Let me finish with a question of weapons.
Polls show Republicans believing that national security and terrorism constitute the top issues facing the country. This is what Republican primary voters cite as their top priority for 2016. Who is going to protect this country?
The candidates seem to be on the same page. It's hard to see them nominating a candidate who is not a hawk through and through, someone ready to lead the fight against our terrorist enemies. The only dove is Rand Paul, which makes him an interesting long-shot.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton opened her campaign focusing on domestic policy. Again, that conforms to what partisan voters have on their agenda. For them national security and terrorism are well down on the list, down past climate change, a concern that fails to score on the Republican to-do list.
So what kind of debate are we going to have in 2016? Is it going to be like the conversation on so many opinion shows where people talk about their priorities but ignore those of the other side? Are we going to see more of this ships passing in the night in '16, with each side scoring its points and pretending the other nominee isn't there, that the other party's concerns aren't even there?
Here's what we're going to do here: choose stuff from both sides of the political menu. You know: column A and column B. Security and economics. Foreign and domestic. Why? Because every president has to deal with both!