Yesterday, I caught a few minutes of the Sean Hannity radio show. He was interviewing (debating is a better word) Charlie Rangel.

File this under things I never thought I would hear myself say: Rangel won hands-down.

In addition to relying on the host's advantage of talking over his guest, Hannity was rude and unfocussed and determined to present Rangel with a series of false choices. Nevertheless, Rangel kept making the salient points.

But here is the wildest part: by the conclusion of the engagement, it was clear that Hannity was totally committed (rhetorically, at least) to a Wilsonian ideal while Rangel articulated a classic conservative realism. How did we get here?