To his credit, he managed to get the “surge” right, even if the war was a bad idea — now that we’re in it, we might as well set Iraq up for as much success as possible.

Inarguably, Mac and The Huckster are also the two viable Republicans with a smidgen of integrity or credibility.

Brian, you pose some good questions. There’s nothing inherently wrong with voting for the coolest candidate. There’s nobody cooler than Bill Clinton. And sometimes the coolness is a definite leadership advantage. Governor Schwarzenegger is able to get a lot of bills through the California State Senate simply because everyone wants to say they worked with the Terminator.

The problem arises when we vote based solely on personal charisma instead of real qualifications. George W. Bush is a fun guy. He’s a former frat boy who owned a baseball team. He’s got a charming sense of humor. He’s the kind of guy you want to have a beer with. None of these qualities qualify him for the presidency. Al Gore was stiff and pedantic. He was actually criticized for being a know-it-all. You know, it might have been nice to have a president that knew a lot of stuff.

And I do think a vast majority of Americans form their opinions of the candidates based on the media coverage. That’s why so much money is spent on advertising. That’s not to say that people should form their opinions this way, only that many do. I don’t hope for an objective press, but I’d like a press that’s less interested in the popularity contest and the horse race, and more interested in substantive differences between the candidates. That is still possible, and there are very real examples of this.

And, Bronx Richie, why do you hate America?

Oh well, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.