The buzz on Hillary Clinton is endless. No stranger to politics, she was pushed to the front of the Democratic Party with a massive smile on her face long ago. It was expected that she would be the frontrunner nominee for the 2016 election, almost like a coronation. The Democratic Party had it planned. For years, it has been expected that she would be the first female President of the United States. It would be revolutionary. Truly history-making. But does she have what it takes? Does her record justify her candidacy? Here's what I think -- let's take a look:

Her first political exposure.

While her husband, Bill Clinton, was President, he entrusted his wife with selecting critical appointees to his administration. He gave her the authority to appoint different government officials. President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general, which the President later described her choice as “my worst mistake.” In addition to this, Hillary selected former law partners Web Hubble for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department. Hubble later went to prison, Foster is assumed to have committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

Her record on healthcare reform.

President Clinton additionally chose his wife to spearhead his healthcare reform policy. After spending roughly $13 million of taxpayer money, she failed to get one vote for her reform policies, even in a Democratic-controlled Congress.

Contradictions and inconsistencies.

Mrs. Clinton claims to be consistent despite changing her views multiple times throughout her years in politics. She said for years that she did not support gay marriage until she began running for President and changed her mind. She was caught in several lies about many of her scandals, especially pertaining to her emails (seen below). She also claims to be against investment banks while several of them are her top contributors. And these are just the tip of the iceberg.

Accepted millions of dollars from foreign governments.

While Secretary of State, The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from individuals and countries with questionable agendas that fund Islamic organizations, harbor terrorists and execute men and women. While these actions may or may not be illegal, the appearance of buying Mrs. Clinton's influence can be seen as highly unethical.

Benghazi.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton held a lot of responsibility when it came to the attacks on a United States embassy in Benghazi. Initially, requests for additional security in Benghazi were denied by the State Department. On the night of the attacks, hours went by as calls for help were reportedly ignored. Ultimately, four people were killed including the American Ambassador, and several people were critically injured. Does the Secretary of State ultimately bear the responsibility for the safety of her employees?

Not ending there, after the attacks, Clinton refused to recognize them as a terrorist action. She lied to the public, as well as the families of the four people who died, by telling them that it was nothing more than a protest gone wrong instead of the planned attack that it was. Meanwhile, she emailed her daughter and said that the men were killed by an “Al Qaeda-like group” and had nothing to do with a protest.

Her email scandal.

One of the most prominent scandals of her time, Hillary Clinton sent and received highly classified government documents on a personal email server. Clinton claims that she never sent emails that were marked classified at the time, despite the State Department releasing emails proving that some, in fact, received classified markings. The Inspector General for the intelligence community told members of Congress that several dozen additional emails in Clinton’s server received a higher classification than top secret, meaning that they contained highly sensitive programs. As U.S. Senator and as Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton had more than her fair share of exposure to classified information. Is the public supposed to believe that she did not understand that she was reading classified information? And why did she have a private email server? Why did she insist on handling the people's business on a private email based out of her home rather than on her official Department of State email that is made to handle classified information?

A lot of people are blinded by the fact that they want a woman in the Oval Office. But as we take a look at her record one more time, Mrs. Clinton has shown a tendency to abuse the positions of authority of which she has been given. Do we really want a person like this, man or woman, put in the highest position of authority, our Commander in Chief? Is she really as qualified as everyone wants to believe she is?