Needed 1990
Biden 0
Booker 0
Bloomberg 0
Buttigieg 0
Klobuchar 0
Sanders 0
Steyer 0
Warren 0
Yang 0
Political Wire logo Pelosi Calls War Powers Vote
The Moment Many Feared Most About Trump
Making America More Like Its Enemies
Kennedy Outraises Markey In Senate Primary
Chafee Files To Run for President Again
The Case for Amy Klobuchar
TODAY'S HEADLINES (click to jump there; use your browser's "Back" button to return here)
      •  Sunday Mailbag

Sunday Mailbag

For the first time in months, the dominant subject among the comments we got was something other than impeachment.

A Persian Gulf

V & Z: In your item about the killing of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, you wrote: "Iran has an honor-shame culture, and backing down would essentially be unthinkable. There's also the religious element, of course, as many Iranians view U.S. aggression as an attack upon Islam."

As somebody who was born and raised in Iran and who follows the news (and cultural elements) on both sides very closely, I don't find this statement accurate.

First of all, he was a war hero during the Iran-Iraq war (that part, not many Iranian people question), but in the 30 years that followed he acted both for and against the Iranian people's interests (as well as the interests of people in the region, and of the United States). He was a complex character who has left mixed feelings among many.

Now about the inaccuracies in the statement: Iran (despite what mainstream media like to show), is a modern society and talking about honor-shame culture is no closer to the truth than saying U.S. joined World War II because it had an honor-shame culture. There is a larger calculation at play here.

Also, I doubt that "many Iranians" would see the aggression as an attack against Islam. The government and the supreme leader would like to exploit some sectarian elements, especially in neighboring countries, but the people of Iran, for the most part, have had enough of religion.

It's much more instructive to think about the situation like this: A top U.S. general is killed in Iraq by Iranian drones. What would Americans think? Now, imagine it's 2024 and Donald Trump has seized power without benefit of an election, backed by rogue (and religious) elements, and that the general who was killed had helped Trump to seize power. What would Americans think? It would definitely be a mixed feeling. On one side a general is a general, and was killed by a foreign power. On the other side, he has been hostile (or indifferent) towards his own people and also he was doing Trump's (and not Americans') bidding. That's how many Iranians think. A.J., New York, New York

V & Z: In this week's Q&A, there was discussion of a "wag the dog" possibility regarding Trump and assassination of Iranian general Soleimani. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also has need to wag the dog, both to avoid criminal prosecution and to be reelected. Trump seems to always do what Netanyahu asks. This operation has the fingerprints of Israeli intelligence all over it, including the use of assassination as a tactic. W.G., Winchester, VA

Note: For those who are wondering how fair that last point is, here is a list of the assassinations that have allegedly been undertaken by Israel, so that you may judge for yourself.

V & Z: I keep reading about how the late Gen. Suleimani was responsible for the killing of an American "contractor." It makes it sound like a guy who was hanging sheetrock in Iraqi buildings. Isn't it more correct to call him a "mercenary"? Aren't the "contractors" actually private, armed "security" personnel, retained through companies like Blackwater? I'm surprised that the media are buying into this terminology. If they called these armed civilians "mercenaries," I think it would provide a more honest context for their armed interactions. R.M., Brooklyn, NY

Note: The U.S. government is keeping details about this person's identity under close wraps, such that we can find no clear answer as to the nature of his work. That, in and of itself, may be instructive.

V & Z: I agree with commentators that describe President Trump's foreign policy as reckless, poorly executed and brash, but couldn't we also describe Iran's foreign policy in the same way? I feel like the American press gives Iran a pass on just how foolish and reckless it has been for the last forty years. I'm 41, and I started watching and reading the news around the age of 6, and for my entire life, all I've ever remembered is Iran going from one war or conflict to another. I read a really great op-ed years ago about how wealthy and successful of a country (huge oil reserves, a highly educated and urbane populace, rich culture) Iran could be if it had focused on its economy and democracy for the last forty years instead of pursuing nuclear weapons, fighting Saudi Arabia and trying to destroy Israel. It is really a tragedy.

And this brings me to the assassination of Soleimani. What have the Iranians been doing the last six months? Attacking oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, firing missiles at U.S. bases in Iraq and oil refineries in Saudi Arabia, and continuing to support terrorist groups throughout the Middle East. And then, earlier this week, Ayatollah Khamenei publicly blusters: "You can't do a damn thing," in response to Trump's threats. Well, it turns out Trump could do a damn thing, and did so Friday night. Khamenei runs his mouth almost as badly as Trump does. (BTW, for the record, I think Trump is a terrible president.)

