s more like hyperbole on the order of sheer clownishness.
To his credit, even Mr. Hillary — former Chief Executive Bill Clinton — although gushing about his wife during the gathering’s night number two, merely touted her “the best darn change maker I ever met in my entire life”. Notice, he refrained from styling her, “the greatest change maker to ever exist in the history of the entire universe, ever, ever!”
But Mr. Obama? No holding back about his successor-of-choice. Hillary Clinton is more “qualified” for the Big Office than George “Father of Our Country” Washington? Thomas “Author of the Declaration of Independence” Jefferson? James “Father of the Constitution” Madison?
Consider John Adams: before a stint as the nation’s second president, he played a signal role drafting the aforementioned Declaration; he was commissioned a Massachusetts’ delegate to both the First and Second Continental Congresses and led the Board of War and Ordnance during the Revolution (“first man in the House”, as reported by Benjamin Rush; “one-man war department”, according to historian Joseph Ellis). The Man from Quincy, MA also functioned, variously, as US Ambassador to France, the Netherlands and Great Britain; and served as vice-president under his predecessor George Washington. John Adams, arguably, furnished an unparalleled contribution to the new republic’s founding.
Yet, he’s no Hillary Clinton, that’s for sure! (per Barack Obama.)
What about other previous presidents’ “qualifications” vis-a-vis the present Dem contestant? Libby Nelson summarizes,
[U]nlike 18 of the past 44 presidents, Clinton has never been a governor, meaning she has no direct experience trying to pass a comprehensive agenda through a legislature while being directly accountable to voters. She’s never served in the military… Thomas Jefferson was governor of Virginia, secretary of state, and ambassador to France (and wrote the Declaration of Independence). James Monroe was secretary of war, secretary of state, governor of Virginia, ambassador to both the United Kingdom and France, and a senator … Martin Van Buren was a senator, governor, state attorney general, secretary of state, and ambassador. John Quincy Adams served in the House, the Senate, and was ambassador to three major nations before becoming secretary of state and then president. All of these candidates’ pre-White House experiences easily rival or surpass Clinton’s.
Hillary’s résumé, by contrast, includes a spell as First Lady under hubby William Jefferson which produced little more than grubby controversy and her mudslide of an attempt at healthcare reform. “Hillarycare” was such a catastrophe many believe it cost the Democrats control of both chambers of Congress for the first time in forty years. After sleep-walking through two terms as New York’s junior Senator, she took up as Barack Obama’s Secretary of State. In that capacity, it’s not an overstatement to say she supervised the deterioration of virtually every, prominent, geo-political relationship enjoyed by the United States. She remains today a charisma-deficient pol, burdened with a grating speaking voice; a grasping, ethics-free hack, unctuously accommodating herself to whatever expedient best greases her ascent to wealth and power; and solidifies her death-grip on same.
Rich Lowry elaborates: Hillary Clinton “is a barely adequate political talent with exceptional survival skills honed over a couple of decades of scandal … [S]he is Michael Dukakis with a broken ethical compass.”
Meanwhile, the fellow who crowned her the most comprehensively prepared aspirant in the history of American presidential elections, just pronounced her Republican rival Donald Trump “unfit” for the same position. Not a few conservatives – uncomfortably – find themselves in rare agreement with Barack Obama on that latter appraisal. His verdict, however, would contain a whole lot more wallop if not for his uproariously off-base Hillary acclaim; if he wasn’t himself disgracefully unfit for the place he’s occupied nearly eight years now.
And the ostentatiously corrupt former First Lady/Senator/Secretary of State is every bit as unsuited for the presidency as either of them, notwithstanding Barack Obama’s syrupy effusions. That doesn’t mean she can’t win it anyway. Reality-unencumbered Leftists, recall, too often thrive in a world of their own, fantasist making, while the rest of us get to live with the never-desirable consequences.
photo credit: President Obama and Hillary Clinton at the DNC last night via photopin (license); Andrew Dallos