If answering the same questions in the same way for a year has grown old at this point, how about BOTH parties risk actually making the debates like, you know, debates. Have the candidates speak to each other. Have them go after each other as they wish to, and respond as they wish to.

Furthermore, don't put it in front of an audience; it's televised, it doesn't matter if there are people there. One of the most enlightening debates in 1992, the one that changed my mind about Bill Clinton, was nothing but the Democratic contenders sitting around a table, jumping in on questions and jumping on each other in response. Clinton was so effective at this, he just plain stood out as a thinker and communicator from the rest of the pack

Better yet, follow the lead of the push for a presidential debate on science and make a debate topical, with questions selected and presented by non-partisan experts in the field -- scientists, scholars, lawyers, activists, former congressional leaders, whatever. Have them push the candidates past stock answers. Let's see what they have left in the tank after the stump speach. Let's see if they can think on their feet. Let's see if they know more than their narrow focus grouped "likely voter."

Hell, here's a radical idea -- debates in which candidates from on party have to explain their positions to voters from the opposite party. Because, guess what, that's what they'll have to do they ever get in office (GWB notwithstanding).

Perhaps we could, for once, try to find out what kind of president they might be, not how orthodox a candidate they are?

After catching himself saying that Obama stole his theme "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" from the Clintons (Bill, anyway, because they've copyrighted speaking positively about the future somehow), Bennett actually said, "Hillary Clinton got rolled by Barack Obama tonight."

Image: Black man Obama mugged a white couple and stole their future. Nothing submliminal there, Bill.

Can we just end, right now, the notion that somehow diversity of opinion is bad for democracy? That the actual process of voting should confirm "conventional" wisdom or there's something terribly wrong with what people think (see, for instance, the Democratic primary in CT in 2006)?

Democracy is SUPPOSED to be a contentious tug of positions and interests. It's SUPPOSED to be tense sometimes, or at cross-purposes with other goals. Approaching issues from a variety of stances is GOOD, not bad. If you want to see what the alternative looks like, just check out Iraq.

"My Best Friend's Wedding Planner"?

CNN, no less, had Bibi Netanyahu on to explain Islam to America.

"A period of intense effort that improves a competitor's standing, as in a race."

You mean, by definition, the troop levels would only remain high for a limited period of time? And now that time has passed, the levels will not be sustained? Because that's what the word means?

Darn facts and their liberal bias.

Apparently, it's "campaign like a pirate" day.

I was not worried about Obama's victory in my state of Missouri. Exactly the same pattern appeared for McCaskill's defeat of Jim Talent in 2006 -- trailing badly as the small rural counties came in, then making up the difference in St. Louis and KC.

In MO, you just have to win enough in the rural parts not to get blown out, and the cities will carry the day for you.

As has been most of my life since I graduated from Graduate School. And it's been a matter of two steps forward, one step back ever since. Last year, I got a promotion and a raise two months before my student loan payments increased and ate up half of my raise.

And I consider myself fortunate. It's hard to get ahead, but unlike many I know, I'm not falling back. I'll definitely use the stimulus check to pay off credit card debt.

I've wondered of late -- subprime mortgages and excessive credit card debt with high interest rates seem to be the most immediate chills on the day-to-day spending and savings habits of Americans. How about this for stimulus, Bush, Congress, & co.? Pay off those subprime loans for us, let people keep their houses and begin to have equity and disposable income again! Next, use financial incentives to get banks to reduce or eliminate, permanently, interest on credit cards held by those defaulting or close to it.

I know it's more politically expedient to bribe everybody, but if you want to fix the damn thing, how about start where it's broke?

...but this was easily the most poorly argued column I've ever read of his.

Remember the collective media vow to stop writing candidates off until, you know, people vote? The halcyon days of last month!

Next month's New York Times: "After being written off in the month of February, Sen. Clinton proved doomsayers wrong..." etc. etc.

And I'm saying this as an Obama supporter. We can write all we want about money and momentum and Ohio and Texas. It will play out one of two ways: after next month's primaries, Clinton looks like a genius or an also-ran. Until then, it's just shooting the breeze to pass the time.

I wonder if the Jackson 5 know that their song is supporting Hillary?