The Iranians are terrified of a conventional war with the U.S., because they know they'd lose badly, just as they did back in Operation Praying Mantis, when they lost hundreds of men, while inflicting zero combat casualties against America. C.N., St. Louis, MO

V & Z: One of the most underreported benefits of the Iran nuclear deal is that it allowed forces for peace and economic prosperity inside Iran to emerge and coalesce. The Quds forces (that Suleimani ran) and the IRGC had convinced their populace that Iran's survival depended on conflict, while cooperation (especially with the US) was a recipe for their extinction. But with the deal, their president showed what was possible, and Iranians were seeing the benefits on the ground. That made the Quds forces and Suleimani even more controversial at home. So, Suleimani & Co. must have been thrilled when Trump pulled out of the nuclear deal because they could say, "see, I told you so. You can't trust the Americans." And this benefited Vladimir Putin because his power depends on never-ending conflict in the region.

One of the best insights I've heard since this assassination is that it will further rally Iranians around the militias and marginalize those interested in peace and cooperation. Turning Suleimani into a martyr only empowers and emboldens those people and forces determined to harm us.

Despite Putin's surface protestations, one wonders if he, along with the other DC hawks, has been egging Trump on to just this type of action for some time. U.S. cooperation with Iran does not fit his plan for world domination. A.R., Los Angeles, CA

V & Z: The attacks on the U.S. embassy in Iraq by pro-Iran militias shows how flawed the Trump administration's and Israel's approach of deterrence towards Iran is. Iran and its terrorist proxies abroad are Shi'ite Muslim fanatics who are willing to sacrifice their own lives in many cases for their cause. Deterrence doesn't usually work against people who are willing to die in the name of their religion. I think the Obama administration's approach was better because they understood they could not deter fanatical people. They tried to show Iran they could get financial benefits if they opened up their country to western weapons inspections. I do not think deterrence works against fanatics. R.M.S., Lebanon, CT

A Difference of Interpretation

V & Z: I'm usually a fan of the historical perspective you bring. But your confidence that the U.S. will exist in 80 years seems to be lacking in that respect. The USSR did not survive for 80 years, and not many could have predicted its demise even 10 years before it happened. You may counter that people had been predicting the end of the Soviet Union ever since its inception, but intelligent people who lived most of their lives there (such as my parents) had always been highly skeptical of such pronouncements.

As for the U.S.: the Civil War and the Great Depression could have well spelled the end of the country, had it not been so lucky to find exceptional leaders capable of holding it together. Such luck may run out. I'm not even mentioning natural disasters (a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest, a major earthquake in CA, an eruption of the Yellowstone supervolcano) that can weaken the country to the point of extinction. H.M., Berlin, Germany

V & Z: In the item about the Iran-Contra Affair, you wrote: "George Washington & Co. never suborned torture, rape, and the murder of civilians."

What about the people they enslaved, whom they hunted down after attempts to escape? Sally Hemings was an enslaved minor (and half-sister to Jefferson's wife) when she became Thomas Jefferson's mistress and the eventual mother of his children. That's statutory rape. Some accounts have her as young as 14 at the outset of this sexual abuse.

Meanwhile, George Washington had a set of dentures made from healthy teeth yanked from the living mouths of enslaved Africans. That's torture, regardless of whether he "paid" his slaves for the forced or coerced removal of their teeth.

The founding fathers were every bit as brutal as the Contras in their perpetuation of slavery. S.T., Philadelphia, PA

Pulpit Fiction

V & Z: Kudos for the recognition of Jimmy Carter as the most evangelical U.S. president. Much of the non-religious left-wing media often portrays evangelical Christians in the U.S. as a rather homogeneous group. The recent editorial by Christianity Today and the lifelong witness of President Carter bear witness to the contrary. D.R., Anaktuvuk Pass, AK

V & Z: Two of your questions this week had to do with differing understandings of the words "conservative" and "evangelical." This triggered my knee-jerk negative reaction to labels. I think many labels mean vastly different things to different people. With regard to conservative, you seemed to emphasize a historic perspective of maintaining the status quo and preserving "states' rights" (if I understood correctly), whereas many people nowadays think "conservative" means being anti-abortion, pro-gun rights, anti-regulation, anti-same-sex-marriage, and pro-establishment of a Christian theocracy. I would say a few decades ago, "conservative" seemed to mean a desire to balance the budget and pay down the debt, and Teddy Roosevelt would have argued "conservative" means preserving natural resources and open spaces. I would argue it is a completely useless term these days because it means so many different things to different people.

