expand on. When America was originally settled the prevailing political/economic philosophy was mercantilism. Mercantilists posited a world of limits and thus the political class was willing to, for example, set prices as a way of keeping wealth from being sucked in to just a few hands, particularly foreign hands.

When Americans got a sense of the expanse of the continent, the apparently unlimited wealth, we came to believe, as people, in the notion of unlimited wealth. That meant that there was no need to see that wealth was spread out reasonably; there was no need to help the poor because with unlimited wealth one was poor because one was weak or lazy.

With the closing of the frontier in the late 1800's a better informed populace would have seen the era of unlimited wealth as the delusion it was, but that idea was so ingrained in our national belief system and so seductive that we refused to give it up and return to the earlier more communal values of mercantilism. The laissez-faire capitalists targeted those who held opposing viewpoints and called them communists or socialists to diminish their appeal.

A good deal of early mercantilist theory is not useful in today's global economy, but the belief in government intervention in the economy to regulate excesses is crucial and should be wedded to a notion of economic fairness that ends poverty at one end and obscene wealth at the other, leaving a wide band in the middle to encourage and support hard work and innovation.

We are going to have to change or we will die, but first we will see a distopia that will be darker than even our best science fiction writer can imagine.

of the issue is problematic and that ANYthing other than perfection in handling these questions gives rise to such questions. He knows because he detailed the way the press played the SAME game against the Clinton's about Whitewater. We all know where that ended. By the time Starr gave up and grudgingly cleared Clinton he'd been impeached for sex. This is the GOP/media collusion that goes after any Democrat. Remember Al Gore and the Buddhist Temple. By the time he was cleared of that allegation Bush was in the White House.

Caroline has never fought relentlessly, whole-heartedly for something. She served on some boards, mostly for the Arts (which are very important but not in these times crucial) and ADVOCATED for better public schools, which are always crucial.

She is saying, "I'm a Kennedy; trust me; appoint me, and then I'll work hard." And we probably can trust her to take progressive stands--though we don't know how hard a worker she is. But if she was so passionate about those progressive issues, where was she 20, 10, even 5 years ago.

We need more than a woman inspired by someone else to do good. We need someone inspired by the needs she perceives in others.

And it was the needs of others that inspired Hillary. She WORKED passionately, her whole life, for poor children, first at the Children's Defense Fund.

Then in Texas she worked with Bill to organize Hispanic Americans register and to vote for George McGovern to support progressive causes and end the Vietnam War.

Then, as first lady in Arkansas she worked for better education and health care for poor children.

Then as first lady in Washington she worked for health care for all (defeated by a coalition of conservative Republican and greedy health care industries);

and THEN Hillary put herself to the voter's test to become senator. By then she had worked tirelessly to raise a beautiful, accomplished daughter AND for issues that are crucial to poor and working class children and parents.

Hillary worked, not merely advocated, for issues that were crucial to the poor; not because it was what her class and family did, but because she was inspired by Martin Luther King, Jr. and her religious faith. She married a man committed to those same goals and worked with him despite his personal weaknesses.

Caroline could have been inspired by those same men, by those in her family, but she wasn't. She would undoubted do fine, but there is no sign that she is passionately committed to the poor, the needy, the helpless, the forgotten. She waited until it was convenient, until she had nothing else to do, until the elite found someone to swoon over. Then she stepped to the head of the line and said "pick me."

Surely there are men and women in New York with the passionate, long-term commitment who could better do the job. If Caroline is honest about her desire to help, she can use her name and connections to raise money and fame for that person. Hillary would.

Still, Obama will do a good job, and it is likely that Kennedy will too--better than any Republican that's for sure.

Hillary did NOT support Bush's foreign policy. She spoke out repeatedly against invading Iraq, as did Bill.

Bill did not open up China. That was Nixon. Clinton, sort of, opened up Vietnam with the help of McCain and Kerry.

They waged war on the Democrats for years, promoting the GOP, especially John McCain. In the 1990's they promoted the Republican line about wonderful Reagan, despite 30 corruption convictions of his minions for offenses while in office, and corrupt Clinton, despite no such convictions. They then moved on to trashing Al Gore and beatifying McCain. When the country turned against Bush, Williams, Matthews, and NBC slowly began pandering for the Democrats, at least Obama, as actively as they had for the GOP. But make no mistake, their embrace of the generals shows they are only concerned with money and power, and they will turn on the Democrats and Obama if their bosses demand it. They are revolting.