The 2008 presidential campaign started several years ago, right? Yet with Super Tuesday staring U.S. voters in the face, a series of sometimes surprising questions about the remaining candidates’ characters have emerged, complicating the political plot for Americans, Iraqis, Afghans, and everybody else.

A prime example comes from Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, who writes: “This is the problem with Hillary Clinton. She is highly intelligent, has real experience and is an attractive candidate. But she is terrified to act on her beliefs.”

Hillary's terrified? I swear that's a quote. Zakaria says she agrees with Barack Obama on such matters as U.S. policy toward Cuba, but she is afraid to say so. “Her long years of experience—in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s—warn her against such audacity.”

Does Zakaria really think he can persuade anyone that Hillary Clinton is a delicate shrinking flower lacking confidence? If Hillary’s not speaking up about Cuba, it’s an issue of calculation, not a lack of audacity. Anyway, I thought she was supposed to be tough enough to run the country, control her husband, and “resolve” the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without any U.S. troops in either theater. But, hey, what if Zakaria’s right?

For his part, Barack Obama’s candidacy has always been about bizarre questions, beginning with, “Is he Black enough?” That seems to have been settled by Black American voters, who have overwhelmingly embraced his candidacy. Now the question has become, “Is he transformational enough?” Obama’s soaring — if remarkably vague — rhetoric stakes out a position that is supposedly post-partisan, addressing “hope” rather than “hate,” etc. Yet the National Journal recently determined that Obama has the most liberal voting record of any U.S. senator, undercutting his campaign rhetoric with reality (to the degree the U.S. Senate reflects reality). Besides, Obama is now the chosen son of MoveOn.org, of “Gen. Betrayus” notoriety. If there’s a more partisan and divisive organization in the campaign, I don’t think I could stand to know about it.

There still Mitt Romney, who has attacked McCain as a virtual Democrat. But Romney’s own political problems appear to have settled around a similar issue: whether he’s a virtual political being. The rap on Romney is that he’s artificial, resembling a product from doll maker Mattel (one that comes with the accessory of apparently unlimited wealth). Romney’s claim to political authenticity might be more credible had he not shown so much, um, “flexibility” on social issues while running Massachusetts.

For Iraqis, Romney’s character revolves around two issues. One is his rather Clintonesque ambiguity on having favored a “private” (if unspecific) timetable for U.S. withdrawal, a position which he now interprets as unqualified support for the successful surge. The other is the fact that Romney recently shook hands with Nevada's Harry “this war is lost” Reid. The only way yours truly would shake Reid’s hand would be in the hope of breaking Reid’s arm.

Here's a Newsweek story that pays John McCain a backhanded compliment: Evan Thomas writes that the senator can be a jerk sometimes. Thomas then follows it with a list of defenses of McCain’s style. The message is, if McCain does not suffer fools lightly, that is because fools are doing foolish things. Says Susan Collins of Maine, “I have never seen him lose control of himself. What I have seen is him being justifiably angry, even very angry, at behavior that was corrupt or spending that was absurd.”

Well, never mind Susan Collins. What I want to know is, have the leaders of Iran and Syria taken note of McCain’s short fuse, and his unwillingness to abide fools? Speaking of fools, what about Moktada’s opinion of McCain’s temper? Would Iran continue to play odd games of brinksmanship with the U.S. Navy in the Gulf under a McCain presidency? Just wondering.