agree with your assessment of Agent Orange completely, however, his performance should not be the sole metric by which H. Clinton should be judged for competency. By that same measure, Donald Duck would be more fit to serve than Trump. Besides, she’s damaged goods.
Clinton looks good on paper, in comparison to Trump precisely because she isn’t him. But that distinction does little to guarantee any level of ability in that role, in of itself, save for a thirst for contention as COC. She wouldn’t be popular either. Both Trump and Clinton polls showed they set records for negative perceptions, and that only 85% of her voters would vote again for her.
According to WP, one year ago, “among registered voters, the two candidates have nearly identical unfavorable ratings: 59 percent for Clinton versus 60 percent for Trump.” There are reason for these perceptions that go back the Clinton huckster Arkansas days, when Clinton used had State Troopers issue hush money from the State, to keep several prostitutes from coming forward (Troopergate).
It is baggage going back to those good ‘ol Arkansas days that the Clinton’s can’t separate themselves from: trouble follows them everywhere, from the Ozarks, to Whitewater, Monica Lewinski, Chappaqua, Benghazi, Wall Street, and 125th Street, Harlem. These are just a micro minutiae of the aggregate.
Chronic grifters, the Clintons leave a trail about a mile wide. here are ten scandals exposed by Wikileaks alone.
Many people have a problem with ‘perjury,’ and view both Clintons as congenital liars who delight in contemplating such mundane things as bifurcating the meaning of the word “is,” or becoming completely incapable of giving a true succinct answer: “I did not sleep with that woman.”
It bothered ‘people’ that the foreign funded ‘Foundation,’ that their well-heeled socialist daughter runs was merely a front for her $200M campaign fund, or that she refused to publish the transcript of her infamous $250K Goldman Sachs speech.
A Clinton Whitehouse redux means back to the 90’s; which would be a regressive development for the US. Better than Trump any day, but would mean more of the same passive aggressively insidiousness — the manure that the Clinton’s have been dropping since the 60's.
Thus, it is a non sequitur to embrace Clinton as the de facto incumbent in the wake of a Trumphouse meltdown. Remember there were other candidates in that election. If the process was flawed, the entire election would have to be done over, with new candidates.
I am in favor of that. I am in favor of any man or woman who seems like the right person for the right job. I would celebrate the first woman president ever to be elected. If Clinton replaced Trump, it would not be a factor of the electoral process, but of some legislation.
Clinton is neither the right person, nor the right woman for the job. I would be more supportive of Elizabeth Warren, a humble, plain speaking, driven person, with good and fair intentions — someone who speaks from conviction, not a prepared teleprompter speech. Someone the constituency can relate to — not just because she’s a woman, but because she would be the best person.