I should say that I find Jeb's original topic a much more interesting question than whether or not the media did this or that 8 years ago or whether or not some blogger is being equally fair to every candidate and on and on. The unfortunate truth is that it's possible to memorize the capitals or Presidents of every country on the face of the Earth and still not have any idea how to deal with any of them. The former is what we must memorize in 4th grade; the latter is what we need out of a President.

Thanks for all the thoughtful feedback.

Briefly, I want to address your follow-up comment, StockBoy. I think the difference here is that Medvedev is not a well-known guy, he is not yet the president of Russia, and that he actually just came on to the political scene a few months ago. To suggest that the candidates have the time to follow, and remember, all these minute details of Russian politics seems far-fetched, and basically irrelevant to the presidential race.

Furthermore, reporters should not fall into this mode of trying to catch candidates “off guard” in order to reveal their ignorance. This isn't a polisci exam, and candidates should not be forced to know every development in world politics. Should candidates be aware of a country's history and its political scene? Absolutely. But should they have to know the personal history of, say, Nawaz Sharif? Probably not. Ultimately, it's a matter of degree, and I think Russert took it way too far.

BTW: Howard Kurtz did an informal survey of Washington journalists at the time, and could not find a single one who could name the 4 leaders.

But, of course, Bush is a MORON…and so is free game.

It is “cruel” to ask the same of Hillary and Obama.

Double standard anyone?

“The front-runner for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination faltered Thursday in an international affairs pop quiz posed by Andy Hiller, a political reporter for WHDH-TV in Boston. Hiller asked Bush to name the leaders of Chechnya, Taiwan, India and Pakistan. Bush was only able to give a partial response to the query on the leader of Taiwan, referring to Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui simply as “Lee.” He could not name the others.”

And now it is “unfair” and “cruel” to expect Hillary and Obama to know the new “puppet” leader of Russia…one of the world's great powers…and one with thousands of nukes?

Will anyone in the media even DARE ask Obama the name of the president of Chechnya or Taiwan?

Hell would freeze over first.

However when it comes to a country as big and as important as Russia (or China, or the UK or a few others) I think knowing the name of someone you will be dealing one on one with is important. Hillary may have stumbled over Medvedev's name (I can't get it right) and the response wasn't as coherent as all of her canned and rehearsed responses, but I actually liked her response because it showed her thinking on her feet. Obama came away from that particular question looking better (because he got to think about the answer) but I think Hillary won it and I learned more about Hillary than I did about Obama. Not that he had a bad response, but he had time to prepare, so most of the “thinking on your feet” part was moot.

It was a lot better than Huckabee not knowing that huge piece of important news out of Iran (or was it Iraq) late last year (I forget what it was). Both Clinton and Obama understand that the rest of the world goes on while they are campaigning and that it's important for them to keep informed (whether via advisors or by reading on their own).

But yeah, I don't expect the candidates to know the leader of some place like Benin, but it is important to know who is the likely successor (and one you will be dealing with a lot) in one of the most important countries in the world.

I think that Russert should have asked Obama a similarly tough question on some place like China or Australia. Perhaps not about the leader(s) but something to show that Obama was aware of the issues.