The week.

* Let's pray they have a dictionary in Heaven.

* Late in 2007 word went around that the New York Times had a story on John McCain that could sink him, but when that story finally ran at the end of last month it went off like a dud. In 1999, wrote the Times, Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist 31 years younger than the senator, became such an obtrusive presence around his offices that two aides said they told McCain to keep her at arm's length. The aides were not named in the story, and the McCain campaign slammed the Times for "engag[ing] in a hit-and-run smear." The New Republic reported that the story had been held and watered down because, while the reporters thought they had "nailed" an affair, executive editor Bill Keller disagreed. Both media critics and readers commenting on the Times's website sided with McCain, who, giving many hostages to fortune, denied that he had had improper relations with Iseman, political or romantic, and even that his aides had raised this possibility. Thus the story blew away--we hope permanently.

* Let's get this one out of the way up front. In 1936 John McCain III was born at a naval air base in the Panama Canal Zone, to a naval officer and his wife. The Constitution (Article II, Section 1) says that "No person except a natural born Citizen ... shall be eligible to the Office of President." Is McCain eligible, asked the New York Times in a solemn article? "I don't have much doubt about it," answered former solicitor general Theodore Olson, now preparing an analysis of the matter for the McCain camp, though the Times added "that he still needed to finish his research." Search no further. "[8 U.S.C. 1403] (a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904 ... whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States." There are no illegals in at least this aspect of the McCain campaign.

* The Democratic presidential candidates, and interested onlookers, are debating whether Obama's eloquence is a reason to vote for him. We challenge the premise. Obama is not eloquent. The unscripted senator does not string words together to impressive effect; Clinton is his match in debates. His scripts are mush. They neither argue nor enlighten. But he delivers those scripts very well. We do not mean that comment as a slight: He is a compelling performer. On the question of how important this faculty is, let us split the difference: The ability to inspire his countrymen is indeed a quality a president should have, provided that he uses it to lead them the right way.

* In the Department of Unsolicited Testimonials, an endorsement from Louis Farrakhan is the Big Stinker. Barack Obama was so honored by the racist crank, and then asked about it during the Cleveland presidential debate. He called Farrakhan's anti-Semitism "unacceptable and reprehensible," and cited his own past "denunciations" of it. Hillary Clinton chimed in to suggest that he should go farther and "reject" Farrakhan's support--a distinction without a difference, really. All clear for Obama? Not quite, because the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the pastor of Obama's Chicago church, has honored Farrakhan and echoes some of his black-nationalist views. Obama has compared Wright to "an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don't agree with." If it is often wrong to apply the stern standards of public life to families, it can be equally wrong to inject the love of the home into public life. Barack Obama can embrace the good that his church has done and does for him, while rejecting (thank you, Senator Clinton) its extreme beliefs.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

* Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, trolling for votes in Ohio, promised to renegotiate NAFTA and, if their demands go unmet, to pull out of the agreement. The assumption seems to be that Canada and Mexico will be delighted to let us rewrite their labor and environmental laws without asking anything of us in return--or, at least, that Ohio voters will not think through this implication of the pledge. An Obama adviser reportedly assured the Canadian government not to worry about this campaign rhetoric, but Obama subsequently denied that any such assurance was given. If Obama is telling the truth, it reflects well on his character and poorly on his suitability for the presidency.