I know people hate her, but how was she not qualified?
People often say lots of things “disqualify” someone, rather than just looking at a set of prerequisites. I personally thought her vote on the AUMF was a war crime. I thought her vote on the MCA was abhorrent. I’m sure some people would say that because she used e-mail, she’s disqualified, but I’m not among them. I don’t think these things disqualify so much as significantly push down her appeal. Frankly if she’d never been a Senator, and she’d only been Secretary of State and First Lady (and all her qualifications from before), I may have happily voted for her, rather than with the same shudder I gave when I voted for Kerry. Nevertheless, the fact that she had any qualifications at all, and that she wasn’t endorsed by the Klan, and that she wasn’t the Kremlin’s pick, put her over the top for me. It’s a low bar, but she cleared it easily.
As for qualifications, she doesn’t rank up there with Jefferson or Bush I, but she’s up there. She was extremely qualified. But her record as a Senator was troubling.
So she’s a war criminal, but at least she’s not endorsed by people you don’t like?
I think “war criminal” is a bit hyperbole. It was a vote to use force against terrorists days after 9/11. I think people were pretty much unanimous in agreeing that needed to happen (at the time, at least). The conduct with which the force was used could certainly constitute a “war crime” but the vote? That’s a bit much.