Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
The Most Qualified By Far: On Clinton and Qualifications

The Most Qualified By Far: On Clinton and Qualifications

Last updated on: May 18, 2015 at 7:17 pm by John Mark N. Reynolds

The Most Qualified By Far: On Clinton and Qualifications 2015-05-18T19:17:51-04:00 John Mark N. Reynolds

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

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!

Unit for the White House

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.

Spiritual Reflections

Previous Post

May 17, 2015

Mercy on His Soul - Judgment on His Body

Next Post

May 19, 2015 Humility: Who doesn't need it? How to get it?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Apologetics Art Culture Education On Books On Education Philosophy Politics Pop Culture Spiritual Reflections Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 July 2025 June 2025 September 2024 July 2024 June 2024 December 2023 June 2023 September 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which New Testament book has the most Old Testament quotes?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Revelation Matthew Romans Hebrews

Books by This Author John Mark Reynolds

See All Titles »