Similarly "evangelical." I believe a dictionary-type definition is "someone who tries to recruit and convert, possibly even by proselytizing." Therefore, a Christian evangelical might be a missionary or someone who tries to recruit and convert some other way. However, I think many people today think Christian evangelicals are people who have a very literal interpretation of a selected number of excerpts from the Bible and they link this to the same laundry-list I used above for the current interpretation of "conservative." So again, I hate the label because the meaning is so unclear. Labels just feed into people jumping to conclusions about others, and turning them into two-dimensional caricatures. C.W., Haymarket, VA

Something Rotten in the State of Pennsylvania?

V & Z: I'm really surprised that you and other statisticians don't think there's any evidence of vote totals being changed by the Russians in the 2016 election. As a resident of Pennsylvania, the vote totals have never sat right with me. For example:

  1. In all races other than for president and senator, the Democrats beat the Republicans by at least 2.5% (and by as much as 6%). For example, Josh Shapiro (D), who was running for Attorney General, got over 100,000 votes more than Pat Toomey (R), who was running for senator, and yet Toomey managed to beat Katie McGinty (D) because an unknown libertarian candidate for senator, Edward Clifford III, got nearly 4% (!) of the vote, outperforming all other down-ballot (and up-ballot) third party candidates by over 1% and over 50,000 votes.

  2. While this unknown candidate Edward Clifford III managed to get 235,142 votes, nationally known candidates like Gary Johnson and Jill Stein only managed 146,715 and 49,941 votes, respectively. I knew people in Pennsylvania who voted for Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, yet none of them voted for other Green Party or Libertarian candidates—all of whom outperformed Johnson and Stein (in the latter case, by 1.5-2%!) according to the election results.

  3. In all races other than for president and senator, the third-party candidates all received 2.23% to 2.88% and the Green Party candidate slightly outperformed the Libertarian candidate. In the presidential election, Johnson outperformed other Libertarian candidates by about 10,000 votes, but Stein underperformed other Green Party candidates by 100,000-120,000 votes. I simply can't believe that 120,000 more people voted for complete unknown Green Candidate Kristen Combs for State Treasurer than voted for Jill Stein for president.

These results have never made any sense. We've been told for years that ballot-splitting is as good as dead, yet the Democrats lost the only races the Russians cared about, and did so thanks to an unknown Libertarian candidate who severely overperformed other, nationally known third-party candidates in ways that strain all credibility. C.S., Springfield, PA

Can Pete Compete?

V & Z: I do not think that your piece "Why do young voters hate Pete Buttigieg?" hit on the actual reason that young voters do not support him. What tends to excite young voters the most is conviction and perceived sincerity. When we are younger, we more frequently take up opinions for or against something. Last election cycle, JEB! and Hillary faced a similar lack of interest among younger voters, for the same reason. Some politicians, like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) or even Donald Trump, connect with younger voters because their strong stances "feel" believable. I think this is one of the reasons many supporters of Trump justify their support by saying "He tells it like it is." This is despite the fact that no president has lied to the American people more.

Buttigieg often comes off as measured and insincere. When he is asked a question that is a matter of opinion, his answers tend to come across as if they were composed to either appeal to the largest number of voters or to offend the least number of voters. He is a highly intelligent individual and when he gives his opinion it often "feels" insincere. Hillary gave off a similar aura and it was one of the reasons that she did not connect with youth as well as Sanders. Buttigieg's measured approach leads to the feeling that he is a DINO, and also to statements such as "If he had balls, he would run as the Republican he is against Trump in the primary." The "for or against" opinions of youth are very difficult to change, and the feelings associated with Buttigieg are not due to his lack of being a revolutionary, but rather to his perceived lack of sincerity. Even if he adopted more progressive stances, it is very unlikely that Mayor Pete will would gain traction among younger voters. E.L., Dallas, TX

V & Z: For what it's worth, I predict our next President will be Pete Buttigieg.

Why? First, by process of elimination, neither Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) nor Bernie Sanders can win the nomination as long as the other is still running, and neither is going away anytime soon. Plus he's the only candidate both moderates and progressives can agree on. Biden is the safe vote nobody seems particularly enthusiastic about. As soon as Mayor Pete wins first and/or second in Iowa and in New Hampshire, people will feel reassured he can win the general election and give him another look. That's what happened with Obama. After all, we win when we nominate the young inspirational rising star: Carter, B. Clinton, Obama. We lose when we nominate the next in line: Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, H. Clinton. (Well, Gore and Clinton didn't actually lose, but I digress.)

