For John, BLUF: The resume isn't everything. Nothing to see here; just move along.
From The Boston Globe, and the pen of Mr Jeff Jacoby, we have "The 'most qualified' candidate ever?". The on-line headline is "Does Hillary’s resume really make her the ‘best-qualified’ presidential candidate?", which is toned down from, and reoriented from, the print headline.
The photo cut line in the print version is "Clinton is not as qualified as . . . James Buchanan.
Mr Jacoby makes the point that Mr James Buchanan was the most qualified candidate ever,
Prior to becoming the 15th president of the United States, Buchanan was a member of the Pennsylvania legislature, was elected five times to the US House of Representatives, and served as ambassador to Russia. He went back to Congress after his diplomatic tour in St. Petersburg, spending 10 years as senator from Pennsylvania — a post he resigned in 1845 to become secretary of state. He was offered a seat on the Supreme Court, which he declined, but later returned to diplomacy as America’s ambassador to Great Britain.But, as Mr Jacoby points out, President Buchanan was the worst of all our Presidents. When people claim that President Obama or President Carter or President George W Bush was the worst President ever, I think about President James Buchanan, who stood by while the Union came apart and the US Civil War become more and more of a possibility.
One could put it down to the fact that President Buchanan was a Democrat and Columnist Jacoby is down on Democrats, but I think he is right. James Buchanan was a lousy president and a good resume doesn't promise good performance.
The other conclusion to draw from this is that the print version of The Boston Globe is different from, and edgier than, the on-line version.
Regards — Cliff