Dems have to be very careful with this rhetoric because O'Reilly has been running around scoring points at liberal's expense with questions like "do you or do you not want America to win the war in Iraq? yes or no" The typical response is stunned silence because the targeted liberal has not entirely thought through the implications of an American defeat. Wolf Blitzer responded quite unconvincingly that he "wanted the US to win" and was looking to crawl under the nearest table. David Letterman was stunned and did not know what to say. He finally mumbled something like "I am a thoughtful person". Not sure that squares with much at all. Maybe O'Reilly's question is unfair but not that unfair, nor is it a bad question under the current circumstances. In each case, the targeted liberal came across as somewhere between "evasive" at best, and "sinister" at worst. It is no small wonder that Karl Rove goes to Berkeley and Hollywood to find ammunition like this.

By all measures the Dems should "clean up" on Tuesday just like they should have done in 2000 and 2004. A principal reason that may not happen, again, is that those Americans who bother to vote have that nagging feeling that the Dems' shrill message does not resonate well with what most voters understand the global war on terror to be. The loudest voices coming from the Dems are always the anarchists on the far left who also, by the way, give most people the "chills" at the thought of them in charge. The lefties cannot agree on the use of a single word in the phrase: "global war on terror". To them, the GWOT is a "once in a lifetime opportunity" to screw the imperialists "once and for all". What Bill O'Reilly was really asking Letterman was "have the lefties hijacked the Democratic party on GWOT, and, if so, are we not all screwed?"

I have concluded after being in the business world for more than thirty years that there are about 10-15 universities in the US where the prestige of graduating will stay with you for the rest of your life. Your resume will always float to the top of the pile and the hiring manager will have to justify in his/her own mind why you are not being immediately called in for an interview. Furthermore, the alumni of these universities tend to take of each other. My list would include Harvard, Princeton, Army, Navy, Notre Dame, Yale, Stanford, Penn, Cornell, MIT, Columbia, Kellogg, Chicago. If you are from one of these places(not all have B-schools but most do), stay there and graduate and you will have doors open that are tightly shut to the rest of us.

The flip-side of this contract "with the devil" is that much more will be demanded from you for the rest of your business life because you will always be viewed in a different light than the rest of us. Spare time will be in short supply.

I have an MBA from a 2nd tier school on the East coast and I have worked in small to medium sized companies for most of my career. The MBA on my resume is a big "yawn" because most companies want a professional certification and could care less about an advanced degree. In other words, companies expect value. Only you can decide if your MBA program prepares you for the day when you will have to deliver that value.

If Hillary Rodham is to be elected president, the nation must accept the possibility that Bill Clinton would become the de facto vice-president with a status in the Rodham administration equal to or greater than the current vice-president, which is no small measure. Aside from being both unelected and with the ability to upstage a sitting president at any moment, I would suggest that the former president might be equally interested in protecting his own presidential record against attack while presumably promoting the best interests of the United States at a time of continuous crises. Although Bush #41 has been largely invisible and not really influential in the current administration, there is no way Bill is going to play a secondary role in the next administration. Is this something that the country should look forward to?

Where does Lauren Sandler get off making such comments as "Jesus must be spinning in his grave, if he is still there". This is the kind of repugnant statement that must give the author a certain rush in slamming the religious beliefs of billions of people around the world. I then must ask what is the purpose of this article other than to infuriate people and attack their religious beliefs?

If you don't like evangenical types because they pack some political punch then say so, but don't ridicule someone's religious beliefs on spiritual grounds because then you are attacking their religion, not their politics.

I never find anyone of your ilk attacking African American evangelical types. Why is that?

I sense that this was a godsend moment for those who have been patiently waiting to take a calculated swipe at the Catholic Church. Demonizing Catholics is politically correct in the U.S. because the Catholic Church is believed to be the intellectual source for the Christian Right's rise to influence and power over the past 30 years. But to characterize the Catholic Church as "bigoted" and "arrogant" based on the actions of one person over an 18 month period is to brush off 2,000 years of documented history, of which for 1,500 years, the Catholic Church held western civilization together.

On the subject of Islamic history, maybe the West should take note of "the bloody edges of Islam" around the world. The author dismisses this as wrongheaded but I am not so sure. The Pope is taking a very public whipping for his remarks but I am still waiting for Islamic apologies for what happened on 9/11.