News-Record.com

Is it just me, or has Hillary Clinton built the foundation of her campaign on a dubious and contradictory premise: that she is the "experienced" candidate?

Here's the problem with that logic: Much of that "experience," as she defines it, is experience by association -- or more specifically, by marriage.

So, on the one hand, Clinton is a living symbol of the potenital of a smart, tough female candidate to apsire to -- and win -- the highest office in the country. That's a good thing.

On the other, she clutches firmly, at times desperately, to her husband's coattails. Even when she tamped down Bill's profile, she contnued to hitch a convenient ride on his resume, as if she were president during those two terms, not Bill. That's not a good thing.

Does she get instant presidential street cred simply because she lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. for two terms? So did the Bush twins.

By that logic, a woman (or man, for that matter) who marries a rocket scientist gains, by osmosis, I guess, the credentials of a rocket scientist.

Bret Favre's wife, Deanna, is experienced in the nuances of quarterbacking an NFL team.

A man who marries a college president is experienced in the art of running an academic institution.

A cop's wife is a better candidate for the police force.

What it the message here? That marrying a U.S. president naturally qualifies you to be a U.S. president?

The fact is, Hillary's experience argument is tenuous at best.

She has held one elective office in her entire life -- one handpicked in a community in which she had no roots. For the record, Barack Obama, whom she paints as soaking wet behind the ears, has more total elective experience than her.

What it the message here? That marrying a president naturally qualifies you to run for president?

This is not to say Hillary isn't qualified. This is to say that the experience argument that she emphasizes the most is specious and way overblown. And that it's questionable how much truth there is in that advertising.

.