Swift made the argument to a military jury tasked with delivering justice for Hamdan. But ultimately, Hamdan's historic case amounted to a show trial, whose outcome -- a much lesser finding of guilt than the Bush administration prosecutors wanted -- only underscored the fundamentally flawed system at Guantánamo. As Michael Berrigan, deputy chief defense counsel for the military commissions, put it after the judge in the case barred some testimony against Hamdan that had been coerced, "Even show trials sometimes get off script."

Every one seems to be assuming that this show trial went off script, that the government really wanted a full conviction and harshest sentence against Hamdan. But is that what the government really wanted?

These are true show trials because the whole world is watching, very skeptically. What the government, or the Bush Administration rather, wants and needs is at least some degree of credibility for them. Starting them off with low level detainees like Hamdan, convicting them fully and awarding the harshest sentences -- with the whole world watching -- would remove any semblance of credibility. But starting off with the low level detainees first, acquitting them or convicting only of minor offenses with a lenient punishment, makes them seem a bit more credible. "See," they will argue, while pretending to be shocked, "the system isn't really rigged after all." Later, when the real baddies have their turn, and the media spotlight is dimmed, they can stage their kangaroo court trials and pro forma convictions.

The point to never forget about this administration is that things are never, but never, as they seem.

Why the hell couldn't John Kerry be as aggressive, eloquent and witty 4 years ago? If he had shown that kind of fighting spirit then, he would be running for reelection now.

The reason is obvious to me. He's no longer being influenced by Bob Shrum.

There were many justified complaints about China's overkill security during the Olympics.

But I didn't see anything from there like the scenes from Denver, and now even worse from Minneapolis-St. Paul: police and soldiers in maximum riot gear, tear gas canisters and gas masks, wielding batons and assault weapons, marching enmasse in manner to intimidate and provoke, and seemingly mistreating and arresting people in order to intimidate others.

What we saw in China were police in clean dress uniforms, unarmed or bearing only sidearms if any, and soldiers in dress uniform standing at attention. For the most part they reacted only when demonstrations or trouble occurred. The riot gear, assault weapons, tear gas and other implements were kept well out of sight, if they existed at all.

Perhaps the foreign reporters will pick up on the contrasts.

Even if -- a huge if -- Henry Paulson knows precisely what he's doing and is totally ethical and will use the unprecedented power he's asking for wisely and ethically, with only the interests of the country at heart, he'll be in office for less than four months -- at most.

In the meantime he'll be serving at the pleasure of George W. Bush, who could always make an interim appointment someone more amenable to Bush's interests. And as we know Bush's interests seldom if ever coincide with those of the nation.

But even if Paulson is the perfect man for the job and stays on until the new president takes office, who will his replacement be?

If McCain wins, he's likely to appoint Phil Gramm. Talk about foxes guarding the chicken coop.

Tina Fey using Sarah Palin's own words in her parody was a true stroke of genius. Even the best parodist could not have improved on them.

That's what McGovern said when his vice-presidential candidate was revealed to have had shock treatment for depression, shortly before dumping him.

But was Palin's apparent utter stupidity during the Couric interview for real? Or was it another of Rove's clever tricks, to get the Obama Camp overconfident before the debate this Thursday, when she shows her true stuff?

Whatever else you can say about her, she's not stupid. To the contrary. So why was she so stupid during that interview?

I suspect that Obama is sending a shot across the bow of U.S.S. McCain, showing just a taste of what can happen if the McCain campaign persists in their over the top negative campaign that they so stupidly warned was coming. There is plenty more ammunition he can use, and unlike McCain's made up garbage all of it will be relevant to the campaign.

And like others have said, Obama is able to walk and chew gum at the same time. In addition to hitting McCain he can, and will, point out the McCain attacks are designed solely to distract attention from his record and his part in creating the creating the current economic mess, such as his effective deregulatory efforts and ties to the likes of Phil Gramm.

He can and will turn the McCain sleaze against him.

The fatal mistakes of Kerry in 2004 were in first in delaying his response to the swift boat ads, and then only defending himself against them. He should have coupled his responses with attacks against Bush's Vietnam War record, something like: "Who are these people to criticize my proven war record and not that of George W. Bush, the guy who had his pappy get him into the Air National Guard and then bugged out of that when it was convenient."

Obama, fortunately, is not listening to the likes of Bob Shrum.