Thanks for mentioning the great Bette Davis movie "All About Eve" in your article as I've aften thought of its relevance to this campaign.

On another note, I totally agree with you that the apoplectic response by the press and in particular MSNBC's Matthews and Olberman drove me as a woman to support Hillary. It made me want to "stick it" to the old boys network and drive them crazy. Maybe not the best reason to vote for someone but it gave me a great deal of satisfaction.

Jesse Jackson was crying because:

1. He knew he was on camera

2. Hew wasn't the Presidential candidate

I cringed last night when I saw this self-serving hypocrite play to the audience. It's easy to forget the nasty comments he made about Obama on TV a few months ago so please spare ust he poetic description of his reaction. It demeans Obama's great victory and insults our intelligence.

To correct your otherwise excellent article, Bush actually did campaign by specifically stating that he would be able to keep the country safe and prevent attacks. As a matter of fact, last night "The Daily Show" displayed footage of Bush saying those exact words. He is either highly delusional or a pathological liar or, perhaps, both.

Finally, a rational and intelligent article distinguishing what we mean by "qualified". Let's get real here - the Senate is not an entitlement for Kennedy "royalty". Caroline Kennedy is very intelligent and engaging and to a large extent the attractiveness of her campaign results from the nostalgia of her father's presidency that few of us are old enough to remember and too a large extent was a fantasy created by Jackie O. Caroline would make a terrific ambassador or perhaps educational consultant.There are many hardworking lesser known individuals who have put themselves out there - run for office, worked hard, paid their dues and taken a stand on issues who are much more qualified to represent New York in the Senate. Even Andrew Cuomo is eminently more qualified as an elected official who has actually done some good things for New York. I hope everyone comes to their senses and chooses substance over style in their future Senator.

Our corrupt political system is to be blame here too. People with money and name recognition like CK, Bloomberg, Schwarzenegger etc can literally buy their way to the seat they choose. I am not saying that they can't do a good job as is generally conceded with Bloomberg; however, a lot of very good people who have worked hard but lack the the glitz and notoriety of those like CK don't stand a chance. Is this the type of democracy we want?

Quite simply, Caroline Kennedy has name recognition and money. Unfortuntately, those are the two criteria that the fawning media and her supporters tout as the reason she is the apparent "front runner" for Clinton's Senate seat. What a sad commentary on the state of our Democracy.

Caroline's poorly run and self-serving entitlement "campaign" for the NY Senate seat is now officially over. If she really wants this position, she is going to have to win the election in 2010. In the interim, she should take speech lessons, familiarize herself with policy issues of importance to New Yorkers and, for goodness sake, get a job so she knows what it is like to work for a living.

The sad fact is that, no matter what Obama wants to accomplish, there will be no meaningful reform until our corrupt political system is itself reformed. The revolving door between political office and corporate America is posing too many conflicts of interest and "quid pro quo's". Just look at the SEC where Wall street recruits SEC employees and vice verse. One hand is constantly washing the other.

Tom Daschle has no business being confirmed but, because he was a corrupt Senator, he will be approved by other corrupt Senators. This whole scene is stomach churning.

While I admire Elizabeth Edwards' courageous battle with cancer and know she has illicited a lot of sympathy for her plight, I really have a tough time sympathizing with her regarding her husbands infidelity. It is very clear that she knew of his affair with Hunter back in 2006 and kept up the charade of the happily married and supportive spouse. Both she and her husband put their ambitions above the needs of our nation. In their hubris, they failed to understand how this would all come tumbling down in a wave of tabloid fodder.

I also fault her for recently calling Hunter "pathetic" and for claiming the the baby doesn't look like any of her children. I don't think that is "class" I think that is "crass" and a cruel dismissal of what probably is her children's step-sibling.

All in all, I wish she would leave the public stage and spare us the gory details of her marriage.

While I can certainly forgive Elizabeth Edwards for not wanting to mention the other womans name during the interview I cannot forgive her for calling the baby - "it". The baby has a name - Frances . She is most likely the result of John's liason and, like it or no not, she is therefore the step-sister to Elizabeth's children. This child has everything to do Elizabeth Edwards' life whether she likes it or not.

Also, while all politicians hold babies while campaigning, not all of them go to hotel rooms at night to hold the child of a specific woman.