This message was self-deleted by its author

[LeftyMom]

57. She's held two high offices, yes. Has she doen particularly well at either?

At State I'd say the record isn't particularly great.

State is a mess technologically, based on the email flap. She didn't fix that, and that's the sort of basic technocratic fix that any competent manager should be able to manage with anything resembling a budget.

The middle east is worse than it was, hard as that would have been to believe possible back when she got the job. The Libya thing made North Africa markedly worse and is even destabilizing the eurozone to a degree because of the influx of refugees and fights about how to deal with them. The only reason we didn't stumble blindly into Syria in support of the "moderates" who turned out to be anything but was that nobody at State managed to count votes before the House of Commons got to make them look stupid. On the other hand State rubber stamped the Keystone XL, so at least we fucked up on our own continent with equal enthusiasm.

How about in the Senate?

Well, either she was the only person with an IQ above room temperature who thought Bush's case for war was convincing, or her vote was craven pandering. Pick one. Her excuse is that she believed Bush's case, which doesn't reflect well on her judgment, if true. If she can be snowed- as she insists that she was- by somebody who is so stupendously dumb and unconvincing a liar as George W. Bush, do we really want her sitting across a table from Putin?