When wiping the floor with Presidents Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Reagan, Eisenhower, both Roosevelts, and Wilson just isn’t enough, you know you’re facing a 21st Century Problem.
?
Sorry, that was posted before I realized that you and I were using the word “Qualified” very differently. I was using it like you do in a job interview (and frankly, so do most people): “What are your qualifications? Well, I spent X years as a US Senator, where I did X and Y” and so forth. So in that sense of the word, Clinton was easily much more qualified to be President than all of those people who were actually President (and others too, I had to stop somewhere). So when you said you had a high bar for the modern world’s problems, and Clinton didn’t seem extremely qualified–well, that was my response–Clinton beats all those Presidents and still doesn’t make the cut?–that’s ridiculous. My “qualifications” is kinda like “experience” except experience can often be used to prop up a do-nothing safe-seat candidate over someone who hasn’t been in office as long but has accomplished much more, or as an ageist dog whistle. Clinton had qualifications, and she accomplished a lot–much of which I disagreed with, which came into play later. But “extremely qualified” applies.
Now I know you were using “Qualified” to mean more like “Would you make a good President?” which is much more subjective and simply can’t be quantified like my definition. Obviously you and I are more in agreement about how your definition would apply to Clinton, since I voted for both Obama and Sanders in the primaries, both of whom were less qualified (in my sense of the word) than Clinton.
EDIT: And in case you’re wondering “Why are qualifications in your sense even relevant, if you voted for the less qualified candidate?”. Of course they’re relevant–they’re simply not the only consideration. The Bush I/Bush II contrast is a case in point. Both of them were military adventurers, both of them ran on supply side economics. But Bush I had a lot of experience, and his military adventures were well-executed, had clear objectives, and involved a high level of diplomacy. Bush II, not so much. Bush I knew from experience that supply side economics was all political BS and sometimes you just had to raise taxes on rich people to pay for the stuff you’re doing. Bush II, not so much. Basically, policies that I oppose, executed competently, still end up better than policies I oppose, executed incompetently. You may think the incompetent boob would be better, because they’d fail to get anything done, but that’s a failure of imagination, and/or wishful thinking (see: Trump). The boob can mess things up in ways nobody ever thought possible. Qualifications matter. And Obama and Sanders were both qualified, just less than Clinton.