First in a series of posts looking at the substance of the final presidential debate, ostensibly about foreign policy.
The arguments in favor of major changes in the way we elect our President are unpersuasive.
President Obama seems to have given away the store when it comes to the defense sequestration cuts.
Like the men who came before him, Barack Obama has vastly increased the powers of his office. Someone should have asked him about that last night.
President Obama was the pretty clear winner on substance. But Romney may well have done enough.
Does it make sense to divide the Presidential debates between “domestic policy” and “foreign policy?” Yes, and no.
The candidate’s meet for one last time tonight to talk about some of the most important issues in the world.
A recent poll has Obama and Romney tied among women. Another gives Obama a 33 point edge.
Younger voters are starting to become as cynical as the rest of us.
No, the electoral college does not encourage the candidates to pay special attention to the small states.
With sixteen days to go, the race for President is tied.
Newspaper endorsements are getting a lot of attention in the closing days of the campaign, but do they really matter?
We could be headed for another extremely close election where the Electoral Vote and the Popular Vote disagree with each other.
Hillary Clinton doesn’t have much sympathy for her former aide’s inability to “have it all.”
Another loss in the Federal Courts for the Defense Of Marriage Act.
John Sides argues that, contrary to popular conception, undecided voters are neither morons nor non-partisan.
American politicians are using China as a scapegoat for America’s problems.
Increasingly, the right of people to speak is being sacrificed in the name of “tolerance” and “security.”
President Obama is keeping the conflict in Syria at arms length. That’s a good idea.
What’s the truth about last night’s debate exchange about Libya?