Frankly, for all my dislike of the editorial stance of the New York Times, the Kristol assignment is a journalistic masterstroke. The Times' reputation has collapsed in recent years, following the Jayson Blair scandal, the controversial leak of the Bush adminstration's clandestine - and successful - electronic surveillance program, and the steady decline in recent years of the broadsheet's reputation as the country's "unofficial newspaper of record."

Certainly, the Bush administration's success in thwarting the Democrats in 2007 (who badly overestimated their "mandate" coming out of the 2006 midterms), combined with the continued importance of foreign policy among American voters, suggests that the Times editors realized they needed to get hip to alternative - even mainstream - ideological perspectives.

Americaneocon: You're kidding, right? Democrats 'overestimated' their mandate? How about, ignored it to play ball with the jackass Bush out of some misguided fear? And his 'successful' domestic spying? At what? Are you on glue, or just a Republican?

Nick, have n't you heard? Neocons create their own reality, with other people's lives and money. It will be interesting to see if Keller can get Krugman into the same room with Kristol, and if he does, will Krugman be able to resist the temptation to knock that smirk off Kristol's face (I don't think I could, I have seen to many ceremonies at Arlington this year.)