Back in the dim and distant past of this presidential campaign (i.e., February), I wrote a pre-debate column listing questions I would like to hear both Democratic candidates answer. Today's column is a revision of this original. Many of the questions I have are the same, for which I apologize. I don't normally recycle my own material in this fashion, but unfortunately these questions remain largely unanswered, almost two months after the last debate.

Read Complete Article »

The level of bloviation from the mainstream media over trivia is approaching hysterical levels it seems, but if you look carefully there is actually some news from the campaign trail that won't insult your intelligence. All three candidates have made interesting remarks in the past day or so which (if people hear them) might [...]

Read Complete Article »

But please, don't try to argue that people are "making it about politics" -- or some sort of ghastly thing which has never been done before. Because the torch relay itself was born in evil politics. The entire concept was conceived as politics and propaganda. And there is more than a little evidence that China is attempting to use it as a political event this year as well. Meaning protesting it publicly is just a reaction to the politics of the event.

Read Complete Article »

Both of them looked and sounded rather "presidential" during the hearings, and both deserve some credit for asking thoughtful and pointed questions. Some media sources said Obama's questions were better, some Clinton, but overall I'd have to say that both showed they can easily pass the "Commander-in-Chief test."

Read Complete Article »

But the biggest thing to watch for in this agreement is -- written or unwritten -- "security guarantees" for the Maliki government itself. To put it another way, is Bush (and the U.S. military) going to use a variation of the "Musharraf policy" with Maliki? [This name comes from the fact that Bush hasn't really had a "Pakistan policy," instead -- since 9/11 -- he's had a "Musharraf policy."] Will we give similar unquestioning support to Maliki's government, no matter what it decides to do?

Read Complete Article »

Call him a scapegoat, lightning rod, whipping boy, or even sacrificial lamb (choose your own metaphor, in other words), but no matter who the nominee is, will he give sufficient cover so this eventual nominee can unite Democratic voters to produce a win in November?

Read Complete Article »

I rarely dip into the realm of fairy tales to describe politics, but sometimes trying to figure out George Bush's logic on Iraq demands it. And so today we will try to explain the current military logic on troop levels using Goldilocks' terms: "too few," "too many," or "just right."

Read Complete Article »

Last Wednesday I wrote an article called "Questions For Petraeus," which I thought would be adequate to begin discussion of how to approach the upcoming congressional testimony by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker -- in particular, what Democrats on the committees should be asking them. But events in Iraq have been moving quickly, so I offer this column as an addendum to the earlier one. Because after what happened in the past few days, more questions need to be asked.

Read Complete Article »

Since the campaigns of both Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama have seemingly taken my advice earlier this week, and are both concentrating on attacking Senator John McCain rather than each other, we have the luxury of getting away from the campaign trail this week and focusing on a few other things -- the biggest of which is the upcoming testimony before Congress by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on the situation in Iraq. More on that in a moment.

Read Complete Article »

While much attention has been paid to the newly-released 81-page memo written by John Yoo which defines torturing prisoners in U.S. custody as "self-defense," within the memo is reference to another secret Yoo memo, one with even further-reaching consequences for the Constitution. According to Yoo (and the Bush administration in general), because we're "at war," the United States military is allowed to completely ignore the Fourth Amendment -- on U.S. soil.

Read Complete Article »