Ampersand posts the converse. I disagree.

Every person should support the notion that a woman can be President just as a man can, that I can accept.

But Hillary Clinton specifically? She is grossly unqualified to be the chief executive of the country. No executive experience. No military experience. No private-sector leadership experience. A relatively insubstantial legislative career. She has great political experience and contacts – but that isn’t enough. You don’t have to have all of those things to be qualified for the Presidency, but you have to have something. ”Had sex with Bill Clinton at least once” is not a sufficient resume item; if it were, we’d have had a much larger primary field. She’s never fired a shot in anger, never met a payroll, never built a business enterprise, never led men and women in an organizational capacity. My dad is better qualified – and he isn’t even close to being qualified.

She is better qualified than Obama, that I’ll grant you – but whisper-thin-marginally and mostly due to the biographies of other people. She’s got executive experience the way Kerry had money – none of her own, some illusorily reflected by proxy.

McCain by contrast isn’t terribly well qualified for the office, but he at least has military experience and a lengthy legislative history. Historically that’s enough; I can think of decent presidents who had less. I can’t think of ANY modern President with a resume as thin as hers. Bush would be close, but he edges her across the board.

So I’d be leery of supporting Hillary Clinton’s presumptive right to run for the office. Governor, absolutely. VP, a stretch but perhaps if she were yoked to a strong Presidential candidate. The Big Chair? Hell no.