Is Gender Enough to Qualify Hillary Clinton for the Presidency?

By John W. Lillpop

If Barack Obama has taught we the people anything, it is this:  Electing a president based on anything but raw ability, qualifications, and relevant experience will most likely result in electoral folly and chaos!

Six years ago, the American people sought to soothe more than 200 years of cumulative guilt and shame by electing the first African-American to the Presidency. To all but the most partisan voter, Barack Obama was obviously a naïve, inexperienced, community organizer with no discernable record of achievement to his credit.

In truth, Obama’s outstanding credentials were only that he was “clean and articulate,” and did not have a “Negro dialect.”

Other than the race factor, Barack Obama was literally indistinguishable, hardly the sort of leader the nation desperately needed after eight years of George W. Bush.

Still, the American people elected, and reelected, Obama despite devastating unemployment, uncontrolled spending and record deficits, untenable scandals, dismal and failed foreign policies throughout the world, deteriorating racial relations among Americans, and a general decline in the American brand.

In other words, Barack Hussein Obama is living proof that charm and charisma alone cannot overcome fundamental defects in the areas of character, intellect, judgment, morality, and leadership!

With our blessed nation in utter shambles, from coast to coast, thanks to the Obama experiment, we the people are facing yet another crucial presidential election in 2016, in which the Democrat Party will likely once again nominate a presidential candidate based on something other than raw ability, qualifications, and relevant experience.

The likely candidate is Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the “something other” is her gender!

The burning question: After the dismal presidency of Barack Obama, will the American people make the mistake of electing Hillary Clinton based on her gender, rather than legitimate qualifications?