Hail Hillary! Woman who has never done anything gives speech; people care for some reason

Hillary has nothing of substance to say about anything. I'll spare you the excerpted quotes, which you can read yourself if you really want to give Politico the click. Hillary has become the personification of a political system that is incapable of solving problems or dealing seriously with just about any issue at all, and the very fact that she is taken seriously as a presidential candidate makes this so. The job of the president (or of a member of Congress for that matter) is to develop and implement policies that result in a) effective governance of the nation; and b) an environment that fosters prosperity and national security. When looking for people to trust with these responsibilities, you would start by looking for someone with a track record of doing these kinds of things. That would tend to lead you to a governor who had achieved similar goals in his or her state, or perhaps a member of Congress who did very well sponsoring legislation that had proven beneficial to the nation. You could look to mayors of big cities whose leadership had demonstrably led to good things. You could look to a business leader who had proven to be a very effective executive and could show solid results.

These would be the traits that would indicate a person had a good chance of success as the nation's chief executive. But in our current political environment, we scarcely even think about such things. The person most likely to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate has:

• Name recognition
• The ability to raise a lot of money
• The ability to come across well on television
• Oratorical skills (real or perceived)
• Debating skills
• The ability to avoid verbal "gaffes" and thus public embarrassment
• Nice hair, a slender physical build, sufficient height, no beard or moustache
• No trait or characteristic of any kind that could be portrayed as "odd"

Put all this together, and the political class and media will take you seriously as a candidate. Come to the race with a solid record of achievement, but few or none of these traits, and watch as they either ignore you or ridicule you. Let me give you an example just to prove a point. Let's say the governor of my state decided to run for president. His name is Rick Snyder and he is currently finishing up his first term. I highly doubt he has any thoughts of running for president, but if he did he could say:

• He balanced the state's budget every year, even running some surpluses, after years of never-ending budget crises under his predecessor.
• He pushed through significant changes in the state's tax system and labor laws to make it more business-friendly.
• Major economic indicators improved under his leadership.

Now the very fact that I'm even offering Snyder as an example would surely inspire political insider types to hoot and howl: "Snyder? Are you serious? He has the charisma of a broken shoelace! When he speaks, people can hardly stay awake!" And on and on. And yet the three bullet points I offered here represent far more achievement in governing than anything Hillary Clinton has ever done. Her track record consists of getting elected and appointed, not of accomplishing anything while in the positions she attained. I am not suggesting or urging that Rick Snyder should run for president. I am saying he has the kind of track record that should, but does not, earn someone a respectful look as a candidate. So did former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels going into the last two presidential cycles, but Daniels was seen as a poor candidate because a) he is short; b) he is balding; and c) his marriage has some rocky history. His excellent economic achievements in Indiana notwithstanding, Daniels was not the kind of guy political operatives wanted in the race. Consider what happened to Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who has led Texas to an amazing run of economic prosperity at a time when the national economy has struggled. He had a mental block during a debate and forgot one of three cabinet-level departments he wanted to eliminate. The media declared his candidacy over, and it was. For that? That was more important than everything he had achieved as governor? Yep. By contrast, Hillary Clinton is seen as the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination, in spite of no track record whatsoever of successful governance at any level. Barack Obama was the same way. He had been a U.S. senator for four years, and could not even boast of a major piece of legislation he had sponsored or co-sponsored. But because he was seen as a good speaker with "charisma," he was taken seriously as a candidate. Is it any wonder, then, that America can not stop piling up debt, cannot bring unemployment down, cannot achieve a stable currency, cannot get energy and health care policies right, cannot achieve healthy GDP growth, cannot rein in out-of-control federal agencies, cannot reverse urban blight, cannot stop family breakdown, cannot improve education . . . and on and on we go? We can't solve any of these problems because we refuse to even consider electing leaders who have proven their ability to achieve such solutions, while we fawn all over candidates like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who are skilled at selling themselves but little else. I tend to blame the political establishment and the media more than I blame the electorate, since I think the voters would take real qualificiations seriously if they ever got the chance to hear about them. You can't very well consider someone whose candidacy was laughed out of town by the gatekeepers of information. But the electorate bears some of the blame for accepting what the political establishment and the media feeds it, and not insisting on something better. If the establishment keeps treating Hillary Clinton as a serious candidate for president, people should really ask why. It is certainly not because she is qualified for the job. It is only because she has skillfully fostered the Hillary Clinton brand, and people who should know better respect that branding ability but don't care about her governing ability, which from all available evidence is non-existent. If we're going to keep vetting candidates on the basis of matters such as these, we're going to keep getting people who talk a good game about solving problems but never actually solve them - when we should have known they never would because they never have.