By now, this shouldn't need repeating, but for those partisans and pundits alike, who are still drinking the Clinton Kool-Aid, here goes…

The conventional wisdom within Democratic Party circles and endlessly trumpeted by an unreflective press, was that Clinton was the most gifted politician of his generation — he could do no wrong. Democrats adored him; he was a crowd pleaser and could fill a stadium with his enraptured fans at any time he chose. As such, it was believed he would be a great asset to Hillary's campaign. How could he not be in light of the slavish adulation upon which he was constantly showered and sadly, about which top aides to Hillary unquestionably believed? What was it about the man that his champions missed but the rest of us knew from the start?

Narcissistic to the core, did the purveyors of Bill Clinton's political prowess think that he would all of a sudden change his stripes and selflessly and glowingly speak on behalf of his wife's purported virtues and qualifications for the presidency? When he spoke, it was, not about Hillary but rather all about him. Eager to rewrite his tarnished legacy, every stump speech he gave on her behalf was an attempt at historical revisionism. Not surprisingly, her name rarely came up at all when he was charged to speak on her behalf. Despite his foibles, he was a stirring success in one important regard: he reminded voters in a very unsettling way of why they didn't think a Clinton Restoration would be a very good idea. Unwittingly, he stood the "two for the price of one" mantra on its head: although she was the candidate, the new rallying cry became: "one for the price of one". Always craving the center stage, he reduced her quest for the presidency to an afterthought.

By virtue of his incorrigibility, It is ironic that the country's "first black president" was perhaps singularly responsible for the massive defection of African-American voters to Obama. By the end, he was banished to the hinterlands, where he was permitted to speak before crowds no larger than could fit in the back of a pick-up truck. Out of sight, out of mind was the operative strategy for the aging has-been rock star.

With not a shred of authentic evidence to bolster this assertion, Hillary's campaign continues to perpetrate the fraud that she will be ready from Day One to lead. In this regard, her campaign spiel is an object-lesson in false advertising. There does exist substantive evidence, recently acquired, about her management expertise and ability to lead an enterprise. And here, the evidence is rather damning. An unbiased examination of the gross mismanagement of her own campaign, in and of itself, puts the lie to the bogus assertion that she is capable of leading from Day One. As press reports are now beginning to make clear, Hillary's campaign will be recorded as one of the most inept and dysfunctional in recent political history. Bereft of any strategic planning, she had no Plan B in place to carry-on the fight after a loss on Super Tuesday. Her campaign manager, chosen solely for her loyalty instead of her competence, burned through the campaign cash at an alarming rate and with reckless abandon, leaving the organization broke when Hillary needed money the most and having little to show for the expenditures. To this day, the very public bickering, backstabbing and internal conflict that has plagued her campaign continues unabated. Voters viewing this spectacle may wonder in trepidation that if a Clinton II Presidency in any way mirrors the inept handling of her own campaign, it would be a national catastrophe.

Her chief political "experience" consisted of heading up a damage control department to deal with the numerous bimbo eruptions and other scandals that defined the Clinton Presidency. Her job was to ruthlessly crush the Clintons adversaries. Does this type of experience qualify her for the presidency? Since Hillary has no substantial relevant experience, her campaign has resorted to the fraudulent pretense of rewriting her role as first lady. There was the high-risk and daring descent by plane into Bosnia; there was her integral role in the Irish Peace Process; there was her lasting work on behalf of "children" during her brief one year stint at the Children's Defense Fund. The make-believe list goes on and on…

Scrutiny reveals however, that each one of her major accomplishments touted to the public are wholly fictional. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the Clintons have not been forthcoming about releasing her White House records so inquiring minds can compare the perception purveyed with the dismal and baneful reality. The dirty little secret of the Democratic race is that neither Obama nor Hillary have any substantive experience that would qualify them for the highest office in the land.

This is an especial favorite of most media mavens. Every time they assure us that the voters are "turned off" by negative campaigning, a candidates effective use of same bears fruit. Exhibit "A" is Hillary's 3 A.M ad. Next time she appears on one of the cable talk shows, perhaps one of the proponents of the negative-ads-are-bad-view can solicit her views on the subject.

Part of the reason this powerful myth endures is that the term "negative campaigning" or "attack ads" is pristinely undefined. Would reasonable people lump together the despicable slander of Obama by repeatedly invoking his cocaine use with an ad (3A.M) that questions his qualifications and experience to be commander-in-chief? The two ads or criticisms are qualitatively different. Despite Obama's whining about the ad as "fear mongering", it was perfectly legitimate. Any ad or response that calls into question an opponents character or fitness for the office, and any of his professed qualifications for the presidency is fair game. All too often candidates, as well as the media, characterize any ad that causes embarrassment or forces a candidate to defend a policy issues or prior inconsistent statement as "attack ads". This is patent nonsense.

Morale of the story? Don't believe everything you hear or read by mainstream media journalists and pundits on this score.

Watch for this myth to be exploded shortly. Although he is possessed of a keen intelligence, on certain matters, Mr. Clean can be a slow learner. The Obama campaign is just now starting to realize that they need to hit Hillary where it hurts, her arrogant expectation that she somehow is shielded from prior scandals notwithstanding.

Who postulated this absurd rule as inviolate? Why naturally, the Clintons. If Obama buys into this ridiculous and wholly self-serving directive, he will have ceded the election strategy to Hillary. In this regard, fortunately for Obama, Hillary's experience in public life presents a treasure-trove of legitimate and highly unflattering information that is a god-send to any political opponent. The list is a long one: Impeachment, Kathleen Wiley, Juanita Broadrick, Filegate, Whitewater, Travelgate, ransacking the furniture upon leaving the White House. Why won't Obama capitalize on it? It seems the main reason he is reluctant to present the facts about the Clintons is that he feels that it would do damage to his campaign template of being "above the fray". But the sheen on his halo has already been tarnished by his NAFTA double-talk, and the numerous, and as yet unanswered, questions about his dealings with Rezco. Additionally, After Ohio and Texas, it should be apparent to his campaign, that not all Democratic voters — particularly blue-collar voters— are captivated by his New Messiah mystique.

Obama should stop responding to Hillary's bazooka attacks with a water pistol. By foolishly invoking Ken Starr recently, she has inadvertently given him an opening.

He has very little to lose by Jogging voters memories of the Clintons' scandal-plagued political history. But times a wasting…