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.

Reuters reports trouble at the North Pole.

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.

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

What are we to make of the news that career State Department staffers are refusing to go to Iraq?

It's a far better thing, as well as much easier, for government to act to prevent a disaster, or at least to warn residents loudly and clearly of the potential consequences of their foolish choices.

Why such a difference between the handling of the California fires, vs Katrina in New Orleans?