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?
Hillary Clinton and Beyond 
What a great read and counter-read! I was thinking about your final question as I watched the second debate, as many times thorughout Hillary faithfully deferred to her website to “check the facts” as she sought fit when Trump made a misleading statement or perverted the facts. I thought not so much about the hardcore partisan voter, but the independent voters that were still making up their minds as they tried to tease out who they were going to support, and wondered, would they actually make it to her website, where you can easily peruse her list of achievements? Would they do the kind of thoughtful research that Saul did, after his emotions settled and he accepted the loss of Bernie as nominee? If I sent this article to one or two of my Hillary hating relatives, would it make a dent in the slightest? Yes and no. I really think it depends. Hillary is hoping to reach others like her- studious, meticulous researchers and thinkers who are sincere in their patriotic duty to make the best possible choice. Although she has been accused of consdescending to the American people by Trump and those who hate her, I do applaud her for assuming that those who really are ‘on the fence’ will take the time to find out about her and her opponents resumes. That their ears will perk up at the mention and reminder of a resource they can easily turn to, and that by suggesting they do so on the National stage was a nuanced strategy to not only dismiss him without losing her composure, but appeal to the ‘nerd’ in the undecided. A strategy that may actually lead to postive results by undermining the notion that she is elitist and condescending by assuming (or at least hoping) that people will do their homework, like good students should. On the other hand, and something I tried to take a stab at in my exploration blog, was that in our world of social media and quick fixes in the form of a tweet or soundbite, what lands with people is what jives with their emotions, good and bad, concious or unconscious and that is why Trump has been able to succeed with haiku length rhetoric like “Crooked Hillary” and “Lock her up.” The one sad aspect of the second debate was when she tried to explain her wiki leak about a public and personal face and brought up the film Lincoln. Although I thought it was a clever and noble attempt to explain the dicrepancy Trump pulled a powerful punch with his constituents when he countered with “You’re no Honest Abe” or something to that effect. I could hear my relative at home, beer in hand and shouting at the television: “You can’t bullshit a bullshitter!” Those folks will not be impressed by her achievements simply because their rage at what they think she represents is engrained in their brains, much like their butt imprints in the plush of their La-Z boys, no offense.
LikeLike
Yeah, I see what you’re saying. There’s definitely some people who for them it’s about catch phrases and funny quips because the facts are less important than their opinions. However, if you’re constantly flooded with the facts it allows for those who actually do care and do want to be informed to be informed appropriately.
LikeLike
The media coverage has tended to favor the question of what it means that Mrs. Clinton’s opponent is the least qualified candidate to run for president; but I think this is such a powerful point to consider with Hillary Clinton: what does it actually mean that she is the most qualified candidate ever?
There are many tweets and memes about this particular phenomenon in this year’s election: consider Washington Post columnist Alexandra Petri’s tweet below.
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Back to your choice article by Isaac Saul. I think it shows a great and humble awareness to admit ignorance, to admit feeling strongly against Mrs. Clinton because of a greater affinity for Mr. Sanders. That Saul took the time to investigate Clinton’s accomplishments, to consider the positives above the negatives shows that he understands the weight of his voice and vote in this election. I do hope it inspires others to give her the benefit of the doubt, and by that, I mean to take the time to do some reading with an open mind rather than an eye toward skepticism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apologies for any confusion with the tweet from Ms. Petri – I tried to embed it directly into the post, but I think the way it looks a little too seamless in my response. To clarify, I’ve repasted it below:
“finally the whole country will watch as a woman stands politely listening to a loud man’s bad ideas about the field she spent her life in”
— Alexandra Petri (@petridishes) September 26, 2016
LikeLike
I felt similarly about the way Saul was able to admit that he judged Hillary without knowing the full extent of her career. I admire that he was not only willing to thoroughly research her accomplishments and admit his change of opinion, but also that he used his platform at a columnist to publicly detail how he wrongly misjudged Hillary as a politician and candidate.
I fear, though, that on certain points people simply don’t want to be persuaded, no matter the evidence presented to them. For example, it is well known that Hillary was not charged with any wrongdoing in the aftermath of Benghazi, despite the numerous investigations into the subject. Despite this, so many people continue to repeat the phrases “…but Benghazi” and the classic, ever elegant “Lock her up” whenever her foreign policy qualifications are referenced.
