How is it, wonders CJ, that he can vow in one breath not to talk to terrorists and then in the next remind us that he will talk to Iran? Simple: Because as moronic as it may seem, it’s politically convenient for him right now to distinguish between “terrorists” and state sponsors of terror. That’s the whole point of his phony Iran/Hamas distinction, which is no distinction at all given that one of those two bankrolls the other. If he was half the honest broker he claims to be, he’d admit he’s drawing this line the way he is because (a) he needs to take a stand against some jihadist outfit to prove to pro-Israeli voters that he’s not the appeasement-minded milquetoast the right claims he is, and (b) given that Iran has vastly more regional leverage than Hamas plus the fact that he’s surely not going to deal with them militarily, he needs to preserve some way of dealing with them diplomatically. Hence the polite fiction that lets him accomplish both goals: Hamas = terrorist = no talking, Iran = head of state = “direct presidential diplomacy.” Much like his blowhard speech about race, it’s nothing but political expedience dressed up as something more thoughtful and principled. And the kicker? He ends by denouncing Bush and McCain for dishonesty — moments after repeating WaPo’s smear of Maverick’s position on Hamas.

Exit question via Tom Maguire: What are those “legitimate claims” of Hezbollah and Hamas that violence has so sadly obscured?