DaSkinner, in response to Ralphie4, you wrongly attributed an article to finalist Zeba Khan that she did not write. Let's just be clear so that other readers are not confused: WaPo finalist Zeba Khan, creator of Muslim Americans for Obama, did not author the article you referenced. That is a different Zeba Khan.

If I'm going to call anyone anything, the most appropriate point of reference...is their name.
Clearly, the first thing anyone notices about another is how they look. I can't do anything about that, all right? If someone is a different color than I, that's really not my "fault," nor is it theirs. It simply is...the crux is whether or not the participants make it an issue.
I live in a pretty white state, but I get around. I've learned that in certain situations, it's good to directly deal with paint-job differences -- because if you don't, there is misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
Further, it's been my observation that there is a divide, at least in the tribal world, between "Native Americans" and "Indians." I had a gig once where I had to take a look at tribal forestry practices. Without exception, the tribal foresters I was with self-referred as Indians. As in the "Indian way" and so forth. It was pretty educational. Bouncing around in the truck in the woods, we had plenty of time to talk about "Native v. Indian" and that was educational as heck. Funny, too.
And ya know who laid on the "Native American" frosting the heaviest? WHITE anthropologists. The cultural kabuki was beyond bizarre.
And when I'd ask the forestry guys wassupwitdat they just laughed.

DAS: I like your post because you say what you think passionately, but without malice.

The "hyphenated" example that first comes to mind is "African American." There are several things I think about when examining the term. First, members of this group have been historically and continuously singled out by one--and only one--characteristic: their race.
It should not be surprising that if you belong to to a minority and your minority status is what is going to identify you, first and foremost, to the larger group, that you would at least like some say over how you're referred to. I see it as trying to take control of one aspect. The larger aspect, that the minority group can't take control of, is the fact of being identified primarily by race....

So the term "African American" is a compromise---"I" won't keep calling "you" out in every single instance for noticing only that one feature of my personhood(the daily, momentary assaults on totality of being, all day, every day, sometimes, das)---if "you" will at least agree to call "me" by this particular, agreed-upon, designation thereof. What a sad compromise between polite, civilized people! The fault for this hyphenation lies not in that hyphenated American, but in the rest of us, that we see fragments instead of whole human beings.

Also, in the case of the term "African American" to my thinking most of their ancestors did not leave their home continent by choice, so I think I am more willing to hear, when I refer to them, a little of that history implicit in the reference. And I feel the same way about the term "Native American." There is a history in that term. Until there is a better way, maybe the rest of us need to be reminded...or would ridding ourselves entirely of the hyphens begin to solve this "sight" problem we have...?

And as to the rest, I'm open to argument.

MM123,
Darn, I screwed up and didn't look more closely for a clear identifier, never mind there's no date stamp to speak of. Yet there's a question, which Zeba be this?
Nonetheless, my apologies, and trying to slam out a post is not an excuse for an improper vet.
As for your query,
Definitely not the latter, although I think the hyphenated surname deal is an affectation. The former?
Look up Roosevelt and Diefenbaker.
I think it is groovy to have a heritage. But when your heritage confuses your loyalties, as in the case of the Fort Hood killer, or any number of Hyphenated-American special interests, it's a real fundamental issue in terms of why and how America is exceptional.
I was raised in a military household where the message was if you wear the uniform and the rank, the other identities are secondary. There was no trash-talking on race or ethnic issue in our house, no sir.
Those putting it all on the line for the American idea deserved, and deserve, no less than full and equal status -- but no more, either.
In short, if you want to be treated as an American, with all the rights and privileges thereof, act accordingly please.
So, whenever I hear or read of someone's hyphenated self-reference, to me, that's someone who still doesn't "get" the idea. And it's a darn important little idea.

daskinner,
re: previous post. I googled the stuff you referenced---This does not sound like the same Zeba Khan....The Zeba "Zeba Khan's Page" says she was raised in Ohio and attended a Jewish day school for nine years. The Zeba that says "I may be an American but it's not my fault" appears not to have been living in the US when she wrote that article, and seems to have been raised in Illinois. She sounds like a different person.

Back to daskinner, what does this mean? "this country needs to hear from more unhyphenated Americans, okay" That sound like an interesting thread for discussion but not exactly sure, do you mean "foreigners" or women who hyphenate their names? Either way, why?

