People use all sorts of unpredictable heuristics by which to sort out information about politicians, generally avoiding actual research into the history of the candidate's positions, as you suggest with McCain re the Iraq war.

With that assumption in mind, it occurs to me that maybe primary voters will look at McCain's intraparty heresy with respect to immigration and decide that it demonstrates that he's been consistent on Iraq. Not exactly Q.E.D., but I suspect it works that way for a lot of people.

Likewise, if voters in the GOP are sick of the war but keep hearing Fox News tell them that being sick of the war is This Thing that all good conservatives agree Simply Cannot Be Uttered, I could well see being regarded as a smooth "flip-flopper" as a thing that may well play in Romney's favor:

the meta-message might be that Romney just says he supports the war because he's being a good republican and has to say it, but will bail when the public's ire becomes too strong, so let's vote for him, letting our screwy conservative collective unconscious be our guide.

Whereas you have to watch out for "old reliable" McCain, because maybe he really means it!

actually, Col. Truth, I'd argue it's a good trailer, insofar as it seems to accurately warns you that your gag reflex will get a workout if you go see it.

I'll admit, though, that I'm genuinely puzzled at why movies like these get made. Somebody should probably show Jack Nicholson that scene in Chinatown where he asks John Huston what he could possibly do with the extra money he stands to earn in the scheme the movie revolves around.

Maybe Nicholson watched it in his mind's eye, over and over, at the premiere.

"Longtime Iowa Democratic strategist Pete D'Alessandro, who is on the sidelines in the Democratic presidential race, noted that, traditionally, electability is not a major factor in the party primaries. "But it might be part of what people are looking for in Iowa this year," he said. "Still, if electability is part of the equation, you should be seeing a surge for [Joe] Biden, Dodd or [Bill] Richardson."

Mr D"Alessandro doesn't sound like he's dispassionately sitting on the sidelines if he fails to note that the "electability" argument should most benefit Edwards and not Biden, et al, insofar as part of the electability rationale is you want a candidate who can catch up from a polling deficit that isn't too big compared to the leading(two) candidates.

And his much-maligned coif aside, Edwards doesn't have the general election deficits of Hillary and Obama. No large core of people who dislike him the way HRC has, and-- much as I am loathe to point this out-- in a close general election he doesn't have specter of the swing voters who'd lie to pollsters about whether or not they be willing to vote for a non-caucasian candidate to contend with. (To those who don't like to think about this calculus, I'd reply: Don't be so preoccupied with "electability", and just vote for who you think would be the best choice.)

Two last thoughts:

One of the things I don't understand about the electability argument is why people think it still works. It's why Kerry was the 2004 nominee, because the press scared democrats into believing that Howard Dean was unelectable. (Given what a miserable, wooden campaigner Kerry was, I have to believe that the election was as close as it was because of the discontent people were already beginning to feel about the war, and Dean could have taken Junior in the general election.)

Finally, aren't the people who are so preoccupied with electability likely to vote for whoever gets nominated anyway, even if they don't care for the nominee?

It occurs to me that if the LW and her spouse feel they have much in common with the neighbor and otherwise value his friendship, then it IS in fact a valuable friendship, albeit with some newly discovered caveats.

So I propose a friendship with limits-- not as in seeing him as a less valuable friend, but as in the acknowledgement that in our relationships with others there are always areas that are off-limits, even if we usually don't articulate them.

There are things we'd talk about with certain friends and not others, things we'd talk about with a spouse or lover but not a friend, things we'd talk about with one relative, but not another-- and so on.

The difference is these distinctions usually occur fairly automatically without much cogitation, whereas here you do have to reflect on what you want to be "in-bounds" or "out-of bounds" in terms of subject matter.

Finally, note that he sort of commented on that demarcation himself when he said he hoped it wouldn't affect your friendship. Wasn't he (essentially) saying that he doesn't expect to change his own views, that he didn't expect you to change yours, and was willing to accept that there would be an ongoing difference of opinion about certain things?

I'd give him some credit here for a capacity for breadth of spirit, and, yes, tolerance: he could have, after all, said that he regretted having befriended you now that he understood your views better.

ABC bounces Kucinich from the debate, and you fail to take note of this. Very disappointing.

(the Kucinich campaign filed a complaint with the FCC, by the way. This also strikes me as newsworthy, although I suppose the information may not have been available to Mr. Shapiro when the article went up. But NO mention of Kucinich's absence whatsoever?)