The reality is that like most presidents, either Clinton or Obama would be entering office without significant diplomatic or military experience even though these are the most important aspects of the job. I'll take "little experience plus good ideas" over "years of experience have committed me to crazy warmongering" in a heartbeat, but that's the basic shape of things.

Focus in on this core question: Is Barack Obama playing games with the trade issue that he has made central to his appeal to the voters of Wisconsin, Ohio and other industrial states where concerns about deals such as NAFTA runs deep?

And if he is doing so, will he end up planting the seeds of distrust similar to those planted by Al Gore and John Kerry in 2000 and 2004 on the trade issue? If he is talking out of both sides of his mouth, and if there are more revelations to come in this regard, then Obama is doing serious damage to his fall prospects as a Democratic presidential nominee.

Obama sounds a lot better than Gore or Kerry. That may be enough for a primary fight. But if he wants to win the presidency, he is going to need to be a lot better.

Of all these countries, the United States is, by far, the richest. And you would think that, as our wealth grew and our productivity increased, a certain amount of our resources would go into, well, us. Into leisure. Into time off. You would think that we'd take advantage of the fact that we can create more wealth in less time to wrest back some of those hours for ourselves and our families. But instead, the exact opposite has happened.

This would all be fine if it were what we wanted. But that doesn't seem to be the case. One famous 1996 study asked associates at major law firms which world they'd prefer: The one they resided in, or one in which they took a 10% pay cut in return for a 10% reduction in hours worked. They overwhelmingly preferred the latter. Elsewhere, economists have given individuals sets of choices pitting leisure against goods. Leisure doesn't always win out, but it is certainly competitive. Yet we're pumping ever more hours into work, seeking ever-higher incomes to fund ever-greater consumption. Why?

Is there a compelling public interest in preventing loving, committed, same-sex couples from getting legally married? The clear answer is no. Ask Canada. Ask Spain. Ask South Africa. Ask Massachusetts!

The real compelling public interest is in ending bigotry and discrimination. It's being true to our nation's values of freedom, fairness, justice and equality. We cannot and should not be able to regulate what individuals think and believe. But when it comes to what the government does, it must treat everyone equally. This includes same-sex couples and their families.