A Question in Search of an Answer: Hillary Who?

While Republicans are battling over who will stand for them in Election 2016
and lead the future of the party, Democrats across the country are lining up
under one banner:

Ready for Hillary

It’s time for
Republicans, Democrats, and all unaffiliated Americans to ask a simple
question:

Hillary who?

The obvious answer? The former first lady under President Bill Clinton, adolescent
in the White House during the 1990s, who took credit for the mature, adult
policy decisions of the Republican Congress from 1995 until his timely
departure in 2001.

A deeper response: Chicago native, student of radical communist ideologue
Saul Alinksy, who tried to implement a single payer health care system in the
early 1990s, who has been running for President for eight years.

Yes, she sought the highest office in the land in 2008, and lost by slim
margins in key battleground primary states. The politics of identity defeated
the gamut behind gender. Next year, Democrats want to please the feminist
impulse in their left flank.

Recent polling from major and minor media puts former First Lady Hillary
ahead of all other potential Republican contenders, including
Establishmentarian Jeb Bush. So, Clinton is the Democratic Party's best shot at
winning, supposedly. She can win, and a lot of people would vote for her.
Whether she is worthy voting for brings up another set of questions.

Why would she be a worthy leader? She has a momentum of support in the
blogosphere, and the polling props her up for the long-term win. But why would
she be a good President? Every citizen in this country deserves an answer to
this question, because the United States has suffered for eight
years under an immature executive, with no prior experience, who won
because of his superior campaigning/community organizing, plus the telegenic
burst of support from Big Media and disparate celebrities, including Oprah
Winfrey and Hollywood.

What do people see in Hillary Clinton? The man behind her: William Jefferson
"Bill" Clinton, and the eight years of strong economic growth and
relative international calm.  At least, many Democrats, believe, Hillary
can bring up the brand as Bill did.

Or did he?

In a post-election 2014 column, Washington Post columnist George Will reminded
his readers that Hillary Clinton is a drag, a bridge to the past instead of a
pathway to the future. Let us not forget that under Bill Clinton, Democratic
numbers nationally decline. Under Obama, those numbers of have worsened. The
Clinton name protects Bill from the prying eyes of a drowsy media, but not his
party from the fallout of her unknown character and lack of political skill. As
the leader of her party, how would Hillary help the Democratic ticket?

Many of Hillary Clinton's supporters cite her prior record of
experience, including her tenure as junior Senator from New York, then
Secretary of State under President Obama.

Let us recall that another Democratic President, James Buchanan of
Pennsylvania, had one of the most comprehensive governmental resumes in US
History: Congressman, US Senator (in the days when legislatures appointed them
rather than election by the popular vote), foreign diplomat, and Secretary of
State), Buchanan has been tagged one of the worst executives in US History, as
well.  A complete creature of Washington mores (if any), the dithering
"doughface" executive pandered to Southern slave interested, then did
nothing as the country violently divided toward the irrepressible Civil War.

Hiding behind legal restraint and decisive inaction, Buchanan was an
ineffective executive. Already the former Secretary of state is hiding behind
private emails and erased servers.

Once again, what has Hillary Clinton accomplished to make her a worthy
President? What character traits has she displayed to prove her leadership
capabilities? Aside from "Three AM" phone call commercial against
Barack Obama in 2008, plus her vote for the War in Iraq, what other
legislative, policy, or even moral record can she run on?

 Perhaps her past activism as First Lady would reveal her presidential
potential.

She stood by her husband, even as repeated reports indicted Bill
for numerous affairs, even cases of sexual assault and rape. As a US Senator,
she passed little remarkable legislation, and nothing which limited the
federal government to enacting basic, enumerated mandates. Again, she voted for
the War in Iraq, then tried to hide or run away from this vote.

As for her tenure as Secretary of State: the Middle East is embroiled in
terrorist genocide, with ISIS colliding across weakened member states. Ukraine
is divided, with Russian aggression having seized Crimea and looking to take
the East part of the former Soviet satellite. Then there's the deaths of four
diplomats at Benghazi, Libya.

 Following her current departure from public life, she avows that
businesses do not create jobs, she claims that she was dirt poor when she left
the White House, and she can't operate more than one email account at time.
Inarticulate, incoherent, and apparently incompetent, she has presented no
clear policy details on a Presidential run, let alone a Presidency.

So, the question which every Democrat, and every American should ask about
Hillary Clinton's purported Presidential ambitions:

Hillary Who?