Live Q&As

The Wikileaks revelations go much farther back and reflect the fact that even under a "strong" -- or at least cowboy-style -- president like George W. Bush, the United States had to ask, plead and cajole a lot more often than it could dictate. The world is a different place now. As for basketball and golf, I wonder if you think that's somehow less appropriate than Bush's many trips home to his Texas ranch, where he spent hours clearing brush and riding his mountain bike. Obama, at least, stays in town or at Camp David -- and I don't know anyone who thinks he doesn't work hard. And, um, have you ever actually met Joe Biden? I like him a lot, but I've never thought of him as shy and retiring.

I guess I mean intelligent, well-read, curious about the world, and susceptible to logic. Being smart doesn't guarantee that a politician will be effective, but it really helps.

Good question. I believe this is a good illustration of how the news business works -- and sometimes doesn't work. It has been known for some time, and widely reported, that most of the TARP money would be paid back and that the program would cost far less than originally feared. As the final cost estimate has ratcheted down, down, down, those new figures have been reported. but with every new figure, the subject feels to editors like old news. The result, though, is that a lot of people will continue to think the program cost $700 billion as opposed to $25 billion. This is a failure of our duty to inform, I believe -- not a technical failure, perhaps, but a failure nonetheless. As to why the White House folks haven't put up a huge Mission Accomplished banner, you'll have to ask them.

If he gives way and accepts a temporary extension, he should get something in return. Right now, the best candidate looks like an extension of unemployment benefits. But a temporary extension of all the tax cuts is definitely not (as some Republicans claim) a compromise.

My colleague Anne Applebaum wrote an excellent column for this morning's paper asking why Wikileaks isn't publishing internal documents from repressive governments such as that of China. I agree that if Julian Assange and Wikileaks mean what they say about secrecy and sunshine, they should go after some other targets as well. The difference between Wikileaks and the work of muckrakers is the difference between activists and journalists. I'm not arguing that every journalist's motives are as pure as the driven snow, but there is indeed a difference.

I've worked my whole career in journalism, so I'm a huge advocate of openness and sunshine. The fact is, though, that when I was a manager here at The Post and had to evaluate employees' performance, I didn't want those assessments made public. Likewise, if I was trying to engineer a reporter-swap with another section head, I didn't want those negotiations to be made public. These situations aren't entirely analogous to diplomacy, but they're close enough to make the point, which is that it's surely not possible to conduct all diplomacy in public. That doesn't mean that I, as a journalist, hesitate to try to find out what's happening behind the scenes. It just means that I understand why some diplomatic conversations are meant to be kept private.

That's an excellent question, and it's immoral, in my view, not to take the implications of full disclosure into account. All the news organizations that published Wikileaks information say they took pains to redact the names (and other identifying information) of people whose safety might be imperiled. I believe them.

The working assumption is that this whole data dump may have come from one person, Pvt. Bradley Manning. That has not been confirmed or denied by those in a position to know.

First, the conflict-of-interest disclosure: I have a contract with MSNBC and appear on "Morning Joe" twice a week. That said, I thought it was a good column offering wise advice to Republicans. It also tended to underscore Joe's assertion that he's not running for anything.

You can find historical analogies -- Andrew Jackson, for example, was derided as an uncouth clod. Then again, Andrew Jackson had won the Battle of New Orleans. Sarah Palin has appeared in a reality show. I think the anti-intellectualism is certainly worse than it has been in the recent past, and I don't know why. It's true that the eggheads haven't had all the solutions, but I don't know why this suggests to some people that the dunderheads would do better.

I'm happy to give Bush credit for TARP. The point is, though, that Republicans blame it on Obama -- they scream "No more bailouts," neglecting to mention that it was the GOP that enacted the Mother of All Bailouts. So let's give both credit and criticism where they're due.

I sympathize with your plight -- federal workers just happened to be the ones wearing the bulls-eyes. I'm not so sure, however, that there's no political benefit for Obama. Outside of the [very expensive] Washington area, federal-worker salaries are not very popular. That may be unfair, but it's true.

It struck me as pretty clever, too.

Poor gobbler wouldn't stand a chance.

And with that, folks, I apologize but I have to run. Thanks, and see you next week!