Lastly, it is worth pointing out that this power was connected in perverse ways with her relationship with her husband. Because she was the designated political defender, and enabler, of the president, when he was most vulnerable she wielded the most power. When she was down he felt free to act, and when he screwed up she rose in stature.

It is worth pointing out that Americans were at the time, and continue to be, concerned about a dynamic of this nature, a concern held by many today. Accountability is critical in a democracy and having a key advisor and participant that is unaccountable, and who has “unique” leverage, is a recipe for disaster. This is the rationale behind anti-nepotism laws.

Read any of the copious books covering the Clinton administration and you will find that Hillary was a divisive and disruptive figure who played no small part in the stumbles of the administration.

All of this explains the difficulty she is having in proving that her White House experience counts. Her role was highly unconventional, mostly political and deeply entwined with the dysfunctions and foibles of the Clinton White House.

It should also send a clear warning about the advisability of having Bill Clinton back in the White House.

The bottom line is that Hillary was mostly an inside political operative whose chief accomplishment was the survival of her husband’s presidency and the launching her own political career.

This surely qualifies as unique experience, but it is anything but presidential.

Of course, neither is losing an argument about your foreign policy credentials with Sinbad.