A bit of a stretch trying to fabricate her as Presidential given her asinine attempts at aphorisms.... she's no Oscar Wilde or inspirational speaker, certainly not in the same league as conceited Don. And that nervous tic of exagerated laughter is a dead giveaway of uncertainty and/or disenguinity.
She doesn't come across as having any real substantive contribution to the national argument, but that might be just what the party apparatchik want; another frontispiece to replace the existing one while they get on with their real agenda of dominion.
My question to you StR is if you can consider the POTUS is becoming more titular than substantive, more tip-toed than sure footed, comparing it to times gone by?
