Exactly what was it about Hillary’s recent speech in Selma that made supporters and detractors alike cringe upon viewing the spectacle of the Wellesley College graduate and resident of New York State speaking with a Southern drawl? It wasn’t just the pandering — of which all politicians are culpable. Rather, the resulting criticism seemed more to stem from the fact that the whole episode reeked so tellingly of insincerity.

And therein lies one of the most vulnerable aspects of her candidacy: the absence of even a shred of authenticity. Is there any aspect of Hillary’s march to the White House that will be, genuine, sincere, spontaneous and not heavily scripted? For many Democrats, the Selma incident simply reinforces the painful answer to this question — No. In light of the reality of an alternative in Obama, the inevitable dilemma for party loyalists becomes: how do they explain, enable or continue to justify the incorrigible mendacity of the Clintons’?

There was no need to adopt the fake Southern accent, just as there was no need to say I didn’t inhale, or that President Clinton’s troubles were all caused by a vast right-wing conspiracy; nor, that Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, despite the fact the mountaineer scaled Everest some six years after Hillary was born. As they watch the tactics from the old Clinton Administration play out endlessly through the vehicle of Hillary’s candidacy, many Democrats, who out of party loyalty, were forced to bear witness to the moral fiber of their party being corroded, must now, in exasperation, say never again. As David Geffen reminded us, the Clintons’ lie with ease; close observers of this political couple also remind us of another, perhaps even more painful truth: the Clintons’ lie unnecessarily. For them, deception is a virtue.

Indeed, the behavior of Hillary at every step in her journey for political power has strained our credulity to the point, of on many occasions, insulting our intelligence. Her “listening tour” and its latest incarnation, the hoax of a “conversation”; the power sharing arrangement she has maintained with her husband which they characterize as a “marriage”; her inartful straddle on her Iraq war vote that prevents her from performing a true act of contrition for Democratic primary voters; her sudden conversion as a Yankee’s fan. All of it reeks of dishonesty. For, when it comes to dissembling, the Clintons’ seem constitutionally incapable of moderation. Fatigued by this onslaught, are Democrats supposed to overlook the obvious and unremitting chicanery? Is allegiance to her ideological agenda sufficient to override one’s natural sentiment of revulsion at all this orchestrated phoniness?

As her candidacy is the embodiment of meticulous planning and clever sound bites, there have been no surprises to date. Even at this early stage of her campaign, there is a feeling of déjà vu: we’ve seen it all before in another political life. Her stance on Iraq has the distinct aroma of old style classic Clinton triangulation right out of the Dick Morris playbook. That was a political strategy used to good effect last century. Alas, familiarity breeds contempt, and, Democratic primary voters have been dismissive when she regurgitates, on cue, and with robotic predictability, her by now hackneyed phrase to disavow her vote for the Iraq war: “If we knew then what we know now”… How does such banal discourse in any way resemble a “conversation”?

In countless ways Hillary’s candidacy is very much old wine in new bottles. Her unimaginative and insipid “Let’s have a conversation” sham is nothing more than the repackaging of her Senatorial campaign’s “listening tour.” No surprises or grand themes here. It is sufficient that it served her well when she ran for the Senate. Her campaign is not meant to inspire, nor to stir the passions, but rather is an exercise in demanding fealty from her presumed loyal and unwavering subjects who are supposed to accept — nay endure — the aura of her invincibility.

As the chosen campaign theme, the pretense of having a “conversation” is not only fraudulent on its face, it constantly reminds us of her predilection for prevarication. A visit to her web site confirms the “conversation” ruse. During one of her “web chats”, Hillary’s web coordinator points to the laptop screen with her finger and recites the next “question” from an eager internet citizen waiting to chat with Hillary. Hillary addresses the alleged interlocutor by their first name and drones on with her stock solutions to health care, the war in Iraq, and other sundry public policy questions. The web coordinator points to the screen again for the next “question” and the artifice is repeated anew.

There is nothing novel about the experience. The web chat is supposed to demonstrate that Hillary is “cutting edge”. But one walks away feeling that this is just another unremarkable example of the Clinton campaign regurgitating her prior policy pronouncements. It is a pre-programmed, heavily scripted affair, devoid of any novelty or panache. Like her counterfeit Southern dialect, it’s all too contrived, too staged; inauthentic at its core — another guise in the Clinton arsenal brought out to con — if such a thing is possible — the still gullible and unsuspecting. So patently phony is the web chat experience, that Hillary’s credibility would be immeasurably enhanced if she simply dispensed with this subterfuge.

The ill-advised manner in which her campaign responded to the Geffen defection is indicative of the long-term problems facing her candidacy, all of which are predicated on her sense of entitlement. Hillary has been told for years that she was the presumptive front-runner — the nomination was hers for the asking. Her cheerleaders in a fawning and adoring mainstream media trumpeted this assertion repeatedly. In her mind, as the loyal, dutiful wife, who had endured the shame of her husbands philandering, the presidency was her just prize to be bequeathed by a grateful and adoring party. Ascending to the nomination was not an honor to be earned, but rather, a title to be bestowed. The campaign to secure her party’s nomination was a mere formality; it was to resemble more a coronation than a dog fight. Her enablers in the media never disabused her of this notion.

Armed with this mentality, her campaign has been presented as a fait accompli. For many Democratic primary voters, Hillary’s candidacy generates all the enthusiasm of a rigged prizefight. But as George Will recently commented, voters don’t especially like being told they don’t have a choice. In this regard, the departure of David Geffen from the Clinton camp may be just the tip of the iceberg. For those weary of Hillary’s manipulations, there is the refuge of the Obama candidacy. In contrast to the predictable Hillary, Obama offers this one crucial and distinguishing characteristic: he is refreshingly unique. By virtue of his youth, his vigor and his ability to excite, Obama is already captivating many Democrats who pine for a new JFK. How does the methodical Hillary stack up against this potential keeper of the Camelot flame? Think Adlai Stevenson in a pants suit.

In addition, Hillary’s novelty has to some extent been overshadowed by the rise of Nancy Pelosi to the rank of Speaker of the House. Compared to this considerable achievement, Hillary's quest for power seems less preordained, less formidable, less alluring than it once was, particularly amongst those enthralled with her candidacy as the personification of gender politics.

We can expect Hillary’s campaign gaffes to continue unabated. For the communications component of the Clinton campaign presupposes a 20th century media landscape in a 21st century internet and media-fragmented world. How else does one explain her deliberate choice to use the Southern twang? Did she not understand that her stunt would be mercilessly mocked, as the Selma video clip made the rounds on You Tube? And, since her campaign is another “two for the price of one” deal, does she seriously believe that discussion of her husband’s impeachment and the couples other sundry ethical and legal transgressions as campaign issues are off the table?

The reality is that the rigor and discipline of the war room as an instrument to crush opposition or control the information flow is of scant use in the age of the world wide web and in an environment where the influence of the mainstream media has waned considerably.

Although the sentiments will never be expressed publicly, the issue for many undecided Democrats is this: Dare they entrust Hillary with the awesome powers of the presidency to preserve her legacy in concert with one who did so much to cheapen, degrade and debase that sacred office? As more prominent Democrats join the Obama camp, increasingly the answer seems to be no.