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.

Poor people often skimp on food so that they will have enough money for things they consider valuable.

Since we peasants couldn't see that Roosevelt's marvelous ideas were for our own good, he believed it was OK for him to lie to help pass his programs. Does that remind you of any modern politicians?

By taking this preposterous action, the CIA has provided a signal service.

Who owns your mortgage? It might just be...nobody.

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

Unlimited money, unlimited visibility, unlimited clout - what could possibly go wrong?

Somehow, we have reached the point where we view democracy and elections as ends in themselves. But they aren't.

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