(April 19, 2009). What do I know? To me, the pirates are in Pittsburgh. That’s all I know about pirates. I don’t know about pirates on the Horn of Africa.

(April 5, 2009) Let’s talk first about the economy. The news reports are showing a 660,000 job loss from last month. There’s some haranguing going on in response to these figures: The stimulus package isn’t working, we’re going down the wrong road! We thought the economy was getting better, but this shows it’s getting worse. Tell me your thoughts about the latest statistics and the way that these things are being discussed.

(March 22, 2009) In discussing the bonuses and whether AIG broke the law, Obama observed that most of the stuff that got us into trouble was perfectly legal and that we have to focus our attention on the kind of regulatory reform necessary to protect the interests of the American people. And, he commented that 40% of our recent economic growth has been in the financial sector and, as he put it, it turns out that that growth isn’t real. A lot of it was “on paper” and it evaporated. These are both devastating problems, but he was upbeat and confident. Were there things that struck you in Obama’s conversation with Leno?

(March 8, 2009) The story of the week was about Rush Limbaugh.

(February 22, 2009) We watched a couple of discussions about partisanship, bipartisanship, post-partisanship. Chris Matthews interviewed Hendrik Hertzberg from The New Yorker who says, ‘Bipartisanship is a mindless category.’ He goes on to say it’s really a “stand in” for something else, for the American people wanting changes in the way that politics is done. So we start there. Is bipartisanship a “mindless category?”

(February 15, 2009) We'll start in contemporary America, work our way back to Abraham Lincoln and then overseas to the Middle East. So, in the here and now, the economic stimulus bill passed in the House and the Senate. President Obama will sign it this week. It's an $800 billion package and there's controversy over what its impact is going to be and, to some degree, on the process of getting it passed. Some pundits are asking whether Obama put too much emphasis on bipartisanship. As one commentator said, 'The country sees Obama reaching out across the aisle to Republicans, and Americans feel good about that. They think that's the right thing to do. But,' they add, 'he got no return on that by and large.' The House vote was completely along party lines. Only three Senate Republicans voted for the package. So, as David Brooks said, in stylistic terms he did well because he reached out. But it didn't produce anything real, in terms of bipartisanship.

(February 8, 2009) We watched a discussion between Mark Shields and David Brooks on the News Hour about the past weeks in Washington. The economic stimulus bill passed the House, but with no Republican support. It moved to the Senate. The bill is being re-written with politicking and negotiations and wheeling and dealing with a few Senate Republicans. A deal on a compromise bill was reached which shaves $60 billion off of the $900 billion package that was passed by the House. And the pundits are into what I would call microscopic analysis of the twists and turns and what it all means relative to Obama and the Obama presidency. Let me start with a broad question. Is there anything in the events of last week that surprised you in any way?

(February 1, 2009) We just watched Lee Hamilton, formerly the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, talk about the international situation on Charlie Rose. What can we do to leave behind a maximally stable situation in Iraq?

(January 4, 2009) We watched Chris Matthews on Hardball asking a series of what you might call "big questions." The biggest big question was: As we go into the new year, as Obama takes office, are we experiencing a paradigm shift or a "pause"? Is the country about to redefine government policy relative to the economy and the business sector? Is this akin to 1932 and the Roosevelt New Deal or is it something other than, to use his term, a "pause?" Pat Buchanan says: 'Here are some things that it is. It's a rejection of neo-conservatism. It's a rejection of war. And it's a rejection of the economic policies that brought about the biggest collapse since 1929. That much we know. Other than that, we don't really know.' How do you answer that question? Should we expect a paradigm shift or a pause?