Ralphie 4,
Sorry, but just now I took a couple of minutes to Google Zeba. First thing of significance that comes up that I can stick to Zeba is a Huffington Post column about being Muslim in America.
And then her first page link is with something called "Muslim Americans For Obama," which puts her politics right there for all to see...which was confirmed pretty much in the vid, as I already noted.
And right there is a "vote for ME" call.
Not only an achiever, but a striver. Good for her, I bet she's formidable, but this country needs to hear from more unhyphenated Americans, okay?
Never mind that it would be far more honest if the votes were on merit and not the Facebook and Twitter factor.
Oh, and further down on the beautful Islam page is a column that begins:
"I may be an American citizen, but that's not my fault."
Not an identicist? I was right, after all. No offense, Zeba, but it seems to me you are unwilling to accept what you really are.

I have voted for Kevin yet again, and this time based on his personality and smile- how about that. He seemed relaxed and likable on the video. These qualities are as important to me as his writing skill. He seems to be having fun with the whole thing which can't be easy. 'Bang on' Kevin!

The comment section is closed in the last round. Rush4Gold said these guys were mouthpieces for the Obama administration. Nah, I don't think that's right. Articles say Khan started her group because Obama was staying away from American Muslims. And if she's part Afghan I doubt she supports sending more troops over there.

it seems like kevin wants to get by on his humor. it's fine, and i enjoyed watching him, but if you're looking toward substance, capehart essentially had to push him to give his serious view at the end rather than ending on a joke. i think courtney thought her one liner (the book party) was better than it was, and it seemed like she got thrown off her game when capehart just zoomed by it. zeba seemed to be the most prepared with facts (she cited the right wing democrats who are obstructing the health care process as well as things obama said in during his asia trip). though she has poise, she also comes off as almost combative at times. this, however, can be an asset if you're going to be a pundit on cable news. i think all three of them did a good job, but i voted for zeba.

daskinner: I don't think Zeba hooks herself into any "diversity" angle. I like the topics she chose. Only two were related to identity and even then she didn't claim that identity. We may be putting her in a box without her consent. Like to see Huff and Zeba work together on a column (Zeba picks topic, Huff makes it funny). That would be guaranteed quality.

Win this already, Courtney! You rule!

If the last voting results hold then it is clear Kevin will win this round. But I want to see my friend Zeba continue into the next round as well. I'm surprised others haven't said this already and maybe it's a reflection of our personality types (we're a quiet group) but Zeba is someone who not only talks the talk but walks the walk. She takes action on things that are important to her. Her nonprofit work says a lot about her interest in human rights, environmental protection, civic engagement, poverty alleviation etc. She speaks a million languages (an exaggeration), knows a lot about religions (many), and has always been sincere (in my experience). I wish there were more people like her writing columns in the op-ed pages.

Yumpin' Yiminy!
I really didn't expect the Post to give much shrift to anyone from the correct (as in right)but I'm left disappointed.
I found it ironic that Zeba hooks into the "diversity" angle from her limited range as an identicist.
Never mind there was dang little diversity in the Obama Admiration Club. Wow that was so blatant and expected, words fail me.
Kevin is the only one with any kind of range on the issues. I'm not going to legitimize this process with my vote, as I hope he "wins" but it's not worth the effort any more. Nice try, WAPO but you failed again.

Kevin did himself proud. Zeba projects well in this format but had nothing particularly insightful to say.

All three of these contestants deserve a round of applause for getting this far in this competition. But if the Post is looking for a fresh, new voice the choice is clear to me. Women are underrepresented in the op-ed pages of major newspapers, even moreso the thoughts and opinions of minority women are missing from the discourse. While all three of these contestants are talented, Zeba Khan's cultural background informs her opinions in a way that makes her unique. We need to hear more of her thoughts on some of the most difficult issues facing us today. We need to open up this platform to her and encourage others like her to speak out and be heard.

Since the voters booted Jeremy out in the last round, I am exiting this competition without casting any more votes. None of these three is as good as Jeremy. Everything I heard on the video I have heard many times before. I saw nothing that told me that any of these three is ready for prime time.

Kevin or Zeba to win, for reasons other posters identified.

Courtney gives me the same heartburn I feel listening to teenagers: How many times can she say "like" in one sentence? That breathy, nasal girly voice--oh, dear. Her writing seemed emotional and shallow to me before; hearing her speak in wishy-washy generalities makes her posts look even lighter-weight in retrospect. I'm eager for young pundits, but want writers who speak to many generations, not just their own.

