Today's Paul Krugman column has a section that I found very interesting:

The whole McCain and the 100 years question appears to have struck a nerve with conservatives. I wonder if they feel this is one of those comments that can define a candidate?

Anyhow, it's clear Obama and any Democrats that say that McCain wants to stay in Iraq for another 100 years are perfectly right. He is unwilling to say how long he will stay and thinks we need to finish the job without any deadline so 100 years is actually being nice to McCain, chances are he wants to stay even longer.

I like Josh Marshall's proposal (thanks Blue Neponset!):

It seems House Democrats decided to ignore the lying from the Bush administration and its allies about how the expiration of the Protect America Act means that terrorists win and stood strong for once.

Will this last? I have my doubts. But it is a step forward.

Like Megan McArdle I haven't read Jonah Goldberg's book nor do I plan to. My initial view when I heard of this book was that Goldberg wanted to emulate Coulter's and Hannity's success selling books loved by conservatives. But it appears he wants more than that, he wants to be considered a serious thinker like Bloom and "The Closing of the American Mind".

Thoughts? Is Goldberg really taking his book that seriously?

I am reading the excellent Marginal Revolution and I come across this:

I have read versions of this argument many times, both in liberal as well as conservative blogs. But where's the proof of this?

Wow, can this really happen? For a long time I simply assumed that Clinton would become the nominee, or Edwards if she faltered. I just didn't think that Obama had enough support for the long haul.

Now come news that after Iowa Obama may be leading Hillary by ten in NH. If true, Hillary will have a very hard time getting the nomination.

Nationally, Obama has increased his spread over Mitt and Giuliani and this was before the Iowa caucuses.

From the Washington Post:

Remember back when the GOP controlled the Senate and they threatened the nuclear-option against the Dems using the filibuster? Had it gone through does anyone know if that means we would no longer have the filibuster in place?

Feel free to comment about the importance of 'be careful what you wish for'!

Personally I tend to think we should get rid of the filibuster. What do others think?

Interesting LA Times article:

Some time ago we had a debate here (several actually) on whether governments can save. Some claimed this was not possible. Of course, this is nonsense. Government savings are simply a matter of definition, Anytime government revenues (taxes, fees, or anything else) are greater than expenses there will be government savings. This is part of the overall country savings which you read on the newspapers. If the savings are large enough and last for a sufficiently long time the country in question ends up with sizable assets.

Recently these government assets have grown dramatically across the world and have created what are called "sovereign wealth funds". The Economist reports: