One of the fascinating things Barrett discovered in his research is that Christians who become Muslims frequently cite the confusing doctrine of the trinity as a reason for the shift: "They couldn't make sense of the idea that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all parts of the same God."

The differences between Judaism, Christianity and Islam are miniscule compared to their mutual differences from say Buddhism, paganism, or atheism.

Given that, it's only natural that people choosing between them would choose based on some concrete difference. You have to make a choice based on something.

The marketing people would call the doctrine of the trinity a brand differentiator among those shopping for a faith among the principal monotheisms.

When you think about it, it is surprising that the doctrine of the trinity sells so well among the believers in one God. Not to knock Christians, or Adam Smith, it appears that people don't really chose their religion on a rational basis. I would think that Islam would have higher market share.

Perhaps there are some other differentiators at work in the religion market?

Senator Clinton has had her chances.

In 2002, she could have shown judgment and courage and voted against the AUMF. She didn't. Why? Didn't she have the critical facilities to understand that the war was based on obviously misleading intelligence? Didn't she have the understanding that if she gave Bush the capability to use war as an instrument of foreign policy, he would use it? Or worst or all, did she understand both of these things and make a political decision not to stand up to the inevitable wave of right wing outrage?

She could have told me that any of these were the reason for her voting for the AUMF, and I would still be considering her as a possible contender. She could describe herself as having made a mistake - isn't it obvious that she personally make a mistake, not just that someone else gave her bad intelligence or let her down - and describe how she has learned from the mistake.

But she hasn't. She hasn't admitted a mistake, and worse, she hasn't learned from her mistake.

Senator Clinton is striving to appear presidential, but she is emulating the wrong president. Do we really need another President, so incurious as to be unable to read and think for themselves, or completely motivated by political considerations?

Do we really need another President whose self-image (or public image) is so fragile that they are unable to admit to making a mistake?

I think it is great that Clinton refuses to apologize for her Iraq vote because of her core beliefs. We need more candidates for all elective offices that a guided by their core beliefs.

Let's just be clear what that core belief is, though. Her core belief is that if someone offers some set of evidence about Iraq and WMD and she bases her vote on that evidence, then she is not responsible. It doesn't matter that set of evidence is so transparently flawed that it convinces no one who actually knows anything about Iraq or WMD. It doesn't matter that there was abundant evidence at the time that the evidence was being presented was being fixed around the policy. It doesn't matter that the central argument for the war, Colin Powell's speech to the UN, was such transparent hogwash that anyone who asked any question about Powell's assertions would instantly realize that the claims didn't hold up.

No, Senator Clinton was not personally responsible for being fooled. Apparently all those years at Yale Law School, in the Rose law firm and in public life taught Senator Clinton to believe everything she heard and that the responsibility for her vote rests not with her, but with those who misinformed her.

This is her core belief.

We currently have a President who believes absolutely in his own infallibility and right to behave as a moron and blame others for his failures.

One of my core beliefs is that we don't need another.