In my mind, Ms. Zacharek wrote this excellent piece fully conscious of the comparison to "The Decider." I imagine every Salon reader is aware of Farrell's hilarious Bush impression on SNL ("Strategery"), if not for his matchless performance in the America Coming Together skit ("Is that a bear or a puma?"). Reading the brilliant line "This is the kind of hubris you could find only in a naif, a creature who's certain of his place in the world simply because he has no idea just how big the world is," how could anyone not perceive the reference.

That line is one of the best I've ever read in an A&E critique. I credit Ms. Zacharek for playing it understated. I credit Farrell, and other kindred satirists like Stephen Colbert, for continuing to spoof jackasses like Dubya.

How about a person who votes in their interest 95 or even 98 times out of 100! Especially on the most defining issues!

That's the essence of representative democracy. And comfort is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, a representative who must contantly campaign to stay in office isn't doing much legislating, especially if she has tenuous strength among voters. On the other hand, a complacent rep may not be doing much listening or evolving to fight for the issues the electorate really cares about.

Lieberman simply became too comfortable. He put his politics over those of his constituents and didn't change as the times did. The defining question in representative poltiics is whether an elected official is simply a mouthpiece--a sanctioned poll--of the electorate, or whether the electorate simply chooses a trustworthy guy to vote her own informed opinions. Of course, representative democracy is neither of these pure cases, but rather a mix depending on the times. Becauses there's too much for each and every voter to remain informed about, a representative is another form of specialized labor, ideally an expert, who crafts policy. However, when trust erodes, when the candidate doesn't remain informed enough or reflective of the issues the public comes to follow, then it's time to go. The turnover rate for incumbents is extremely low. But when change is needed, it all happens at once. Lieberman will simply be swallowed, or else taught a lesson in transparency and respect for his constituents.

it seems to me that if you want to say that oprah or the hoard running marathons are slowing down the sport you really should look only at the top times. how are those changing? are the top marathon runners the US is sending to international competitions getting better or worse? i would imagine if you go from 250 fairly elite, good runners to thousands of runners of all skill levels the average time will decrease. the article just keeps talking about the average american time -- is this any american who runs a marathon or just the top group for whom the marathon is an actual competition? perhaps the trend down still holds, perhaps not, but just make sure you are comparing apples with apples, not potatoes.

I agree with Kelly Joyner that Jon Stewart's opening bit was really good and thoughtful. He managed to get across the craziness of the studios "rationale" (the bit on Viacom vs YouTube was brilliant) while also noting that the whole situation isn't as dire as the multitude of problems facing our nation and world. At least that's what I got out of it, along with a few laughs -- even if those laughs weren't as often or full as normal.

yes, the clinton team might have thought they were going to lose new hampshire, but you didn't hear them talking like that would end her whole campaign. the media on the other hand were talking like her political life was dead and she had no hope of ever winning after the iowa caucus and the new hampshire polls. it's really a shame that 2 states have such pull over the media's perception of the election and that the media seems to have such pull over the general population. i support obama, but am happy to see clinton win new hampshire. all in all i think everyone wins with a close race between the two (i'd even be happy if edwards was strong enough to stay in race 'til the end too). although there's been some negativity in the race, overall (i'm definitely not saying completely) i think all the dems have done remarkably well to keep it civil and on the issues.

this really should be a non-issue. all primaries should be on the same day. put them in the spring so there's time for the whole country to get to know all the candidates. allow people to vote for their top 3 choices (kind of a hybrid primary-caucus style). let's stop giving some states a ton of power and no power to others.

"...help liberate poor children trapped in failing public schools."

yes, let's liberate those poor kids, just like we "liberated" Iraqis. giving up on public schools is definitely the way to go.

ugh, how many days until we're done with this guy?

maybe Bill pushed Rahm Emanuel to get off the fence and endorse Hillary? could definitely be spun as a blow to the Illinois Senator

i'd love it if we had more than just 2 major parties to represent us, but nader running yet again will not accomplish that. the system needs to change for a viable 3rd (or 4th or 5th) party to come along. nader should push for system change and/or work within the current system to make changes to the areas of domestic policy he is so concerned with. as others have said, he could do so much to help americans if he was appointed a position within a democratic administration.