LikeLike
This article debunks so many of the widely held but false accusations associated with Hillary Clinton (i.e. Benghazi). I also enjoyed how the writer pinpoint Trump’s personal accusations towards her, reavealing Trump’s lies and unfairness towards Clinton, while highlighting her feats (in detail). Much of the criticims towards Clinton rarely is about very specific wrongs she has done in office (as Secretary of State and Sneator). Much of it is clouded by lies and accusations already proven to be incorrect. Unfortuntaely, the lies and accusations, are what rise to the top in our news feeds (a la 9/11 depictions and Benghazi). Also what’s sad is readers/viewers rarley get the straight facts about CLinton when it comes to her accomplisments and defeats because much of the discussion on Clinton is ruled by nonsense criticism about her looks or even now “stamina.”
LikeLike
We need more reporters and journalists like this that are open and honest and well-research. It’s most definitely their responsibility to take this information and report it to the public. They need to counteract the inaccurate news. When her achievements are reported and covered consistently, then we will see the effects on potential voters grow drastically.
LikeLike
Hi allinclusived,
Agreed – her REAL legislative accomplishments pale in the face of her IMAGINED scandals. When it comes to Clinton, the radical right is poised to twist any minor misstep into a major misuse of power. We saw it during Bill’s administration with a whole host of apparent scandals: Whitewater, Troopergate, Travelgate, etc. We continue to see it, more recently, with Hillary’s unreleased speeches to Goldman Sachs, supposed conflicts of interest with the Clinton Foundation, “Benghazi,” and her “goddamn emails” (to quote Bernie Sanders).
Never have a politician’s actions been blown out of proportion to this degree. But scandals are far more engaging than progress. The media likes to focus on the negative, appealing to the conspiratorial tendency of the American electorate. This is becoming easier and easier to do without reprimand, considering the media’s reliance on sound bites and the truncated content of social media. Who would turn into a fact-oriented analysis of Clinton’s policies when they could watch three pundits yell at each other about her emails?
~ BH
LikeLike
I agree! I also think that media only focuses on one specific detail which out of context can really change how we view Clinton. What I also appreciated in this article is that the author tackled almost every if not all general criticisms people have of Clinton. Most of the critiques were generalizations and didn’t have the facts to back them up. This article really dug deep into Clinton and proved everything people thought about her was wrong. It even more persuasive in the sense that it’s written by a former “Hillary hater”.
LikeLike
I agree that the article tries to debunk many of the negative things Hillary Clinton is accused of. It makes me think about the purpose of the news and how,in general, it aim to remain relevant, and so on our fast paced society it needs headlines or sound bites that grab our attention . We hardly ever get detailed information about what polititians are doing. The election season has been more about branding more than facts.
LikeLike
I have only been alive for a few presidential election cycles, this particular cycle being my sixth. I have only been eligible to vote since the last, when Obama and Romney went head-to-head. Despite my limited exposure to presidential contests, it seems to me that Hillary Clinton has faced and continues to face the most criticism and, even more so, skepticism with regard to her qualifications. It has become a topic that is broached, in my opinion, all too often for a populous with near-unlimited Internet access: What has Hillary done? What has Hillary actually accomplished? What about Hillary’s time as Secretary of State qualifies her to run (and remember Benghazi!)?
Many of us have heard the above questions over and over throughout the past two years, blaring through our radios or from our television screens or from the mouth of an irate relative at Thanksgiving. Again, I find this quite odd, considering one can literally type any and all of those questions into Google and find a host of reputable sources that not only confirm Clinton’s qualifications, but list and describe them in detail. Of course, one will also find compilations of every wrong move Clinton has ever made – charts laying out legislative decisions and policies that failed someone, some group, in one way or another. The point is, though, that a substantial record of her qualifications exists. It is available to all of us, whether we like her record of government action or not. I take this seemingly willful ignorance as a sign that, actually, we are not as free as we seem.
