Amid the buzz about one presidential candidate’s irresistible campaign barbs and the other’s reticence to speak publicly, the underlying judgmental concern should be their respective political resumes.The challenger can point to a record of prior accomplishment in the position sought, while the late-stage “incumbent by default” competitor demonstrates few meritorious qualifications from inadequate training. Reticence to campaign in public and minimal sound-bite responses to specific questioning imply a startling lack of knowledge and opinion on topics of primary public concern affecting the well-being of 335-million American constituents. The obvious overriding precept is that a traditional party label applied to a salesperson unable to articulate ingredients and explain health effects of the intended product are sufficient to achieve dominant market share. Can this remarkable commercial presumption prove valid in the business of politics?Does the established producer risk lasting damage to a long-established brand by bait-and-switch marketing tactics? Phil Osifer