On occasion, the Weekly Standard is a decent right-wing publication – its writers may be wrong, but they're at least fairly honest. Today, alas, isn't one of those days. Hugh Hewitt opens with a column wondering why the "Old media" isn't paying more attention to Kerry's newest tan, which, Hewitt claims, is what "ordinary Americans are talking about." (Ordinary Americans? Call me naive, but I'd guess that only a small fraction of the population has the time to sit at their computers all day and giggle about Kerry's skin color.) Meanwhile, Hewitt finds time to threaten the debate moderators: "If Lehrer goes in the tank for Kerry, expect an enormous blowback." Uh, right. And what exactly will constitute a bad performance by Lehrer? If he dares to ask Bush why Iraq is imploding, or why the military is understaffed, or why the Taliban is still romping around Afghanistan?

In other Standard news, Matthew Continetti notes that John Kerry liked Peter Galbraith's recent essay on partitioning Iraq, and so decides that Kerry must be advocating this sort of plan. I'm not sure what Continetti's driving at here -- perhaps the stunning point that Kerry and Galbraith both think there is a problem in Iraq and maybe agree on some things -- but the article inadvertently speaks rather well of Kerry. Galbraith is perhaps the foremost American expert on the Kurds. That Kerry would consider his views "important" certainly says something. That his opponent, President Bush, considers the views of experts to be "just guessing" also says something. If you have any idea what that might be, e-mail the Weekly Standard with your very interesting theory.