|
... interview for it like everyone else.
Why does it feel like her and her supporters feel they should be entitled to it just because of who she is?
First of all this is not a Hillary bashing post. I'm not about to call her names.
But I am going to say, that I don't think that Hillary should just be granted the post. I think that they should interview her, interview the other candidates and consider all the factors: foreign policy experience, the consituency each person brings to the table, their economic qualifications, their ability to get into the typical attack-dog role of a VP candidate, and (most importantly) the sort of role the envision for themself as a vice president, and why they want the VP role.
I don't like many of the arguments I've seen for Hillary as vice president because they all seem to suggest that Hillary is entitled to the post. I've never liked that about Hillary. Throughout her campaign I've gotten the impression both from her and her supporters that they felt that Hillary was entitled to the nomination, and that anyone who didn't agree that she was the best person for the job must be out of their minds. A lot of the arguments in favor of making Hillary veep seem to run along the same vein. I don't think anyone should just be handed the VP position. That would be like hiring your cousin for a job without interviewing him because he is your cousin. He may certainly be qualified for the job, but is he really more qualified for it than each one of the 9 or 10 candidates that would have applied if you had taken an ad out in the paper? If I were trying to fill a position here at my company I would resent it if my cousin told me to give it to him just because we are cousins, and I resent the implication that Hillary should be given the job just because she is Hillary. A VP search commitee has been appointed they will screen candidates, and hopefully interview all potential candidates, and they will reach a decision. I think that's the way to do it.
|