I found a very good article over at NJ Voices in the opinion section. The author paints an interesting picture of Hillary Clinton's campaign and John McCain's future issues. Its a good read. Here's a quote (originally written by Paul Mulshine and the link to the original article is below the quote):

I confess I had no idea until the next day when I had a chat with G. Clotaire Rapaille, a French-born medical anthropologist who has done well in the United States thanks to a system of marketing research he calls "archetype discovery." I had called him to chat about automotive design, but when I mentioned that I had seen Hillary in New York, the talk turned to politics.

Like his French forebear, Alexis de Tocqueville, Rapaille has an intriguing analysis of democracy in America. It is his perception that we Americans, despite our claims to seriousness, are really a nation of adolescents. What we demand in our politicians is not competency but entertainment value, a fact that explains the success of Hillary's husband, Rapaille said.

"Bill Clinton is a comedian," he said. "He is the entertainer-in-chief, with a girl in the Oval Office and a cigar."

The Republicans made a big mistake in impeaching Clinton, said Rapaille. They thought we Americans wanted a serious president when we really want an amusing president. And the impeachment process just made Bill Clinton more amusing.

As for his successor, George W. Bush was loved by the American people when he was seen as an amiable bumbler, said Rapaille. But "the big mistake from Bush was that after 9/11 he thought he had a mission."

Now "Bush is rigid and boring and is surrounded by people who are boring and rigid," said Rapaille. And that explains his unpopularity.

This analysis may be a bit hurtful to my national pride. But it explains both why Obama beat Hillary and why she is so bitter about it. It is not merely that Obama is more entertaining than Hillary. It's that he is the second coming of the man to whom she's been playing second fiddle for all these years. There's the irresponsible father, the rise of a poor boy through the Ivy League, the incredible glibness. Most of all, there's the absence of any ideology other than a love for power and an understanding of how to acquire it.

http://www.nj.com/njvoices/index.ssf/2008/06/why_hillarys_bitter_and_john_m.html