"For an individual to override his own biases, Westen tells the New York Times, he has to 'engage in ruthless self reflection, to say, "All right, I know what I want to believe, but I have to be honest."'"

Or, a candidate knowing this is the playing field, can anticipate it and ask the public to engage in such reflection: "All right, I know what you want to believe, but you must be honest, for so much depends on your honesty in this matter."

When we can anticipate this response, why is it so hard to get thinking candidates plan for it?

So, let's get this straight:

A woman who wants a job where she will be judged solely on her looks, thinks that people shouldn't get jobs based on their skin color?

...because it sure would be terrible if certain people in society had advantages over others simply because of their physical appearance....

Feingold/Hackett '08, indeed. Or, at least, Richardson/Feingold. Clinton won in '92 and '96 by standing up to the Republicans and knowing their game better than they did. Why can't anyone in Congress besides Russ see this? Including Hillary!?

The Republicans played the Dems by forcing an early vote on the censure resolution. And they got exactly what they wanted. So, what if the Dems refused to give Frist that outcome and all voted for it? Certainly would have been a different story coming out of this.

Where is my man Howard Dean in all of this? Seems like a play he could have understood and appreciated. Put the Republicans and the Administration on the defensive. But no, we're back to square negative one.

Sounds like the editors made their decision based on "darn good intelligence"...

Nobody could have predicted this guy had been a plagarist!

Now THIS is the real "Blame America First" crowd.

... as long as you don't get caught.

Gotta love those law and order Republicans.

Farhad, as much as I generaly enjoy your well-researched pieces, I do think you often miss a basic and important point in the story you're reporting. Such is the case here. Democrats are not abandonning their principles in fighting restrictions on 527 groups, because there is a difference between contributing money to an individual (or that individual's party) and contributing money to an advocacy group.

The former buys ACCESS and sets up the expectation of RECIPROCITY. The latter buys the ability to be heard -- harder and harder to do and yet more vitally needed these days if you're not a corporation or lobbyist. The former is about money as power, while the latter is about money as granting the ability for free speech to be heard loudly enough to have the potential to be persuasive.

Persuasion is not a crime, is not unethical -- even if the case it's making is untrue -- and should not be regulated. Moneyed access to individuals who make laws and parties that control houses of Congress (and more), on the other hand, is exactly the kind of class imbalance that democracy seeks to rectify.

Saying the Democrats should be for regulating ALL money that enters the campaign process, no matter who it goes to or what it does, is as much a non-sequitur as Republicans insisting that all tax cuts are equally good.

Will somebody please ask the Administration, especially AG Gonzalez, this question:

"Isn't the President required to obey the law and uphold the Constitution ALL THE @*%$&% TIME?"

Perhaps we can get a straight answer then. But I doubt it.

Entertainment Weekly's review notes that the whole point of the movie isn't that these kids learn to dance "old school," but that the kids and the teacher come together to create a fusion of swing and hip-hop -- and yet, there is no point in the movie where the viewer actually sees this new dance form.

I haven't seen the movie, and don't intend to, but can anyone who's seen it tell me which of these reviews in more on the mark? One of them has to be way off base.

...where dogs ride bikes just like folks can!

I had to watch this 5 times in a row! Best dog video ever.

I can't wait for "Dick Cheney and Wings."

"Some people want to fill the world with silly love songs..."

...But my wife bought "With Honors" to fuel her "Gray's Anatomy"-inspired Patrick Dempsey crush. Utterly forgetable as a film -- until now, when I recall the pivotal scene in which the homeless man (played by Joe Pesci) adopted by a cadre of Harvard students is spotted in one of their constitutional law classes. The professor (played by Gore Vidal) calls on him to answer the questions that none of the students seems to be able to - why isn't the president a king? What makes the American constitutional system so much better than a monarchy?

Long and short of Pesci's answer: "Because in this country, I can tell the president that he's a bum, just like me."

Mr. Cohen, it's not insignificant that Colbert could speak truth to power, even in an insulting, "bullying" way. It is the very essence of our greatness as a country. If you don't understand that, please find a vocation more suited to your capabilities. Might I suggest anything that doesn't involve writing about politics.

Poverty + restriction of choice = more abortions

Anything in there NOT sound like something Democrats could sell to voters? As a party, they're supposed to be concerned with the root social causes of poverty and the consequences of restricting access to contraception and abortion options; and everybody is again MORE abortions.

Present an important issue that favors the party in a serious context that voters understand? Wait a minute...!

Naw, it would never work.

"Two peanuts were walking down the street, and one was assaulted....

...by Al-Qaeda trained Iraqi insurgents who are nonetheless in their last throes as freedom is on the march! USA! USA!"