Although the above information is technically available to the public, the Internet is not the arbiter of free speech we take it to be. I read recently that only a rough ten percent of Internet content is available to us (legally, mind you – this does not count the so-called “deep web”). Now, this is a lot of content. A lot. And we are adding more every second of every day. But accessing the majority of this content, this available ten percent, requires knowing where to look – having specific links to largely unknown blogs, web pages and the like. Most people are content with the media channels that are most readily and obviously available to them. For a good portion of the aging country (i.e. Baby Boomers), these are literally channels: they are used to the television, where biased and/or single-minded networks like CNN and Fox dominate. Generations X and Y could go either way. The majority of millennials, on the other hand, get a good amount of their news from social media – algorithmic Facebook feeds, sponsored SnapChat stories, cultural blogs and websites like BuzzFeed, and major publications like the New York Times. More politically savvy millennials may read more independent/obscure blogs, skim international newspapers, or even stretch across party lines and check out Breitbart or The National Review (this goes for New York City-based millennials – I am sure this is different for millennials located outside of “Yankeedom”). Even so, the majority of this content is filtered through, and shaped by, major media outlets – in other words, major media conglomerates. Bernie Sanders supporters railed against the specter of Big Business and the rampant abuses associated therein, issues like the post-2008 financial crisis bail out and the consolidation of American banks. Well, media companies have been consolidated too. What we hear about Clinton on radical Republican-dominated airwaves, what we see pundits say about her on sound-bite-laden national television, and what we read about her in consolidated, filtered publications (web and print alike) is only part of the story. One must, again, know where to look to find a reliable record of Clinton’s qualifications – an unbiased fact checking service like RealPolitics, or something in a similar vein. Even then, the average media consumer is so bombarded with opinion-based content – its aim to get as many “clicks” as possible – that qualitative analyses of Clinton still dominate. Extraordinarily wealthy lobbyists, like the infamous Koch brothers, have spent millions upon millions of dollars to discredit the Clintons over the past few decades, particularly Hillary. Their influence, and the influence of those like them, still radiates through the content we digest – day in, day out.
It is very possible that Clinton is the most qualified person ever to run for president, but the Powers That Be have done and will continue to do everything they can to discredit her. This may be evidence enough that Clinton is dedicated to changing the status quo, breaking up big business, leveling the playing field for more and more Americans, and being more fair/open than most presidents before her. After all, she has been overwhelmingly transparent throughout the current election, releasing the majority of the emails from her private server (the ones she did not release are, in all likelihood, too sensitive to release publicly – but this does not dissuade the critics from their continued attacks) along with her tax returns and so on.
It is rare, given all this, to significantly change one’s perception of a candidate as preeminent as Clinton. Isaac Saul “did his research” and came to different conclusions about Clinton’s overwhelming qualifications. Hopefully his findings, and their accompanying analysis, will reach registered and/or undecided voters, swaying someone to reconsider Clinton. Most of us have been so wrapped up in our own media echo chambers for so long, however, that even if Saul’s careful, studied reconsideration of Clinton does reach us, it will be near impossible to convince the average media consumer/voter to change his or her mind.
LikeLike
This really was a great read! Thought there have been many people publicly dropping their support for Trump and then backing Clinton, there have been none who have done so under the sheer volition that they truly feel they miss judged Hillary- more so their dislike of Trump, trumped their dislike of Hillary. Many of the spotlights Saul shined on Hillary’s past were even new to my knowledge. I never knew Hillary had done so much as NY state senator after 9/11. I knew about Benghazi; however, I had not known that her and her administration was not found guilty of any wrong doing after Benghazi was investigated. Saul is definitely right that Hillary is extremely qualified, even though she has made some grave mistakes during her very long time in the public eye. I understand Saul’s reasoning for being uncertain about Clinton’s past situations, yet I do not understand how he can switch and be a Clinton supporter if he finds some of her actions to be “unforgivable.” Clinton’s actions could not have been that unforgivable if he has decided to give his up-most support for her current campaign to be the U.S president, but I will not question this too closely for the swing is one that is not too common in this way- ‘Trump hate, Hillary votes’ will probably be way more common than actual ‘Hillary swing votes.’
Taking everything Saul said and the comments here, I can say through the lense of a grain of salt that I believe part of the problem with Hillary being misunderstood is that many new stations, journalists, online- illegitimate- blogs and media outlets are not well informed about Hillary’s career. Many know the highlights but they do not know the facts behind the investigations and even further exploration into her other dealings.
It was also nice to see Saul personally address Clinton towards the end of the article.
