Posted by | February 26, 2008 11:36 | Filed under: Top Stories

barackhillary.jpg 

The New York Times (remember them?) went to some mucky-mucks and asked for some good questions for what is likely the final debate between Clinton and Obama.

Boston Globe reporter Charlie Savage:

Would you ever use the court-approved authority to hold a citizen indefinitely as an enemy combatant?

Did the Korean and Kosovo wars violate the Constitution? Would an attack on Iran be legally different, and if so, how?

New York Times contributor Roger Lowenstein:

Social Security will go into a cash deficit during the next president’s prospective second term. Therefore, if elected, you will: a) do nothing and leave growing deficits to your successor; b) cut benefits, eligibility or both, as President Bush tried; c) raise the payroll tax; or d) there is no d. Those are the only options.

Domestic gun owners kill more Americans each year than terrorists have in total since 2000 (even if you define all American fatalities in Iraq as related to terrorism). Can the homeland be secure when our schools are not? If your answer is no, will you take on the National Rifle Association and work for a gun law with teeth?

Do you agree that fear of terrorism has been pushed too far, and if so, what measures would you adopt to return the United States to a more normal civilian life?

Christine Rosen of the Ethics and Public Policy Center:

You have both admitted to being BlackBerry addicts. How has this desire for constant connection and endless information changed your personal relationships and how has it transformed political culture?

What else needs to be asked?

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2008 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.