In his campaign against John Kerry, the issue that George Bush felt the most politically insecure about was Kerry's valorous military service. As you will remember, Bush chose to cut out early on his Texas National Guard service while Kerry fought in Vietnam. So, in an effort to inoculate himself from his own shortcoming, and weaken a key strength of his opponent, Bush - counter-intuitively - went on the offensive on this issue actually attacking Kerry. You will remember the "Swift Boating" that no doubt occurred through the evil genius of Bush strategist Karl Rove.

Fast forward to the current contest and the reigning mistress of political tactic, Hillary Clinton, finds herself in the race of her life with Barack Obama. In Rovian, Swift-Boat style, Hillary has seen fit to run on her . . . experience. The fact is - she has none. Let me make it plain. Clinton running on her experience is akin to Bush Swift-Boating Kerry. It's all about political positioning and fiction. It is a position devoid of truth and integrity. What experience does Hillary Clinton have?

Hillary constantly talks about her "35 years experience" when attempting to build the case for why America should feel comfortable with her. Let's be clear. 100% of Hillary's experience is because of her proximity to her husband. She earned none of it herself. Anything and everything that Hillary has done in her professional life has occurred because she happened to be in the orbit of her husband as governor of Arkansas and then president of the United States. Many feminists are having trouble with the Hillary campaign for precisely this reason. They recognize that their fundamental reliance on female achievement is, in fact, totally contradicted by Hillary's record tied directly to the circumstance of her marriage.

Let's think about it: would a "no name" Hillary Clinton have been able to walk into New York and win a senate seat without the extraordinary name recognition that being First Lady brought her? Without the senate seat, would she have any kind of platform for a credible run at the White House? According to Hillary, it's her life-long base of experience that is propelling her toward the White House. Really?

Hillary - effectively - is a mere proxy for Bill. She would have no political standing or place in American politics without the (increasingly rancid) 'after glow' of her husband. Isn't it curious that while she continues to proclaim her experience, she refuses to release her records as First Lady of what that achievement really was? Perhaps that would focus America on all of the state dinners and funerals that really populated her calendar. Beyond that, the one issue that she attempted to conquer early in her husband's first term - health care reform - was a tragic disaster in her hands. Does she really want us to evaluate her current candidacy based upon that inadequate and incompetent attempt?

Politics is about painting a picture of yourself. I certainly understand why Hillary would want America to think of her as a seasoned, life-long political activist. As consumers of politics, though, it is our responsibility to see through the hype and make up our own minds. Hillary's experience is - at best - as merely being in the room when Bill did his thing. It is akin to what Chelsea, their daughter, can claim - or maybe even that of a Secret Service guard. Merely observing a presidency does not magically make one competent to be a candidate in and of itself. Character and judgment and integrity and vision are the key attributes that must form the foundation of any candidacy. But, alas, those are precisely the things that Hillary wants to distract us from lest we see that what is driving her is simply a naked avarice for power and greed and position - on both her and her husband's part. Time will tell.

Please Stumble This!

You provided the 'nutshell'.

'Hillary - effectively - is a mere proxy for Bill.'---MBM

Senator Clinton is at best...a superimposing echo.

She and 'Magic' are projecting a false image.

PEACE

Jim Chester