Clinton's and Obama's public sparring over the finer points of geopolitics obscures the fact that the positions they've eached staked out are within the larger domain of sane, competently expressed ideas -- something of a novelty these days. To the extent that the American public tunes into this debate, it's tuning into reality again, and that can only bode well for the nation and the Democrats in particular.

Frankly US Pakistan policy is going to be a moving target for the next 24 months, if not the next 20 years, and nothing anyone advocates now can possibly be set in stone -- the situation is too volatile and our interests are too variable for a fixed policy to be anything but foolish consistency.

So Obama's position today is less interesting for what it says about what he will do tomorrow than for what it says about his ability to grasp a difficult situation and be creative and articulate in finding solutions, and in backing them up under fire from rivals.

And the more creative, articulate, tenacious Democrats there are out there, the better for all of us.

I actually didn't think that the White House would be able to get the media on board yet again with the "We-Are-Winning-in-Iraq-Again" game ...

I'm astonished by this. What earth-shattering transition in the economics and structure of control of the national press did Glenn Greenwald perceive that led him to believe that anything of the sort would happen?

Surely he of all people ought to appreciate that the American news media will not change until who owns them and where their money comes from changes.

The slow corruption of the institutions of journalism in the United States did not happen overnight -- it took decades and the complicity of Americans of all political persuasions. They will not likely recover during the entire span of Glenn Greenwald's career, let alone in the course of a few months of his work. Indeed, they're more likely to be demolished, by their own self-destructive forces and by the ongoing revolution in communication technology, than ever reformed.

And at this point, and with nothing but sincere admiration for Glenn's ongoing documentation of the travesty of truth that is our national discourse, I say good riddance.

So let's have no more of this wishful thinking, okay?

... for public-access terminals in otherwise-low-tech environments like cafes or bookstores where an owner/operator doesn't want to have to think too much, or pay too much, to keep the machinery running; and where users have limited usability requirements and will value the high level of security.

Other than a model like that, I can't see the point of something like this. It's not clear what Manjoo is seeing, either: in essence he's saying that it's stylish, convenient, and easy to use, except for being clunky, cramped, and onerous.

... On the purpose for which the [group] is organized -- support of our ally Israel and opposition to extremist regimes that threaten both Israel and the United States -- I don't have any regrets about it.

And right after that should have been

So it doesn't matter to you why they support Israel -- even if what they hope to see for Israel is an escalating spiral of violence and continued regional warfare, you're still with them?

But it wasn't, because to ask that question would be to expose the unholy madness that festers at the heart of the alliance between the American and Israeli right. We might begin to discuss whether there is a limit to what the US should sacrifice to placate that seemingly unimpeachable minority of Israelis who would rather see Arab corpses and a world in flames than accept any part of their responsibility for peace.

But that's not what "independent" Joe Lieberman wants to talk about. Anything, in fact, but that.

the Bush administration's Iraq strategy requires U.S. troops to remain in that country for a long time, perhaps permanently.

"Perhaps??" Permanent military fortifications are not "perhaps." If even Joe Conason cannot bring himself to say that the Bush administration's Iraq strategy is assuredly a permanent occupation, and has always been intended as such, then we as a people are clearly not yet ready to face what's happening.

And let's be clear, here -- this is not something that's only recently become evident. It was clear at the very beginning of the war -- even before the war -- when neoconservatives connected to the administration wrote openly about using Iraq as the new American Middle Eastern staging ground that hadn't worked out in Saudi Arabia. Anyone who's spent the intervening time anxiously parsing administration statements and hoping for a light at the end of the tunnel has been thinking wishfully, to say the least. (By contrast, nobody ever speaks hypothetically about the far less unwelcome permanent bases we've built in Bahrain and Qatar during the same time.)

Here's a little glossary for those who are still having trouble with this: Republicans who talk about "finishing the job" mean "staying permanently." Democratic hawks who talk about "staged withdrawals" and "residual forces" mean "staying permanently." Anyone who bleats about "protecting our interests" or "meeting our commitments to our allies" is saying "staying permanently."

So long as we remain enthralled by the fantasy of public discourse on the basis of these euphemisms, any ensuing discussion we have, no matter how outraged, is as meaningless and contrived as the "tastes great" - "less filling" debate of those beer ads.

We could withdraw our entire force in about 8 weeks if were serious about letting Iraq be. It wouldn't be good for American power in the region. It wouldn't be good for Israel. It wouldn't be good for democracy in Iraq. But every day we stay is making things worse.