Hillary’s qualifications as a politician are frequently discussed by reporters and the media alike. However, the media tends to strictly focus on her shortcomings and fail to recognize her accomplishments. What I am interested in seeing are both her achievements and her shortcomings, but as reported from the same individual. A reporter, known as Isaac Saul, whose favorability shifted towards Hillary Clinton after doing extensive research on her accomplishments. Not only that, but the article also details his reactions towards how the general public treats Clinton’s achievements.
The article caught my attention because of the main idea it poses: “Hillary Clinton is the most qualified person to ever run for president.”
Saul brings the definition of subjectivity into the spotlight. What does it mean to be qualified? How does he explain Hillary’s political history and do they tie in with her shortcomings? Why are her achievements overshadowed by those of Donald Trump’s? With each achievement Hillary accomplishes, there are always people who will find some small fault of hers to deconstruct and nitpick at. Her work as a politician is greatly diminished and overshadowed. Even when her opponent spouts lies right across from her during the Presidential debate, Hillary is considered “unattractive.”
By researching Hillary’s accomplishments, Saul retracts his former, negative opinions, as seen here, on Hillary, and openly declares his support for her campaign. In this case, Hillary’s accomplishments have won a former opposer over in her favor. So how does Hillary’s achievements, or even lack thereof, influence potential voters?