***I found myself noticing that I do call her Hillary more often, like we talked about in class, and had to actively stop and change to Clinton ahahah ***
–Brie Cronin ( I could not log in)
LikeLike
The way the article is written is interesting to me because I feel as if this author (Isaac Saul) is relying to heavily upon his change of heart to try and convince others to do the same. He mentions multiple times how much he disliked Hillary before the nomination, and the points he brings up create a main idea that sounds a lot like “If I could change you should too…”
As someone who used to be opposed to Hillary and should’ve had the details to back up opposition (especially as a journalist) I’m surprised the author doesn’t mention more of her mistakes. He says himself that there are many, some even unforgivable. He successfully brings up Benghazi and discredits that as an argument used against her. I wish he would do that more.
What I also found odd was that he speaks of some of her successes rather vaguely. I did my own extensive research into Hillary Clintons past accomplishments during the primary battle (and Ive spent my whole life in the city so I remember much of her tenure, even her initial run) and from Saul’s point of view they sound much greater than how they looked during my research. Is he just an eloquent writer who is able to point out Hillary’s work well? Or is he speaking in a way that is sort of letting her off the hook and making it seem like her accomplishments are more momentous than they actually are?
LikeLike
I honestly enjoyed reading this article because as a Sanders supporter myself I shared the same doubts as the writer. I honestly felt the same way that he did and reading his former pieces criticizing Clinton only made me further identify with the author. I too felt like I was giving my vote to Clinton just to prevent trump from getting elected and because my first choice didn’t make it through. This article (and class) really debunked everything I had thought about Clinton especially the Benghazi scandal. It really addresses the stereotype of her not being a trustful politician and that’s I think is one of the most powerful critiques of her, which is preventing the public from supporting her fully. What this reading left me with was questions on whether or not trump supporters would even take this argument into account ? Would they be swayed like I was? Or is the target audience Bernie supporters like myself?
LikeLike
I’m in a similar boat as you. I don’t trust or have much faith in any politician, but I’m informed enough to understand the ramifications of both potential presidencies. To your questions; it’s hard for me to believe that Trump supporters would be swayed by this – I don’t mean to paint them with a broad brush, but anyone who is willing to stick with Trump at this point is going down with the ship.
LikeLike
Something I found interesting about Saul’s transformation of opinion was his admitting that he was an ardent Sanders supporter, a “Bernie Bro”, if you will. Ostensibly, people who supported Bernie in his bid for the nomination have at least some political views similar to those of Hillary—even if they don’t realize it. Is it not, then, easier for a former Bro to be swayed to support Hillary than, say, a Trump supporter or a Republican? Though Bernie is generally more progressive than Hillary, particularly on economic issues, their ideas are often similar if not overlapping. However, those who identify as conservative or Republican will often hold values that run counter to some of Hillary’s political opinions/the opinions of the Democratic party. So, even if they researched Hillary’s qualifications as thoroughly as Saul has and even if they attempted to view her objectively the way he has, would they reach a similar conclusion? Or would their loyalty to the party overshadow their acknowledgement of her qualifications for the position of President?
LikeLike
Like everyone else, I really enjoyed this article. I don’t ever fully trust any politician so I share the same skepticism as the author. I agree that at first, I felt like I was giving my vote to Clinton just as an action to stop Trump from getting elected because my first choice of Sanders didn’t make the cut. I love that this article stresses the stereotype of HRC not being completely trustful because I think that’s why the public (along with myself at first) wouldn’t (or still doesn’t) trust her fully. After this class, and studying Hillary more closely, my options have changed of HRC.
LikeLike
I believe that we expect politicians to be polished. We want there speeches to be perfectly inspiring and for their persona to be absolutely charming. This is an unrealistic expectation. We put them on a pedestal which limits their ability to be fully human. A part of being human is to make mistakes, a lot of them. To expect Clinton not to make mistakes is delusional. I believe this society has an infatuation with perfection, which had many negative effects. One of which is the dehumanization of public figures.
LikeLike
“Why are her achievements overshadowed by those of Donald Trump’s?” I think some of that is self-inflicted as much of the voter appeals via debates/political ads center on discrediting Trump rather than actually making her specific accolades crystal clear. One thing I notice in teaching is that things become more digestible for your learners when they are presented in several formats (text, video) alongside the lecturing. I think it’s common for the general populace to have a vague understanding of Hillary’s role in the political arena; even this author concedes guilt of ignorance which is astounding for a journalist for a publication as large as the Huffington Post.
What I like most about the article is how it’s a recent article that manages to frame her in a positive light and as you stated call attention to her qualifications. Thanks for picking it!
LikeLike