In any case, Charlie Gibson asked the question of both of them, and when neither gave a clear answer, pressed them on it. Because the debate was held in Philadelphia, "the Constitution" was some sort of weird thematic "hook" that ABC was pushing, and Gibson tried to use this in an elitist smartest-kid-in-the-class way. The only problem, he got his facts massively wrong. On two levels. The stupidity he displayed was of monumental proportions. Here is his question:

Read Complete Article »

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 »

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 »

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 »

Of course, Petraeus and Crocker will be attempting to put a big smiley face on Iraq once again, and they must be kicking themselves for being blindsided by Maliki's recent Basra fiasco. If only Maliki had waited two or three weeks, they could have testified that everything was hunky-dory in Iraq, and then gotten out of Washington unscathed.

Read Complete Article »

I have to say, this one was right down my alley. [Ahem. OK, I'll stop with the bowling puns, I promise.]

Read Complete Article »