Who needs a "first black president" who is actually white when you can have a "first black president" who really is black?

Bush-bashers hate to admit it, but a smaller percentage of active-duty military personnel died during both Bush administrations than during the Reagan and Carter administrations.

The left-wing blogsphere claim that Hillary's people stole the election from Obama. The evidence, if true, is staggering.

The conservatives have rightly complained about the fiasco that was the CNN/YouTube debate, to say nothing of Chris Matthews' execrable moderating. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and it doesn't fit any better on that side.

Of course Mr. Musharraf doesn't want to share power. Who does? Does The Times want to share power and influence with the LA Times or with the Washington Post? Of course not.

Once again, lawbreakers get a nice fat Christmas present, while the longsuffering voters get "nothing but hooks and some wire."

The Trust doesn't answer to anybody anymore. They don't even have to be right.

Having been put on the scent, the blogosphere discovered that this was only the tip of the iceberg.

By thumbing their nose in the fact of the overwhelming majority of Americans, the Democrats are running a very serious risk.

Why "Hillary"? In 1980, did we have a race between Ronald and Jimmy?