If you're like me, and would sincerely like presidential candidates to offer solid, detailed solutions to problems (and wonder why they don't more often), here is Exhibit A for why Clinton and Obama keep their cards so close to the vest when it comes to offering details. The Associated Press ran this story under the headline "Edwards Big -- And Costly -- Proposals."

Banging the "tax and spend liberal" drum as hard as they can, the AP story admits that voters like Edwards' plans, and then goes on to present the plans in the worst light possible.

And people wonder why campaign consultants tell the candidates "don't be too specific."

In other news, Richard Perle seems to be writing comedy for the Washington Post. He writes an op-ed in which he claims that George Tenet personally stole all Saddam's WMD and hid them so that President Bush would look bad. Or something. Like I said, either it was written as a satire, or Perle is convinced he can personally rewrite history. You be the judge.

Also from the Washington Post, an excellent article by Eugene Robinson points out that the United States government is OK with coddling terrorists, as long as they're "good" terrorists. This one is worth quoting:

I'll wager that the evidence against Posada, which I find compelling, is more solid than the secret evidence against most of the detainees at Guantanamo. But Posada's alleged crimes were against the Castro regime.

And finally, Toles points out the fundamental and blatant hypocrisy of Dick Cheney explaining to Maliki how to run a democratic government.