Why the Swipe at Faludi? She is hardly anti male. She wrote the book Stiffed about the problems facing American men.

And that book is full of crap.

Why is it OK for a woman to write a book telling us men what to think, how to feel and what to do?

I do not see male writers writing books telling women the same thing. At least no writers who are feted by the liberal publishers.

Faludi wrote that junk book to try to divert blame from feminism.

I do not like dynasties at all. It's not just in the case of Hillary Clinton.

What Ted Kennedy did to get into the Senate in the 1960s, just sailing in there with the Kennedy name, would never fly today, and it certainly wouldn't fly with me. Fortunately, things worked out well with Ted, but normally, when people are elected on their name alone, they tend to be airheads or in some other way, just not qualified. Think of George W. Bush -- totally unqualified to be a governor, let alone president.

If a member of a famous political family runs for office, it's OK with me -- as long as there's a serious, serious differentiation between that candidate and the more famous relative, and as long as the new candidate is willing to start at or near the bottom, not just run for some high-level job like U.S. Senate right off the bat as Ted Kennedy did.

Not to get into a tit-for-tat, but for me, the idea of political dynasties is indeed very troubling. I would say that Patrick Kennedy, for example, has not much going for him as a politician other than his family connections. . .not that I don't appreciate his stances on the issues. And while Mo Udall was one of my great heroes, I don't think his relatives should be automatically elected because of their last name. Being a member of a famous family isn't necessarily a disqualifier for me, but it's not a qualifier, either. Those second-generation politicians have to prove themselves, in my eyes.

And that's what Sebelies did. Yes, she did make her first run for office in 1986 or thereabouts, but it was for the state legislature, and it was as a member of a different party than that of her more famous father-in-law. I don't know if you've spent a lot of time around your state legislature, but I have spent a lot of time around mine, and I can tell you, the job of state rep. is no high-profile, glamour post. It's a pretty hard slog, actually. Sebelius has put in her time as a low-level elected official (not the same as a low-level appointed official, btw, because you're answerable to the voters in a very, very direct way). Her record of accomplishments and political success speaks for itself. The voters would not have promoted her over the past years had she not been doing a good job in her own right.

I don't think being married to Bill should have disqualified Hillary (though his role in the campaign was probably a negative in retrospect). And I know there are married couples who serve simultaneously in elected positions. My sister recently put in her time on her local school board while her husband was a state legislator, for example.

However, just speaking for me, Hillary would have had more credibility had she started at or near the bottom as as elected official, not near the top, and been steadily promoted by her constituents as Sebelius was. There's nothing like being on the school board or city council or in the state House -- and hearing constituents' criticisms directly face-to-face -- to give you at least some of the humility needed to offset the hubris that's often associated with high political office. For me (and just speaking for me), experience in state government and, especially, local government is a big, big plus for any presidential campaign.

Bottom line: I like her, and I don't hold her famous relatives against her; her own accomplishments have actually eclipsed theirs.

Kathleen Sebelius made her first (successful) political run in Kansas just 4 years -- NOT DECADES -- after her father-in-law left his congressional seat (because of illness).

My point stands; she was aided in her political career by her connection to a powerful brand name male politician.

Your narrow, self-serving definition of "dynasty," making it only apply to the Clintons in this limited circumstance (husband and wife serving in the same office) is simply incorrect. But, while you are reluctant to properly label them as such, you are correct in noting that there are MANY generational dynasties in US politics (the Kennedys, Romneys, Bayhs and Udalls come immediately to mind). It is these generational dynasties we should be most concerned about. At both the state and federal level.

That a husband or wife might follow their spouse into the same office doesn't bother me (this has been done quite a few times, actually, in our history) nearly as much as generational dynasties (like those above and the Bushes -- a powerful Senator followed by a VP, two generations in the White House and a powerful governor). These pose the very real threat of creating a government dominated, over time, by fewer and fewer families possessing what comes very close to being inherited power.

If you objected to these dynasties -- political dynasties that span generations -- as well as to Hillary Clinton running for president 8 years after Bill Clinton you might have a point in terms of concern that a generational Clinton dynasty migh emerge over time. But, since you have no objection except in this one case, one has to judge your objection isn't based in prinicple -- rather it is based in simple partisanship.

Hello, Camille,

Thank you for linking to Daniela Mercury on YouTube. I have been a fan for ages, but I had never seen her perform. She is more radiant than I imagined possible.

And thank you for all your insights into the election. I always enjoy your articles, no matter what the subject.