Have you noticed the overuse of the notion of "qualification" in this election cycle? It irritates me. It sounds so high-handed to declare the other person "disqualified."
Bernie Sanders asserted that Hillary had said that he's "not qualified to be president," and he took off on her:
"I don't believe that she is qualified if she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds. I don't think that you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your Super PAC. I don't think you are qualified if you have voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. I don't think you are qualified if you've supported virtually every disastrous trade agreement, which has cost us millions of decent-paying jobs."In fact, Bernie's assertion about Hillary was rated "mostly false" by Politifact. She avoided — even when pushed — using that word against him. She was cagey enough to respond to "Is he qualified?" with a list of his supposed shortcomings and "that does raise a lot of questions." Bernie's assertion that Hillary is unqualified brought out the indignant supporters:
Prominent surrogates for Mrs. Clinton such as Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York and Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri vouched for her qualifications and warned that Mr. Sanders was crossing the line.Having lived through the Bernie-and-Hillary back-and-forth over who's "qualified," I was annoyed by Romney's approach. We already knew how much Romney opposes Trump. It might be desirable that presidential candidates release their tax returns, but it's not on the level of being 35 years old and a natural-born citizen.
“Calling Hillary Clinton not qualified is like fingernails on a black board to many women across this country, and I think Bernie probably knows that,” Ms. McCaskill told MSNBC on Thursday.
Spare me the q-word.