Now this sounds fun. Is karate-bowling next?

I voted “B.” But make up your own mind.

Marty Peretz returns from Israel convinced “the peace effort is not founded in reality in that its partners are crazed fanatics, nothing less and maybe even more.” Do you think Obama’s trip will be as enlightening?

First utter clarity on Iraq. And now impeccable logic on Freddie-Fannie. (Why is it again that we are raising the conforming loan limit when borrowers already have proven they take on too much debt?) Throw in some spot-on legal analysis, and what isn’t there to like about the Washington Post’s editorial page?

This can’t be right: getting advice on the mortgage crisis from Franklin Raines would be like getting advice from Chuck Hagel on Iraq. Oh. I see.

Hillary Clinton was right about one thing: winning some of those Red state primaries didn’t mean much (other than earn her opponent the nomination, of course.)

It is well and good to chide us about fighting the “last war” but what about fighting the current ones?

Susan Rice attempts to explain why the speech preceded the trip: he’s apparently open to learning only small things. (What if someone tells him his conception of Iraqi political progress is two years out of date? What if Petraeus tells him we are on the verge of a substantial victory against Al Qaeda?) It must be embarrassing to defend willful ignorance.

Actually what is embarrassing is this intellectually dishonest rebuttal to the Washington Post. Did the Post editors really discount Afghanistan? Or did they commend Barack Obama to realistically fighting and winning on both fronts? Maybe we will have an unsuual endorsement from the Post this year.

My first thought about these two potential VP picks: if either one topped the ticket he’d be leading by 20 points. My second thought: to have gotten to the top of the ticket he’d have had to contort himself into the darling of the netroots and be just about where Obama is (minus the experience problem).