My answer to Is Hillary Clinton the most qualified presidential candidate in U.S. history?
Answer by Abbey Laurel-Smith:
No. She’s not. She’s far too CROMWELLIAN to be qualified in any way. Her stance so far has been well measured and very well disguised – all because of three quandaries, to say the least.
- Hereditary quandry: She wanted to go solicit for Irish American votes in Irish pubs and Irish local communities all over America, but doesn't want to be queried about the fact that her ancestors stood with Oliver Cromwell, Henry Ireton and the Roundheads in Drogheda, Wexford, Galway and Duncannon.
- Logical quandry: She’d rather avoid this, as this will show her off – as a person given to sweet words, rather than someone whose judgement is firmly rooted on simple understandings, upon which politicians, public officials (statemen and statewomen) are trusted to act. Take the Constitution and e spirit upon which the American republic was founded as a starting point.
- Probing quandry: She’d rather avoid anything that will reveal her and her husband as two gong-ho public officials, who'd rather put success through barbarous arbitrament of war and arm sales, over the validity of civil argument (about who, where and what) and political principle. Her game of double standard as SECDEF allows for the continuation of Saudi’s lack of modern civility and terrorism through ISIS are just two examples out of many.
There are economic, socio, constitutional, ethical, gender and professional quandaries that I could point at. But let's just live it at these three for now.
Americans’ have been connered by Bill. And Americans’ simply don't want to be seen as anti-women. But if we are averted to despotism in less developed part of the world, then, why are we clothing a despot with a decent constitutional garb?