For those familiar with Shakespeare's Macbeth, the line uttered by Malcolm in Act I, Scene 4, is an apt commentary on Senator Clinton's candidacy:

...nothing in his life
Became him like the leaving it; he died
As one that had been studied in his death,
To throw away the dearest thing he ow'd
As 'twere a careless trifle.

Change the subject pronoun and you have the perfect exegesis on an exquisitely flawed campaign, one that began as a presumed coronation and ended with the grim reality of abject failure.  Yet, many commentators, even conservatives such as Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard, have observed that as her candidacy headed for the rocks, a rare form of sincerity obtained. 

Indeed, she actually began enjoying herself and it showed, albeit inconsistently.  A hallmark of successful candidates is not only comfort in their own skin, but a sense of unbridled optimism, the sunny disposition of Ronald Reagan, the irrepressible confidence of Bill Clinton.  Yet for most of her campaign that easy manner and warm, personal charm seemed to elude Mrs. Clinton, until the very end, and by then it was far too late.

She seemed perennially preoccupied with demonstrating that she was a policy wonk, someone to be taken seriously, as though over-compensating for her womanhood.  In doing so she seemed more like the stern school principal than someone who might issue eloquent oratories from the Oval Office.  The lesson for her--alas, one learned in the wrong act of this drama--is that Americans easily suffer personality flaws and quirks, but they can't abide a scorn and they don't like candidates who seem overly concerned with attacking their opponents.

That's what led to her having an even 'favorable'-'unfavorable' ratio:  For every person who liked her there was one who truly disliked her, and whether it's a city council election or the race for the White House, you can't win on those numbers.  So Mrs. Clinton will have to pack up her bitterness and head back to the senate. 

Although it's clear that we're now witnessing the beginning of the end, at least she finally morphed from those cardboard characters she created throughout the campaign into a real person.  It may not be the profile of someone most Americans would want as president, but candor has its own virtues, even when it emerges just as the candidate's fate appears doomed.

With strong political cross currents working against Republican presidential candidate John McCain, and with Senator Obama cast as the 'transformational candidate,' the Illinois senator should be coasting to an easy victory.  The problem is that the headwinds of the Iraq war, the economy, and the housing and financial 'crises,' are issues that have been whipped into an emotional froth by the media, and forced to remain on stage far longer than productive for Democrats.

Americans have always been ambivalent about war because of the huge costs in blood and treasure.  But once we've engaged the enemy, with the notable exception of Vietnam, we've fought to victory.  That's largely a matter of political momentum, abetted by national pride, both of which are playing against Senator McCain.  That stated, by the same margin, Americans who say they want us out of Iraq, understand we must stay if leaving means a regional implosion.

Although President Bush is a lame duck, he's vowed to veto the politically motivated legislation that Congress will vote on today, to 'rescue' the housing markets.  For all his ill-advised tinkering with markets, Mr. Bush apparently understands that the housing market has already begun a broad correction, and the same goes for the economy and our financial markets, all well before the 'stimulus' checks were delivered.

Add to this mix the fact that Obama has obliged both Clinton and McCain by repeatedly proving he's a political novice, not to mention the glimpses we're getting of his wife, Michelle's remarkably divisive rants, and you have a formula for yet another Republican victory in November.

What's lacking in both Obama and Clinton is the kind of 'new Democrat' platform that President Clinton ran on.  Both these candidates have pledged higher corporate taxes, with Clinton vowing to "take" the profits from the oil companies, and oil company executives have responded by saying they'll have to dramatically reduce research and development:  Do Obama and Clinton think that will reduce our price at the pump?

In the arena of health care, they've pledged some version of a government sponsored program, which is a slow march towards European style socialist models, which can only drive up costs and inhibit access.  On social issues, both candidates are avowed supporters of partial birth abortion, which former Democratic intellectual heavy weight, Senator Patrick Moynihan correctly described as "infanticide."  Moreover, both have an elitist's understanding of the 2nd Amendment, which doesn't advance the ball beyond Senator Kerry's laughable duck hunting photo-op.

The list is endless, but it highlights the central facts in this election:  The left has two candidates who are mired in the old-style Democratic policies of race and gender, which oppose free markets that, as Jack Kennedy said, "raise all boats," are skittish about a robust military, and are convinced that interminable diplomacy is the best antidote for the likes of Iran's Ahmadinejad.

These are battles Republicans will be glad to join.