I have lost count of how many people have sent me or urged me to read his column on the New York Times and John McCain. As others have remarked, it is a classic–and a Kinsley classic is an awesome thing.

To be absolutely clear: the Times itself was not suggesting that there had been an affair, or even that there had been the appearance of an affair. The Times was reporting that there was a time eight years ago when some people felt there might be the appearance of an affair, although others, apparently including Sen. McCain himself, apparently felt that there was no such appearance.Similarly, I am not accusing the New York Times of screwing up again by publishing an insufficiently sourced article then defending itself with a preposterous assertion that it wasn’t trying to imply what it obviously was trying to imply. I am merely reporting that some people worry that other people might be concerned that the New York Times has created the appearance of screwing up once again.

The article’s final two paragraphs are a triumph. I won’t clip them because you have to read the whole piece, if you haven’t already, to appreciate the full majesty of this crescendo. Because Mike is a writer on politics who is both extremely clever and extremely funny–a gift granted to very few (who else could one point to, apart from the unserious, and much less prolific, P.J. O’Rourke?)–he upsets some of the competition and has his detractors. Well, critics of Kinsley, read this column and weep.

I met the great man only once, and it was an odd experience. Michael Kinsley roped me into appearing in a “Firing Line Debate”, which he, Kinsley, was chairing; presumably I was being asked because somebody else had dropped out. I was to speak on Buckley’s team in favour of the proposition that the budget deficit was a bad thing, or words to that effect. This was back in 1992. In those days a lot of conservatives thought that big deficits were wrong, whereas most liberals thought they mattered not at all and that concern about them was just a ruse for cutting public spending and grinding the faces of the poor.

I had never watched “Firing Line” and I knew Buckley only by his writings and reputation; an innocent foreigner, I did not realise that the debate was essentially just a platform for him to perform. Mike, I recall, kept everybody else to a strict time limit–cutting me off in mid-sentence–in order to give Buckley all the time in the world to orate, with operatic pauses that seemed longer than my entire contribution. At one point, I recall, he read at some length from a sarcastic review I had written of a book by Robert Kuttner, one of our opponents, asking Kuttner exuberantly in conclusion: “What do you think accounts for such animadversion?” What a strange approach, I remember thinking. And surely not terribly effective: Kuttner was entitled to reply, “Why should that be any concern of mine? Ask Crook why he got my book so wrong.”

Did we–well, Buckley, I mean–win? Was the motion even put to a vote? I can’t remember. It turns out there’s an archive of these programs, but this one, unaccountably, is not available for download or purchase. (The synopsis quotes me, I am surprised to see. Did I really say that?)

I came away liking Buckley very much, but resolving not to take part in any more of his debates, for or against. He seemed a charming as well as brilliant man, with a constant twinkle in his eye. National Review says he was “sweet and merry”. The one time I met him, so he was.

Clinton and Obama both did well. I wouldn’t say there was a clear winner, or that anything in the debate was likely to change anybody’s mind–despite good probing questions from Russert and Williams. Hillary came across as the more forceful and dominating of the two, as usual, and Obama the more flexible and reflective. They engaged with no issues of substance that have not already been flogged to death, as far as I could see.

I did think Obama was a little tepid in his denunciation of Farrakhan (and he ignored the part of the question that dealt with his own pastor’s praise of the man; I would have liked to hear him say something about that). But then I think Hillary neutralised her own slight advantage by making a bit too much of it, in a way that seemed forced. Overall, both mainly just underlined their previous messages. Her line: she is a fighter and he is not. His line: she is a fighter apt to lose, and there is a better way to get things done. (Both cite health reform to prove their points.)

They were both more bitterly opposed to NAFTA than ever. Now they are threatening to tear up the agreement altogether unless it is renegotiated in ways that suit the US. I wonder what Mexico and Canada think about that. So much for the new spirit of multilateralism that will help repair the country’s standing in the world. The prospects for liberal trade look bleaker by the week.

The polls seem to be moving Obama’s way in Texas and Ohio. I can’t see this debate changing that, but who knows?