Gov. Eliot Spitzer was a client of a high-end prostitution ring broken up last week by federal authorities, according to law enforcement officials.

“I don’t know how somebody who’s in second place can offer the vice presidency to someone who’s in first place,” Mr. Obama told a town meeting at the Mississippi University for Women here, alluding to his lead in delegates. As the crowd cheered, he said: “If I’m not ready, how is it that you think I should be such a great vice president? Do you understand that?”

“With all due respect, I’ve won twice as many states as Senator Clinton,” Mr. Obama said on the eve of the Mississippi primary, speaking over the applause of more than 1,500 people who rose from their seats. “I’ve won more of the popular vote than Senator Clinton. I have more delegates than Senator Clinton.”

Mr. Obama was considerably more forceful in his remarks. While he praised Mrs. Clinton’s talent and tenaciousness, he offered no invitation for her to be his running mate, should he become the nominee.

If nature is left to its own devices, about 7.59 billion years from now Earth will be dragged from its orbit by an engorged red Sun and spiral to a rapid vaporous death. That is the forecast according to new calculations by a pair of astronomers, Klaus-Peter Schroeder of the University of Guanajuato in Mexico and Robert Connon Smith of the University of Sussex in England.

Democratic voters don't seem willing to push either one out of the race, given several opportunities to do so. Obama-as-No. 2 would give them a way to have their cake and eat it, too, I suppose. But how can a guy leading a change movement take a job that FDR veep John Nance Garner described (and I'm cleaning it up here) as not worth a "warm bucket of spit"? And how can Hill tout Barack for the heartbeat-away job after castigating him as all talk and no action?

Time's Michael Scherer notes that Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Hillary backer, floated a new argument on "Meet the Press":

"Hillary Clinton has won states with about 260 electoral votes. Barack Obama has won states with about 190. And we decide the presidency not by a popular vote, we decide it by the electoral vote. And the traditional role of the superdelegates is to determine who's going to be our strongest candidate.

"My question is this: Just eight years after George W. Bush gained the White House by losing the popular vote and winning the Electoral College, isn't it a bit ironic that Hillary Clinton is arguing for Democrats to focus not on the popular vote but on the Electoral College?"

Over the past year, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have shined a light on the problems our great nation faces, have energized our party as never before, and have generated unbelievable enthusiasm among countless new voters across race, gender and party lines.

Fortunately, this enthusiasm has also translated into record-setting fundraising. So let's have a revote in Florida and Michigan, and let the Democratic National Committee pay for it. We'll even volunteer to help raise the funds.

In that 2007 column, I did not take the surge into account. Putting an additional 30,000 troops into Iraq has indeed made a difference. It has not won the war and it has not enabled American soldiers to come home, but it has dampened the violence there -- notwithstanding the carnage yesterday. Overall, civilian deaths are down. Overall, military deaths are down. To that (limited but important) extent, the surge has worked.

When I mentioned 1972 and Vietnam to an important Clinton adviser, he pointed out that Nixon initially won in 1968 by saying he had a secret plan to end the war. That nonexistent plan was still apparently unfolding four years later.

John McCain lacks Nixon's raw talent for hypocrisy, so I don't think he'll go that far. But he will make his stand on the surge, and it will be, for him, the functional equivalent of Nixon's secret plan. His plan, McCain will say, is to win. The Democrats' is to surrender, he will say. The issue, if he frames it right, will not be the wisdom of the war but how to get out with pride.

And that assumption (widely shared but seldom if ever articulated) is that our engagement with Iraq was somehow "a war of choice" -- to use a favorite catchphrase from a few years ago -- and thus that all of its costs, ranging from the physical damage to Iraqi infrastructure to the moral damage to our warriors, could have been avoided by abstention.

I don't know anybody who knows anything about the subject who believes anything so frivolous.

The "No-Fly Zone War" pitted the air and naval forces of the United States and the United Kingdom (also referred to as "Great Britain"), against the air defenses of Iraq. This conflict proved to be largely ignored by the media and the public in both the U.S. and in the U.K., though it impacted the military and the citizens of Iraq on an almost weekly basis, especially since the intense "Desert Fox" bombing campaign of 1998. The roots of this conflict are quite simple to trace: the inconclusive and vague cease-fire agreement ending the Gulf War of 1990-1991. This agreement called on the Iraqi government to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to search for prohibited weapons in Iraq, and, perhaps more importantly, allowed the Coalition Allies (originally the U.S., the U.K. and France), to enforce what came to be called "No-Fly Zones" over northern and southern Iraq. The original intent of these zones was to protect the rebellious Iraqi minorities (Kurds and Shiite Muslims) in northern and southern Iraq, respectively. The Coalition was permitted to fly warplanes over these zones to prevent Saddam Hussein's government from using military aircraft to attack these minorities. As time progressed though, the No-Fly Zones became a means for the Allies to force Iraq to comply with UN and Coalition demands, often related to the status of the weapons inspectors. As tensions mounted after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the possibility of a major escalation between Iraq and the U.S. increased dramatically, and the violence in the No-Fly Zone increased in preparation for the beginning of the Third Persian Gulf War: "Operation Iraqi Freedom", which began on March 19, 2003. In historical terms, the No-Fly Zone War is considered to have ended on March 19, 2003, when "Operation Iraqi Freedom" began and this conflict segued into the larger war. All three of the U.S.-led Coalition wars with Iraq (the 1990-1991 Gulf War, the 1991-2003 No-Fly Zone War, and the 2003 Gulf War 2) can really be seen as one long, extended conflict, but for classification purposes, are seen as separate conflicts.

