In a concise 955 words of the last issue of the Dickinsonian Mitchell Snyder wrote an opinion column in response to my earlier piece, “The Qualities of a Leader.” Snyder brought up a legitimate shortcoming in my piece, but in my-undoubtedly biased-opinion, he used some spotty information and failed to offer an alternative. Therefore I have decided to devote this column to addressing his mistakes and my shortcoming.

The most damming accusation from Snyder’s editorial was on the subject of Clinton’s bipartisanship based on the same Politifact that I used to get my figure of 68 percent of the bills she sponsored that were referred to committee having Republican co-sponsors. This specific wording is very important because, “the 355 bills she sponsored that were referred to a Senate committee, Republicans were listed as a co-sponsor 241 times.”

The figure that Snyder cited comes from a spot check performed by Politifact of 703 pieces of legislation that included bills, resolutions and amendments regardless of their advancement through the legislative process. I purposely chose to exclude legislation that was never referred to committee because the significance of these bills are largely along the lines of S.584, S.2839 and S.2133, which renamed federal buildings in New York. Perhaps my decision to exclude these largely ceremonial bills was misleading, these pieces of legislation only bear a passing significance to Clinton’s bipartisan record.

The next accusation was that I had essentially whitewashed Clinton’s record in Libya in my mad haste to dash to endorse her candidacy. He cited Yale English Professor David Bromwich’s scathing criticism of Clinton’s role in the disastrous aftermath of the overthrown of the Gaddafi regime that led to the failed state that we know today.

However, New York Times veteran national security and intelligence reporters Scott Shane and Jo Becker recently published an extensive two-part article that shows a much deeper analysis of the Libyan revolution and its aftermath. In their investigation, they determined that multiple miscommunications led to the demise of Libya rests. The majority of the Obama administration’s top brass felt that after Gaddafi had fallen, the U.S. should take a back seat to the situation. The Qatari government, meanwhile, supplied their favorite factions within Libya with undue amounts of lethal assistance that created an imbalance of power among the different factions.

The new Libyan government, in an attempt to cement their own legitimacy, rejected a large amount of outside aid in their founding process, and without any strong institutions (a legacy of the paranoid Colonel Gaddafi) they were operating beyond their capabilities shortly after the first (surprisingly fair) election. In all of this, Clinton remained vigilant and well informed, “absorbing fat briefing books, inviting dissenting views from subordinates, studying foreign counterparts to learn how to win them over” acting, in my opinion, with all of the qualities necessary for a commander in chief.

At one other point in Snyder’s editorial, he criticized me for not backing up my assertion that Governor Kasich had drifted to the right so much that it is unlikely that he could build the compromise that he was able to during his time in the house. I did not elaborate, but I will now: on the campaign trail he has advocated for a government agency to promote Juedo-Christian values; in Ohio he presided over regulation that would severely limit abortion without exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother; and while he was a host on Fox News he made multiple statements in which he advocated the spanking of prominent female celebrities. I believe these actions speak for themselves.

These criticisms aside, Snyder did illuminate a major shortcoming of mine that I failed to address. Over the course of her political career and during this campaign, Clinton has made several statements about a “right wing conspiracy” and, as Snyder pointed out, called the Republican Party the enemy that she was most proud of. The only way that I have to respond to this fact is to compare her to the other candidates currently vying for the presidency.

You have: the most liberal member of the senate, a hate mongering brand with alarmingly fascist policies, the most conservative member of the senate, Governor Kasich and a man who has repeatedly advocated the opinion that President Obama engaged in a systematic effort to change this country [for the worse]. I am loath to make this argument, as I genuinely believe that Clinton is an amazingly qualified candidate who will make a brilliant president. Unfortunately, on this issue I am limited to the argument that she is simply better than her competitors.

The thesis of my original column was that Clinton has the qualities needed to be the next president, and I will augment that by saying that her record of accomplishments is unparalleled. She championed CHIP, negotiated a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and pushed for the sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table. None of these were perfect, and people on both sides had their complaints. That is what happens in a democracy, every solution is based in compromise, and while it is a fundamental right to disagree with anything, it is the responsibility of our elected officials to come up with solutions to our problems. Clinton offers solution and I would ask Snyder to tell me what his preferred candidate offers.