Thank you Maureen. Your response does require a reply.

The Arthurian legend and the genealogy of Arthur is quite a complicated matter. If one begins with Thomas Malory's first book in Le Morte d'Arthur, "Fro the Maryage of Kynge Uther unto Kynge Arthure that Regned After Hym and Ded Many Batayles," we can say only that he was born from the union of Uther Pendragon and Igraine and was raised in the country by Sir Ector.

Scholars in general believe that Arthur was a Brythonic "king" who lived some time between the 4th and 7th centuries CE. He has been identified with an astonishing array of historical figures: Riothamus (a top contender), Arthwys ap Meurig (perhaps, Artvisius, son of Mauricius, King of Gwent and Glamorgan [or Glywissing], Ambrosius Aurelianus (a 5th century Roman who commanded Britons [my personal favorite and probably the model for Clive Owen in the most recent Arthurian work up]), Arthuis ap Masgwid Gloff (a relative of King Coel Hen), and St. Arthamael, just to name a few. There are many books detailing the likelihood of the pedigree of each contender. This cottage industry based on Arthur and Camelot is likely only eclipsed in terms of numbers of scholarly articles and books by the "authorship debate" surrounding William Shakespeare (i.e. Was Shakespeare actually Shakespeare?). The answer is almost certainly "yes," but there are at least a score of Shakespeare scholars touting Francis Bacon, the Earl of Essex, the Earl of Derby, the Earl of Rutland, and the Earl of Oxford as the veritable Shakespeare. There are even those who enjoy spinning Elizabeth I as the Bard.

Unfortunately, things are even murkier when it comes to Arthur. The earliest reference to him comes c. 600 CE in the Welsh? or Scottish Gaelic? "Y Gododdin," a poem about a Welsh people resisting the incursion of the Angles of Deira into their territory. There's Geoffrey of Monmouth in the 12th century CE, and Thomas Malory in the 15th century CE. Monmouth greatly influenced Malory, and Malory influenced almost all subsequent accounts of Arthur before the 20th century, but none of this really pertains because I was not referring to a hypothetical "real" Arthur or a composite sketch comprised of the attributes and exploits of any number of Dark Age warlords.

Of course, my reference point when it came to the Kennedy allusion was not Monmouth or Malory, but rather, Lerner and Lowe, and the broadway musical, "Camelot." As you probably already know T. H. White's bestseller, "The Once and Future King" is the basis for the musical. Although I had not intended to provide an analysis, a deconstruction of the Kennedy appropriation of Camelot as a symbol of the young and dynamic Kennedy administration involves a convergence of interests, the interest of the Kennedys sparked by a sense of the positive spin associated with the legend of Arthur and Camelot, and a highly popular broadway hit (and their favorite musical), and the interest of the media in such an association, indeed, its desire to develop a theme that would allow them to express their approval of the Kennedy life style, which was young, and refreshing, and quite a change from every other administration that had preceded them. Actually, I had not considered Hillary playing the role of Guinivere as my trope related to a future Obama presidency.

My only reason for referring to Camelot was to suggest a certain similarity in terms of the way the press "told" the Kennedy story and the way the media "tells" Obama's story today. I also meant to suggest that the two Camelots are really cautionary tales: hope and good intentions are not sufficient to save us. As for the use of "cool," I intended a meaning related to "hip" or perhaps even "chic." As Joan Walsh noted recently, the styles of the two Democratic contenders are quite different. Obama does not generally talk to his audience about what he actually intends to do, or how his policies and programs will work. Rather, Obama uses his speeches in the same way that Martin Luther King used his, to motivate and inspire the followers of his movement. On the other hand, Clinton delivers a much more pedestrian and wonkish speech. She talks details. I would agree with Joan that Obama is taking a risk by focusing so completely on the inspirational at a time when many Democratic voters and others are worried about the future.

If you're not well off, if you're worried about your job, if you're scared about what's happening to the economy, you're much more likely to be seeking the reassurance of someone who tells you exactly what she intends to do, how she intends to marshal the government on your behalf, and this is why Hillary is getting the white male vote, and to a certain extent, the Latino vote as well.

I do agree with you as to the hyperbolic nature of the Camelot myth as it relates to Presidents. I would point out that while the Arthurian legend goes back to Celtic sources, it has been worked by English, French and German authors, and belongs to the world now. It remains an easy way for reporters to convey something to their readers or listeners without actually saying it.

It's crap, agreed, but it's also theater--the two of them standing on the same stage,

The said thing is that I'm not sure it IS all crap. The charges they'll make. I mean what arrogance of a person who hadn't even finished a single senate term with NO foreign policy experience at al and NO excecutive experience to think he should be able to sail right into office in tehse times.

I know liberal Dems think it's a slam dunk, but I'm telling you, a lot of swing voters are going to look and say, "maybe that guy isn't ready for the job." Of course, Obama could just refuse to debate McCain. That might work

Liberal Dems have a 30 year record of being consistently wrong. As one who has been around and watched much , not all of it, and as one who reads extensively about history, I can assure you that their arguments along with the Republican owned presses of an Obama "movement" is taken pretty skeptically from this seatholder.