Why he'll beat Trump? It's hard to see a pathway for a Trump victory assuming all the votes are counted, which I admit is a big assumption. More importantly, I have to believe Trump will lose. It's the only thing that lets me sleep at night. S.S., West Hollywood, CA

Tiny Bubbles...

V & Z: The discussion on many media outlets and sites (including this one) has at times focused on living in our respective bubbles (echo chambers). Some of the prime characteristics of residing in such a bubble seem to be:

  • Utter certainty that we are not in a bubble

  • Utter certainty that those who are outside our bubble are in their own bubble

  • Any information contrary to what's in our bubble is "fake news", "fox news red meat", "liberal propaganda," etc.

And yes, I do acknowledge that these criteria put us all into bubbles. What strikes me is that these (two or more) bubbles are just sub-bubbles of the bubble all Americans live in, that profoundly affects our view of the rest of the world. L.V.A., Idaho Falls, ID

V & Z: With the New Year just underway, I'm struck by a couple things. First, 2020 is exactly like 1992, in that the Democrats lack a clear favorite candidate. Second, the world now, as then, was undergoing some major changes and not all for the good. In the early nineties, the Internet Era, as we know it, was on the horizon and promised to open the world of communication to all people of the world, creating a more free and open global society. Now, certain nationalist types in many nations want to pull back and close the world off, while using the technology of the Internet to spread dangerous and often effective disinformation in ways no one could have dreamed of back when Adolf Hitler was using a series of 500KW shortwave transmitters in the early days of radio.

As much as it pains me to think this way, we may now be at a point where the great free nations of the world—Canada, the U.S., Germany, Australia, France, Japan, etc.—may have no choice but to take a stand China-style and literally block websites from certain nations, while also requiring Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others to block posts from certain foreign IP addresses and to tighten access to what the people of the homeland are seeing. There is certainly a history of this in the old shortwave days, when the U.S. would often try to jam the propaganda from the U.S.S.R. Some now-dead Presidents would approve of similar moves today, given the actions of Russia and China on the world stage, even if the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue would not. R.D., Austin, TX

The Row over Roe

V & Z: I think you're overlooking a key aspect of a potential post-Roe v Wade political landscape. While abortion would no longer be a national issue, it would immediately become a very hot state issue, and anti-abortion forces in purplish states like my own Michigan would get fired up to enact state bans. Pro-choice supporters would resist, of course, but it seems to be a more potent issue for motivating abortion opponents, so the overall result could be increasing GOP turnout in contested states, which could give them greater control over legislatures and governorships and a boost in presidential contests. K.H., Ypsilanti, MI

V & Z: Be careful what you wish for...or, put another way: do not overplay your hand. Natalie Schafer did the "Gilligan's Island" pilot for the trip to Hawaii and the paycheck, convinced that the show was so stupid that it would never be picked up. To her mortification, it was, and is in reruns sixty years later.

To the 200 Republican congressmen:

  1. Roe v. Wade holds the party together. Republicans can be "pro-life", never having to take an impactful vote. Without Roe, we will see intra-party combat shred the GOP.

  2. Minorities have an abortion incidence of three times that of whites (see here). White Republican mothers will always know how to help their distressed daughters, but Republicans need Roe to preclude a minority voter tsunami, and a "blue" Indiana or Ohio or Missouri, 20 years hence.

Again: Be careful what you wish for. J.R., San Francisco, CA

The Cult of Trump

V & Z: The comment from J.S. in Indianapolis about cult tactics really resonated with me, since I recently saw the Netflix documentary about Bikram Choudhoury, "Bikram: Yogi, Guru, Predator." Watching Bikram's demeanor, bullying, denigration of others, money-grubbing and sexual predation made me think throughout watching the documentary how very Trump-like Choudhoury is. It made me feel there is a segment of Americans in thrall to the Trump cult and fearful about our democracy. How do we break up this cult? The film did show the assaulted women suing Bikram, yet he fled the country, then settled some out of court. But the worst part is that Bikram continues to teach his yoga teacher training classes around the world.

