Is criticism of Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments fair?

by NW Spotlight

Criticism of Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments, or lack of accomplishments, has been in the news again recently. Panelists on CNN laughed when a State Department spokesperson was unable to name a specific accomplishment of Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State. The NY Times reported on Hillary Clinton’s struggle to name “her proudest achievement as secretary of state” in front of “a friendly audience at a women’s forum in Manhattan.”

So are these legitimate questions and concerns, or a symptom of a misogynistic double-standard for female Democratic candidates?

A complete lack of accomplishments wasn’t an issue for Democratic candidate Barack Obama. He was elected president and even won the Nobel Peace Prize without accomplishments. He was nominated for the Peace Prize less than two weeks after being sworn in as President.

Larry Huss outlined Barack Obama’s complete lack of accomplishments in his article yesterday in Oregon Catalyst:

Mr. Obama’s whole life has been a series of triumphs of form over substance. He has always been a big talker with no accomplishments. As a college student at Occidental he distinguished himself mostly by smoking dope and talking big. He gained access to America’s most expensive Ivy League school – Columbia University – with no discernible academic achievement or financial means. And from there he moved on to Harvard Law School despite the fact that he was not an honors graduate at Columbia – a virtually immovable requisite for other students. He became editor of the Harvard Law Review without ever publishing a law review article – the primary responsibility of the editor. He was the first and the last to be so rewarded.

As an Illinois legislator he was noted most for voting “present” on most controversial measures and for supporting a bill that would have allowed doctors to kill a child born live during an abortion procedure. He was elected to the United States Senate when Republican Jack Ryan, who was favored to win, got caught in a sex scandal. His Senate career is an unblemished record of nothing – no accomplishments. His fame came as a result of his single outstanding capability – he gave a rousing speech at the National Democrat Convention that was loaded with big promises. It is the exact same thing that makes most grifters successful – for a while.

So why the double standard for Hillary Clinton? Why does SHE have to have accomplishments?

Republicans are the ones who are all hung up on actual accomplishments – Democrats should be judged on the strength of their ideas.

This current wave of criticism of Hillary Clinton’s lack of accomplishments is patently unfair, and likely guided by misogynistic elements within the Democratic Party and within the media.