About Sarah Palin. It's not a question of whether she is smart or whether she has adequate experience (though both are debatable). It's that prior to being chosen as McCain's running mate, she had shown precious little interest in or curiosity about the important issues affecting the country. Worse still, she is the prisoner of religious beliefs and an ideology that make her absolutely certain that she knows all the answers--when she doesn't even know the questions. I'd like to believe that folks who think that God is choosing who our leaders should be, would also think that God would choose ones who are prepared for the role.

I believe that a little bit of self-awareness and humility are useful qualities in public servants. If Sarah Palin had any of either, she would have told Sen McCain that she was very flattered to be considered, but that there were many, many, many others more qualified to be his running mate, Vice President or God forbid, President.

Joan--

I have enormous respect for you and I enjoy your writing, even when I don't agree with you--isn't that amazing? And I think it's great that you put this much effort into looking back on what was unquestionably an extraordinary and unprecedented year and assessing where you hit and where you swung and missed (or fouled one off). It's become all too rare in public discourse for people ever to admit when they make a mistake, as has been exemplified by our President and Vice-President--my question for people has been, "would you want to be married or work for someone who never admitted they'd been wrong about something?"

But I digress. I have one nit to pick with your piece, and it is not an insubstantial one, I think. You hypothesize that if Obama had been a Senator, he would have voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution. I think this is a bit self-serving, and more than a little beside the point. We can't possibly know what Obama would have done--we can only know what he did do--speak out against the war--and what Sen Clinton did--vote for the war resolution and adopt, without reservation, the Bush Administration's arguments for war. On October 10, 2002, she said on the floor of the Senate:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed.

As you know, virtually all of this was untrue. And it was certainly not undisputed--there was plenty of evidence out there that the Bush Administration was exaggerating and cherry-picking the intelligence data. But Sen Clinton apparently didn't even read all of the classified information available to her (but not to Obama).

it's going to be about God. As an atheist of Jewish heritage, I found absolutely nothing offensive about Rev Warren's version of this, even though I wish it were not part of our civil ceremonies.

Anyone who says that the US is not a "Christian nation" is kidding him or herself--of course it is. It is also, much of the time, a nation that has tolerance for people of other faiths, although it would still be impossible for an avowed atheist to be elected to national office.

I think that Obama accomplished what he wanted to accomplish by having Rev Warren there.

There is every reason to be joyful. The importance, both practically and symbolically, of President Obama's (I still have to shake my head a bit each time I say or write it) taking these steps at the very outset is huge. Not only is he keeping a pledge he made during the campaign, he is telling the nation and the world that change truly is at hand; it isn't just "words." Good for him, good for us.

Gee, Stephanie, why take a shot at Ghandi? I watched it again recently at home in HD, and I think it is a fine film--no Lawrence of Arabia, certainly, but memorable, even if earnest.

I thought Tropic Thunder was an embarrassment, and though I love Robert Downey, Jr, would not have done anything to encourage efforts such as that movie. I didn't laugh once, but I sure winced several times.

I thought that Slumdog Millionaire was about 2/3 of a great film, then it ran out of steam in the midst of the conventional love story and the need to find an ending. But that first 2/3 was original and entertaining.

The United States and Pakistan are both signatories to the International Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, which can be found here: http://untreaty.un.org/English/Terrorism/Conv11.pdf

The treaty would, under the facts posed by your hypothetical, require Pakistan to act as follows:

1. Upon receiving information that a person who has committed or who is alleged to have committed an offence as set forth in article 2 may be present in its territory, the State Party concerned shall take such measures as may be necessary under its domestic law to investigate the facts contained in the information.

2. Upon being satisfied that the circumstances so warrant, the State Party in whose territory the offender or alleged offender is present shall take the appropriate measures under its domestic law so as to ensure that person's presence for the purpose of prosecution or extradition.

Interestingly, it would also give OLB certain rights, including the right to a hearing before a judicial officer.