Since American and British forces carried out Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 against Iraq, this "forgotten" war in the Middle East has only become more intense. According to the New York Times in an article on August 13, 1999, American and British forces have escalated the continuing war against Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Since the beginning of 1999 through August 1999, Allied pilots launched over 1,100 missiles against 359 Iraqi targets. That number equals nearly three times the amount of ordnance used in the four-day Desert Fox strike. Also, the pilots in the Iraq War have flown two-thirds the number of missions as NATO pilots in the 1999 Kosovo War. By all accounts, Iraqi forces continue to target their radar and fire missiles at Allied warplanes despite the punishment inflicted from the air. The estimated, unofficial cost of this war to U.S. and British taxpayers is around $1 billion per year. As of August 1999, over 200 military planes, 19 naval ships and 22,000 American military personnel are committed to enforcing the "no-fly zones" and to fighting Iraq.

The original, highly serious, disagreement about Iraq took its point of departure from this question: Was it possible or tolerable to continue to coexist with the regime of Saddam Hussein? Many "realists" thought that containment might be made to work, while many ex-realist "hawks" had changed sides after the Kuwait war and thought that Baghdad should have been freed of sadistic crime-family control at the latest by 1992. Either policy had, or would have had, great hidden or overt costs: the costs of enforcing the no-fly zones for an indefinite future, the costs of maintaining rather questionable United Nations sanctions on a crumbling regional economy and society, the costs of extinguishing the huge fires set by Saddam Hussein in the Kuwaiti oil-fields, the costs of future fights picked by him and the cost of cleaning up after the genocidal and aggressive adventures which were his government's raison d'etre.

That the costs of putting an end to this nightmare were underestimated by one side in the argument seems to me to be obviously, if trivially, true. (The opposing side has never, to my knowledge, come up with a "costing" for the continued life of the bankrupt Baathist system, and the Bilmes/Stiglitz analysis doesn't even touch the point.) Does this mean that we can only do one form of accounting? I would argue that this is not necessarily so.

In the area of Iraq that was liberated from Saddam Hussein's control the earliest -- the Kurdish provinces in the northeast part of the country -- all objective observers seem to agree that an unprecedented prosperity has replaced what was once an unimaginable wasteland of misery. With their head-start of liberation beginning in 1992, the Kurds (who still have no refineries and little infrastructure) have nonetheless set an example for the rest of the region as well as of the country. And fresh prospecting has shown us that enormous new fields of oil, from the Sunni province of Anbar to the areas around Basra and Baghdad and Kirkuk, are becoming available to make every Iraqi as potentially rich as a Saudi or Bahraini or Qatari can now hope to be.

Of the military cost I would simply want to make the same point in a different way: that the most important factors are unquantifiable, or at least unquantifiable by this sort of actuarial shorthand. A few years ago, we had armed forces that were quite able to remove a ramshackle yet horrific government in Kabul or Baghdad but were quite unprepared to tackle the much more agonizing and tenacious enemies -- a Baathist/Al Quaeda alliance, or a Pakistani Pushtun/Bin Laden coalition -- that had partly emerged under those ex-governments' shadows. Now, after infinite labor, we have armed forces who have learned in practice how to smash Islamist terrorism on the battlefield, and also how to isolate and discredit it in the slums and the villages. This is what we needed in the first place and still need, as it happens, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and will also need in the future. It's not that Bilmes and Stiglitz don't present an alternative accounting process here: it's more that they seem entirely unaware of the whole calculation.

Innocent as they are on the above points, they become positively childlike as they go on. Think how many candy-canes and vacations I could have if it were not for the space program, or the cost of carrier-groups or special forces or -- I don't know -- Black Hawk helicopters. (If you think I am being unkind or frivolous, see if you can detect the thread of reasoning that connects Iraq expenditures with the crisis in the mortgage system.) There are days when I think that the money raised by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama might have been better spent on the alleviation of poverty, but I can still tell an apple from an orange and am not hopelessly stuck on the zero-sum fixation. Once again, the economic "experts" turn out to know the price of some things but not the value of anything.

Seth Grahame-Smith writing about Hillary Clinton at HuffingtonPost.com:

She has no idea how many times I defended her. How many right-leaning friends and relatives I battled with. How many times I played down her shady business deals and penchant for scandals. . . . She has no idea how frequently I dismissed her husband's serial adultery as an unfortunate trait of an otherwise brilliant man. For sixteen years, I was a proud soldier in the legion of 'Clinton apologists'. . . . And then she ran for president. She's proven that she cares more about 'Hillary' than 'unity.' More about defeating Obama than defeating the Republicans. She's become a political suicide-bomber, happy to blow herself to bits -- as long as she takes everyone else with her. On Friday, one of Barack Obama's foreign policy advisors, Samantha Power, resigned after calling Senator Clinton 'a monster' during an off-the-record exchange. It was an unfortunate slip, but one that echoed the sentiments of many Clinton apologists like me -- who've watched Hillary's descent into pettiness and fear-mongering with the heartbreak of a child who grows up to realize that his beloved mother has been a terrible person all along. Are the conservatives right about the Clintons? Will they do and say anything to get elected? I don't know. All I know is . . . I'm through apologizing.