Ready or not, the VP candidates meet tonight for their first official debate. The New York Times today asked various contributors what questions they would like to hear answered during that debate.

Some of the questions are simply attempts at partisan point-scoring, but others are quite interesting. One that intrigued me was submitted by Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic:

Senator Biden, you told me once that, shortly before the 2004 election, you advised John Kerry to respond harshly to a new Osama bin Laden videotape. You described the conversation this way: “I’m on the phone, I e-mail, I say, ‘John, please, say three things’: ‘How dare bin Laden speak of our president this way.’ No. 2, ‘I know how to deal with preventing another 9/11.’ No. 3, ‘Kill him.’” You then threw up your hands in disgust and said of Senator Kerry, “He didn’t make any of it. Let’s get it straight. None of it.”

This story was entertaining, but it wasn’t strictly accurate. It turned out that you did not, in fact, even speak with Senator Kerry until well after he had issued a vigorous denunciation of bin Laden. This episode is one of several in which you have appeared to exaggerate your importance. Recently, you spoke of being “shot at” in Iraq. This, too, turned out to be false. Why should voters trust you, after you have made so many provably embroidered assertions?

Since Palin's nomination, I've been struck by how often she is accused of lying. Certainly she can be faulted for spinning or embellishing her record (hello, Bridge to Nowhere...), but to me, that simply puts her in standard politician territory. But I am surprised by the frequency and insistence of the charge that she is a pathological Lying Liar Who Lies, above and beyond anything we have seen to date. It's good to be reminded that she isn't the first politician who has stretched the truth...even just in this campaign.

As deliciously awkward as it would be to hold the candidates' feet to the fire about their past adventures in truth-telling, the questions probing them on specifics of thorny issues -- about the drug war, bankruptcy codes, Russian nuclear arms -- would most likely yield better results in terms of clarifying policy issues. If the candidates could be made to give them a straight answer, that is.

So what questions would IC readers like to see asked tonight?