Once again, Barbara Ehrenreich points out that the emperor (or empress) has very little to cover their fundamental nakedness. Once again Barbara, with wit and precision, helps to bring us down to earth.

It is time for folks to stop playing the game of "who is it going to be?" that is fostered on us by the media. It is time for people to stand up for what they believe is important. Politicians are not leaders. They are followers. Time to give them something to follow.

Sarvananda Bluestone

Woodstock, NY

I had my first good laugh in a while at the letter above, in pretending that the DLC is "right-of-center." Anyone who can believe that does not understand the political spectrum, and that there are as many different shades of Republicans as there are of Democrats.

However, regarding the maniacal "Cackle," I am reminded of the "Glitch" shown by the Max Headroom automaton. Have we a Stepford Hillary?

John D. Froelich

Upper Darby, PA

Government does what America’s future of expanding freedom requires and what the private sector cannot do--or is not doing--effectively, ethically or at all. Its dual functions are empowerment and protection.

Hillary is weak on protection of ordinary Americans when she promises to continue unending subsidies of the military industrial complex and will not end the occupation of Iraq in her fist term.

Hillary is weak on protection of ordinary Americans when she promises to continue subsidies to the insurance sickness industry and will not create a single-payer not-for-profit and no-conflicts-of-interest health care for all Americans. The Institute of Medicine documents 18,000 Americans die each year unnecessarily because they were either not covered or were covered and denied treatment.

Hillary is weak on empowerment and has made no promise to stop the rise of the executive branch to the level of monarchy and a branch that is above the law. No word from Queen Hillary about reigning in the executive branch.

Chuck Watts

Wilmington, OH

Hillary is a Republican, not even a progressive. Hillary's campaign platform is that she will continue a Bush presidency. The fact that she's a Republican is quite clear. She campaigned for Nixon in 1960, voted for him in '68. A Goldwater girl in '64 and President of the Wellesley Young Republicans. The HillBillarys vowed to change the Democratic Party through the DLC (Democratic Lemming Council), which is the Democratic Party branch of the Republican Party. As for the cackle, maybe she's cracking, cackling, under the pressure of running for President. Finally, Hillary is Karl Rove's choice to be the Democratic Party candidate. Not a good sign.

Ken Lusk

Clayton, GA

I really can't understand why anyone would think that Barbara Ehrenreich or Maureen Dowd would be "likely to automatically adhere to Hillary" Clinton's campaign for President. Ehrenreich is a social democrat ("democratic socialist" in US terms), while Senator Clinton is a leader in the right-of-center Democratic Leadership Council. And Ms. Dowd spent the '90s savaging the Clintons every bit as viciously as she has excoriated President Bush. Yes, one or both of them might follow the craven path of voting for the lesser of two evils, but I can't see either one of them shouting from the rooftops while doing so. Besides not fitting their personalities, it would go against the roles they have forged for themselves in the body politic.

Charles Alexander

Albany, NY

I thought that was a good point made by Seymour, the first person to respond. Hillary really has not convinced anyone she is running for any reason other than personal aspiration. That does not make her campaign less valid, but I find it contributing to my personal sense of ambivalence toward her. Of course, ask any candidate the question, "Why are you making the bid for presidency?" and you will get a contrived answer, I'm sure. And even if it were groundbreaking and original, few would trust the answer, such is the political atmosphere today.

I'm more interested, however, in Ehrenreich's idea about the length of campaigning. I could not help but think, when she commented on the unfounded Republican accusation of Hillary's healthcare plan, that perhaps Hillary is an easy target for the right. And (thank you, Seymour) she is not convincing many people of her goals as President (the now redundant adage of not trusting Clinton, but not believing Obama will be a strong leader is ringing in my ears as I type this) . That gives her a heck of a lot of room to bend in a conservative direction and scoop up more voters.

So what if there were less time for the other side to respond? What if campaigning took up less of the public's time? It is obvious that campaigning started extra early this time around because the Democrats see it as a chance to seize the moment... if they could only take a firm stance and stop competing with each other, but by now we're all tired of shouting this into the ether over and over again.

Peter Travitsky

Brooklyn, NY

Placing aside the notion that Barbara Ehrenreich doesn't seem to think that nagging wives or "typical husbands" exist, it is surprising to see that even a high priestess of the liberal feminist world can quickly recognize the absolutely vacuous character of Hillary Clinton's campaign for President.

For all we've heard of the "flawlessness" of Hillary's campaign, if figures like Ehrenreich or even Maureen Dowd, the figures the most likely to automatically adhere to Hillary's campaign, complain of its lack of meaning and depth, then Hillary's advisers need to wake up and reprogram their client.

With all the money in the world, big media connections, and a husband who was, for good reason or bad, one of the most popular Presidents ever, Hillary Clinton still can't convince even the most susceptible observers of her campaign that she has any real reason to be running for President beyond her personal ambitions.

Yet she's the "frontrunner." We all need to reflect on this.

Seymour Friendly

Seattle, WA