The Emperoress Is Wearing No Credibility by Doug Wrenn

The Emperoress Is Wearing No Credibility

By Doug Wrenn

January 08, 2007

Not even a queen, be she presumed, or coronated, can have her regal cake and eat it, too.

The more Hillary Clinton touts her alleged "experience" in foreign affairs, the more I scratch my head in befuddlement.

By what venue did she ever procure such vast experience?

As a newly reelected US Senator, Hillary has slightly more seniority than her opponents, freshman Senator Barack Obama and former (one-term) Senator John Edwards, which is to say that she has very little seniority at all.

Of course, Hillary is coyly alluding to her time as First Lady, and she is correct in not making too fine a point of it.

There is actually an official office in the White House known as "The Office of The First Lady," although I have never seen any mention of "The First Lady" anywhere in the Constitution, nor have I ever seen any such line on the ballot in a presidential election, and I have now voted in quite a few of them. The most galling aspect of this farce is that presumably, our tax dollars fund this unelected, unconstitutional, and dare I say, unnecessary, albeit historically accepted position. (Sorry, Dolly!)

"Team Bill/Hill" is dragging its feet in releasing documentation exposing what, if anything, Hillary did as First Lady. The promised, but conveniently delayed future release of these documents will reportedly only occur after the documents are first censored by her former co-President (the elected one). Why?

Despite her incessant and tedious assertion of possessed, strong, feminine independence, Hillary still seems willingly and firmly latched onto her husband's coattails, which is not the same as "standing by her man," as she did during his many previous dalliances.

If in fact, the position of First Lady is a presumed cabinet post, then perhaps Hillary could explain to the American electorate why during the "Bill/Hill" years, she and her presidential partner, with the aid of their Congressional Democrat cronies, spent much of their eight years in office dangerously decimating the ranks of both our intelligence and military forces, and why she and hubby were as supposedly duped about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and of the need to strike upon Saddam Hussein as the same supposedly bumbling Bush administration she now so often castigates?

Such audacity and hypocrisy, even in an election year, and even coming from a Clinton, is unacceptable, yet this pile of loose sand is supposed to be the solid foundation of this current presidential candidate's vast foreign policy experience and expertise. "Hail the Queen?"

Now, that takes the cake!

Doug Wrenn