The Reverse Pottery Barn Rule

"We broke it, you buy it." That seems to be what the Washington Post wants to impose on the Democratic Party.

Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama have repeatedly discussed the positions they held on the war in Iraq before it began and their pledges to withdraw most American troops, but neither has explained how the dramatic improvement in security in Iraq during the past year would be preserved if their proposed withdrawals went forward.

You mean, if we disregard the fact that we have a "surge" that is supposed to create a security situation that can be sustained with lower troop levels, and simply treat it as an escalation? Of indefinite duration?

They've promised to improve U.S. relations with the rest of the world, but they haven't said what that would mean in such regions as Africa and Latin America.

Does the Post really mean, "what that would mean"? It would mean "improved relations". Does the Post means to ask, "How would they do that?" Well, sure, we could get into specifics - as if voters really want specifics. (But the media likes to complain about how boring debates are when the candidates discuss policies of immediate relevance to voters, like health care.) Also, were our relations in Africa and Latin America so bad before Bush II?

They haven't said what they would do with critical Bush administration initiatives, such as the Israeli-Palestinian peace process or negotiations with North Korea, that are unlikely to be wrapped up by January.

The Post finds it unlikely that there will not be an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord in place by January? It's such a simple, short-term problem, and Bush has been so effective in the Middle East so far, right? And we can remain optimistic that Bush will be able to roll back the North Korean crisis to the point it was at when he took office (and ridiculed the compromises Clinton had made up to that point)?

Oh, come on.

This also presupposes a responsible media. One that won't attack Mondale for proposing new taxes, but will criticize Reagan for making what everybody believes to be a false promise. Like that'll happen. Any commitment or plan proposed on the "tough issues" will be used as a basis for attack, with media pundits leading the charge.