I can appreciate the "inoculation" style of advertising that Howard Kurtz describes:

"You give people a small dose of the virus, in the hope that later on, when opponents start bashing you on family values or whatever, viewers will have enough of the defense to resist the incoming attacks."

It's also tough to fault Jimmy Carter for building houses, or Mother Theresa for cleaning bedpans.

But can someone tell me how any of the above constitute presidential skills?

"How dare you question her! To question her is to wish my son had died!," is how Ann Althouse characterizes the Hillary video, showing a man who claims Hillary saved his son's life. (Link via Glenn Reynolds.)

As inoculations go, that's heavy duty stuff. Far beyond Romney's excellence in child-raising, or Giuliani's undisputed claim to less than perfection.

But unlike Mother Theresa, Hillary is not a candidate for beatification, nor is she running for public martyr. (At least, I hope she's not!)

They might all be "inoculations," but I think the relative strength and effectiveness of the vaccines varies.

Mr. Perfect?

Ms. Beyond All Reproach?

If I have to choose from the three, Giuliani gets my vote, because it comes down to simple math. "Less than perfect" is at least a credible claim. "Mr. Perfect" is too squeaky-clean to be credible. (Sooner or later, someone will bring up his underwear again and all hell will break loose between the forces of dirty and holy underwear.)

As to Saint Hillary the Hospitaller, I'd like to see a YouTube video of her scrubbing bedpans or (if she doesn't want to stoop to doing the work of untouchables) at least catheterizing incontinent Republicans patients or something before I buy into the martyr image.

OK, OK, I know I'm being unfair with the bedpan humor and the catheter jokes. But I don't like this sense of automatic martyrdom entitlement that is being promoted by Saint Hillary and Company.

I mean, it's as if she's being allowed to have her stake and heat it too!