These failed strategies aren't so nearly one-sided. You cite Bhutto's support for the then-emerging Taliban movement in the 1990s, but Musharraf's (and the ISI's and the army's) playing at this double-game is well known; clearly, the Pakistani elite bear greater responsibility for the current destabilization. As for American funding, it was Pakistan's decision to use those no-string-attached funds to purchase military equipment for potential use against India (such as F-16s) while simultaneously turning a strategic blind eye to the Taliban and Al Qaeda enclaves. As for the polling data showing Pakistani support for the Taliban and/or bin-Laden, these are just as likely repudiations of American policies as they are support for those people. The American failures are obvious, but they didn't happen in isolation.

The problem with the current structure isn't that Iowa and New Hampshire vote first. Rather, candidates with little money, while able to spend their scant resources more effectively in these small states, are still poorly covered by major media who seem determined to anoint their preferred choices as soon as possible. For the so-called second tier candidates, that renders meaningless the supposed advantage of the small state campaigning. Moving up the primary dates in more heavily populated states wouldn't change this. Since the media see support for a candidate through the lens of campaign contributions (and provide proportionate coverage accordingly), the only meaningful way to create a genuinely level playing field is through public financing. Absent this, those with the deepest pockets and less-than-transparent connections will "triumph" in what is, really, something of a sham.

Perhaps the Democrats will consider using similar tools against the Republican nominee. It would be a truthful rebuttal to GOP tactics (in campaign and governance both). In Giuliani's "Ready" commercial, the one with the narrator saying "hate without boundaries ... a people perverted ... a nuclear power in chaos," the Democratic nominee can show the same or similar footage and have the narrator retort, "so why did George Bush give this dictatorship nearly $15 billion with no strings attached? Why has the United States pointedly ignored this nation's suppressed civil society?" Then show footage of that moderate citizenry who vastly outnumber the zealots. The nominee might simply show the images of devastation wrought--directly--by Bush's policies in the towns and cities in Iraq, of Iraqis cowering in their homes as militia members round up the "other" and execute them in the streets, of thousands of the displaced who cling to a precarious existence in Syria (and here the narrator can remind us of Syria's membership in the "Axis of Evil"). The Republican nominee will again call forth that old magic to scare voters into believing only their man knows who the enemies are and how they ought to be fought. It's time the Democrats reminded people how we got into this mess to begin with and who got us there.

I thought this was particularly amusing: "[Mussolini] was sort of a buffoon in that sense; he was constantly changing his definitions of fascism and talking out of one side of the mouth, then out of the other side of his mouth." And this: "I think the problem is you get into one of these sort of overly doctrinal, "let's go to the text" approaches where words get confused for things." No kidding. What a ragged attempt to shift the focus from the Bush Administration's murderousness, utter immorality and impeachable illegality. It's clear even to Goldberg who the fascists among truly are. Too bad he penned this stuff instead of just admitting it.

The Clintons have complained loud and long that no one has scrutinized Obama's record as they have hers. I guess they don't want to waste time doing so either, as this current issue reflects. And never mind, apparently, an adult, detailed discussion and debate of the issues. The public deserves better than this even if the Clinton campaign disagrees.

The idea of globalization evidenced here goes well beyond sovereign wealth funds. Bain Capital and their partner, Huawei Technologies' (headed by a former officer in China's People's Liberation Army) interest in 3Com, which makes among other things "intrusion technology" for the Defense Department, suggests we're walking a finer line than we might think. You say "the root of Wall Street's woes leads back directly to their own strategic missteps, greed, speculation-run-amok, and lack of appropriate supervision." I agree, but would also note that the absence of appropriate supervision is more glaring in the supposed remedy than it was in the making of the problem.

Yes, "the president set about to make reforms in the intelligence community to make sure that it doesn't happen again," and just as quickly told Ehud Olmert he didn't agree with the NIE on Iran: "He told the Israelis that he can’t control what the intelligence community says, but that [the NIE’s] conclusions don’t reflect his own views” about Iran’s nuclear program. That makes at least 936 false statements.

"After 18 debates, $41 million in television ads and more town meetings than New England witnessed since the dawn of democracy" there are several questions outstanding simply because they haven't been asked in debate. Here's one example from Media Matters: "Despite the controversy over the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance and whether telecommunications companies should receive immunity for their alleged involvement, only one question about wiretapping has been asked of any presidential candidate of either party during the numerous debates over the past year. The lone question was asked of Republican Mitt Romney in September 2007; no Democrat has been asked any question relating to the topic." Perhaps it's true that "so much that voters need to know about the next president is unknowable," but that doesn't mean there aren't questions worth asking.