I hope we can rid ourselves of Trump in a peaceful way but there doesn't seem to be a way to rid our country of some citizens' belief that they would rather have a strongman in charge. N.G., San Jose, CA

GOP Veeps for Uncle Joe

V & Z: About Joe Biden picking a Republican as his Veep. Wouldn't Rep. Justin Amash (I-MI) be a good idea? He's a minority/non-establishment person. J.K., Anyang, South Korea

V & Z: No mention of former Governor of Ohio, John Kasich, as a possible running mate for Biden. His name on the ticket could pull Ohio into the blue column. M.M., Ventura, CA

Note: We got many e-mails about possible options we overlooked, and Kasich was far and away the most popular subject of those e-mails.

V & Z: Not just for Biden, but for Buttigieg as well. What about Condi Rice? A well-spoken, well-known, moderate Republican with experience. She's not a "never Trumper," but clearly has different views that are more in line with a moderate Democrat than with Trump. B.S., San Diego, CA

V & Z: Biden and...Colin Powell? B.P., Salt Lake City, UT

V & Z: Former Indiana Governor and current president of Purdue University Mitch Daniels might make a great running mate for Biden. Super smart and politically savvy, and very fiscally conservative, but hardly right-wing. Was loved by Indiana, far more than his replacement Pence ever was. Biggest negative would be getting him to run, as he seems to have had it with politics. A.N., Tempe, AZ

V & Z: While I am generally supportive of a Democrat taking on a Republican running mate, I do have some qualms about Biden or Bernie Sanders doing so. Both are old enough so that there is a significant chance that the vice-president becomes president, and having someone who would look to the Republican establishment for judges and executive branch appointments scares me at the moment. J.L., Mountain View, CA

V & Z: You treated as serious Joe Biden's statement that, if nominated, he would consider a Republican running mate. But this makes no sense. First of all, the Democratic convention would never approve a Republican VP. Too many Democrats want the position. Also, Biden is old and has health issues; Democrats are not going to expend effort and money electing a Republican VP who could realistically become president. Nor would Biden want to encourage his own assassination by Second Amendment Republicans. Also, a Republican VP candidate of any stripe would alienate and anger large numbers of Democratic voters, foremost among them women, minorities, young people, and progressives. Given that Donald Trump is extremely popular among Republicans, the gain of Republican votes from a Biden/Republican ticket would not nearly offset the potential loss of Democratic voters. Finally, the potential Republican running mates that you listed as non-Trumpers are moderate only in comparison to the extremists who now constitute most of the party. G.A., Berkeley, CA

Bern Notice

V & Z: While there were certainly people in his campaign who did not throw their enthusiasm behind Hillary Clinton's campaign, and held grudges after the Democratic Party establishment arguably did much to undermine Bernie Sanders' primary campaign, I think it is fair to argue that response was in spite of Sanders' strongly urging them to unite behind Clinton, and his energetic support of Clinton in the months leading up to November 2016.

I think it is unfair to say that Sanders is not a team player. He cares strongly about vital issues, but he is willling to work with others and get things done, and in my mind he is honorable in how much he strives to avoid negative campaigning, and to find common ground with others in the party, even when powerful forces gather to attack him, and suppress his campaign.

As far as 2020 predictions go, I think Sanders will be the next president of the United States. A.K., San Francisco, CA

V & Z: I'm writing to take strong exception to your propagation of the trope that Bernie Sanders did not support Hillary Clinton strongly enough, and that his lack of support may have thrown the 2016 election. This is a political myth that has been debunked numerous times by multiple reports and analyses. Sanders himself has been adamant in defending his efforts to elect Clinton and defeat Trump in 2016. He is quick to note his considerable travel on the nominee's behalf. By his campaign's count, Sanders did 39 rallies for Clinton in 13 states over the final three months of the 2016 general election.

Was Sanders less than enthusiastic, or in any way guarded in his endorsement of Clinton during the general election cycle? Consider, for example, his remarks during a New Hampshire appearance on Clinton's behalf on July 12, 2016:

I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton," Sanders said to exuberant applause, "and why she must become our next president...Secretary Clinton has won the Democratic nomination. I congratulate her for that. I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president. The profound lesson I have learned is that this campaign is not about Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump, this campaign is about the needs of the American people and addressing the very serious crises that we face. There is no doubt in my mind that as we head into November, Hillary Clinton is by and far away the best candidate to do that.

