Well, this is a matter of opinion. My first campaign was George McGovern and to this day I remember his direct and specific accomplishments which were mainly about legislation that he wrote and got passed. He had tons of it. Clinton is one of hundreds of people to run for President, one of thousands of people to be a Senator (and most were for much longer), one of hundreds of people to be Secretary of a department. She has never held an executive position in which we can judge her by specific accomplishments. There have been 33 women Senators, 3 women Sec of State, and 33 women who ran for President so even the woman thing is overrated, IMO. Oh sure, I can read articles like
Hillary Clinton's Accomplishments Speak for Themselves | US News Opinion and read how she speaks about this and did something that may have led to that but they all sound so nebulous and non-specific.
Would prefer someone who has served in the military, been chief executive for at least 10 years so that we can see a track record, have specific legislation that they initiate and passed if they were in government. Don't think much of words like "he speaks out for the poor" or "instrumental in getting funding" (HOW specifically) or getting credentialed. That stuff is too easy to fake. Like "I was instrumental in maintaining the money supply post 9-11" because I worked in a bank.