The truth is that Bernie Sanders is very, very angry—at Donald Trump. He is angry enough to have spent weeks travelling on behalf of Hillary Clinton, speaking for her in union halls and arenas, to students and activists. He let his supporters yell at him and deride him as a sellout in bleak delegate breakfasts at the Democratic National Convention, in Philadelphia, as he endorsed Clinton and explained why they needed to do the same. He made getting support for her his priority, putting aside any subtle, undermining gestures that might have better preserved his rebel-rock-star status. He has kept doing so despite other revelations in the Podesta e-mails, ones that are not about him personally but about issues that he believes in—for example, about money in politics, as exemplified by the Clinton team's nurturing of donors.

And finally, this lifelong (going back to the Bill Russell days) Celtics fan asks that you show some love for the great legacy of Celtics teamwork, smarts, and determination to win, rather than throwing shade on them. Dissing Bernie is bad enough; when you denigrate my Celtics, you've simply gone too far! S.P., Foster, RI

Note: You make a good case for Sanders. However, we're still wary of the Celtics. Determination? Smarts? A team of equals working together to conquer the world? Sounds straight out of the Communist Manifesto to us. Don't forget who else was famous for wearing green: Robin Hood, who took from the rich and gave to the poor. Need we say more?

We Also Forgot the Dallas Cowboys

V & Z: In your piece identifying which teams are foreign fronts that need to be shut down, you misspelled the football team. The correct spelling is "New England Patriots." Additionally, I'd like to add the Baltimore Football Club, spelled around these parts as "Ratbirds." The other teams were spot on. V.H., DuBois, PA

If you have a question about politics, civics, history, etc. you would like us to answer on the site, please send it to, and include your initials and city of residence. If you have a comment about the site or one of the items therein, please send it to and include your initials and city of residence in case we decide to publish it. If you spot any typos or other errors on the site that we should fix, please let us know at
Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger
Jan04 Saturday Q&A
Jan03 Iranian General Killed on Trump's Orders
Jan03 Evidence Against Trump Continues to Mount
Jan03 More Q4 Fundraising Numbers Are In
Jan03 Bloomberg Makes His Strategy Official
Jan03 Castro Gives Up
Jan03 Williamson Campaign Enters Its Death Throes
Jan03 Why Do Young Voters Hate Pete Buttigieg?
Jan03 Unions Are Cool on Sanders This Time
Jan03 Five Fights to Expect in Congress
Jan03 Over 200 Members of Congress Ask Supreme Court to Revisit Roe v. Wade
Jan02 Trump Says He Will Sign China Trade Deal on January 15
Jan02 Trump-Critical Pieces by Christians Are Piling Up
Jan02 An Under-the-radar Sort of Gerrymander
Jan02 Beginning-of-the-Year Democratic Polling
Jan02 Beginning-of-the-Year Democratic Power Rankings
Jan02 Q4 Fundraising Numbers Are Trickling In
Jan02 Elections to Watch in 2020
Jan01 Do as I Say, Not as I Do
Jan01 Collins "Open to Witnesses" in Impeachment Trial
Jan01 Lewandowski Is Out
Jan01 Trump 2019 in Review, Part I: The Worst Weeks
Jan01 Trump 2019 in Review, Part II: The Lows
Jan01 Trump 2019 in Review, Part III: The Highs
Jan01 Back to the Future, Part II: 2020 Predictions
Dec31 Shadowy Diplomacy
Dec31 Two Judges, Two Punts
Dec31 U.S. Army Bans Use of TikTok by Soldiers
Dec31 Biden Says He'd Consider a Republican Running Mate
Dec31 Sanders' Doctors Give Him a Clean Bill of Health
Dec31 Black Voters Energized Heading into 2020
Dec31 Back to the Future, Part I: 2019 Predictions
Dec30 Trump Starts to Assemble His Defense Team
Dec30 Biden Waffles on Subpoena
Dec30 Who's Ahead in Iowa?
Dec30 The Gender Gap in 2020 Could Be Unprecedented
Dec30 Bloomberg Hires 200 Staffers in March and April Primary States
Dec30 Florida is Too Important to Ignore
Dec30 Cybersecurity Threats Loom in 2020
Dec30 James Lankford Doesn't See Trump as a Role Model
Dec29 Sunday Mailbag
Dec28 Saturday Q&A
Dec27 North Korean "Christmas Gift" Is Belated
Dec27 Trump-only Ballot Triggers Lawsuit in Minnesota
Dec27 Democrats Getting Ready to Run on Healthcare
Dec27 What Does a Promising Presidential Résumé Look Like?, Part I
Dec27 The Not-so-Young and Restless
Dec27 Who Are the Snowflakes, Again?
Dec27 Netanyahu Will Keep on Keepin' On
Dec26 House Is Open to More Articles of Impeachment