Also, I value writers from the right and left who are willing to call out their "own". We've got too many party apologists in all media.

Overall, I was struck negatively by the sound of pro-Obama clubbiness on the panel. Even though I too am dismayed at the state of the Republican party, it rubs me the wrong way to hear pundits casually dismiss republicans and make excuses for President Obama. And I was waiting for one of the speakers to sound an alarm about our ineffectual still-porky Congress: Kevin came the closest but didn't score.

If it matters: I'm a liberal independent woman in her 40's who votes for democrats most of the time. As I did in 2008.

Underwhelming all the way around, though coming from a broadcasting background, I can sympathize with the challenges of one's first on air appearance.

As the moderator noted, the lack of interaction among the the panalist brought a genereal inertia to the entire proceeding. Also, engaging TV commentary requires a balance of depth and "punch", though one can get by with a mastery of either. Too many of the answers here didn't really connect on either front, though both Kevin and Zeba did improve as the segment progressed.

As others have noted, Zeba does have a voice that "cuts through", but needs to utilize it better by presenting more forcefully, in both delivery, body language and more confident language (too many "umms" from her).

Kevin was the best at sythesizing his arguments to soundbite length, but the humor that makes his writing stand out was largely missing here, and could have really livened things up. The topic of Sarah Palin's book and the tea baggers in particular, begged to be treated with more tongue in cheek irreverence.

As for Courtney, well... she's a very good writer.

I've watched the video. I've read the comment thread. The latter is more engaging, fun, and thought-provoking.

If the contest were really about presenting opinions in a way that keeps the reader coming back for more, I'd vote for all of you.

I like Zeba's insight, Kevin's one liners. Courtney was obviously uncomfortable with this format. Who picked those junky chairs??

Do commenters ever actually appear on TV sitting on stools? I don't think so--they are behind a desk in a reasonably comfortable chair.

I think this whole round should be thrown out as a badly designed format.

1. Kevin
2. Zeba
3. Courtney

are my rankings. Both Kevin and Zeba were knowlegable and had substantive answers that were worth hearing. Courtney came off as lightweight, naive, and scared with undgrounded opinions of little consequence. Her squeeky high voice didn't help much either.

Kevin really lost points when he punted the last question and the moderator had to hit him for a real answer. To his credit he gave something that was a start to a substantive response, but his inclination for a zippy one liner is hurting him. The one liner is OK if you follow up with substance.

Zeba has potential, and perhaps with practice she could get over the stumbles and get her knowledge out. She has facts worth hearing (like the 3 holdout senators), but she is choking on getting them heard.

All contestants (and moderator) lose big points for the derogatory term "tea bagger". Tea bagging refers to a vulgar sexual practice. Tea party refers to the Boston Tea party in which the colonists had had enough and took matters into their own hands.

All fail for the incorrect view that tea party activists are an extreme branch of the Republican party. Tea party activists cut across both lines, the unifying prinicple for them is fiscal conservativism. There have been fiscal conservatives in both parties, but the trend the last couple decades has been for big government. It really speaks volumes to the panelists ignorance of the tea party movement in that they assume it is some rabid wing of the Republican party.

But it really doesn't matter because Courtney will get by with her facebook friends spamming the vote.

One quick point and then I will get to the summary:
The top story is NOT Governor Palin's book tour. This is a sideshow. We should focus on the widespread unemployment, higher crime, lack of adequate government response.

Having said that, I thought everyone did well, but Zeba did the best. Her answer about Obama and the troops was right on, saying that he is considering the overall effect of the troops, the impact the war has on our economy, whether it's necessary for our safety. Good work.

Kevin did a nice job, too, especially with the last question.

First my kudos to Courtney, Zeba, and Kevin, and the readers for clearly selecting the 3 best of the 10 Pundits chosen. Well done.

I do not, however, believe a video interview is an appropriate means to eliminate a Pundit from a contest to write in the Washington Post. And the moderator seemed to let the girls talk, challenge something they said, then turn to Kevin and say, "Ok Kevin, now give us the real answer." Another reason not to like the format.

That said, Kevin nailed it, speaking wise words to important subjects. Always going third, with a nice set up by the moderator, Kevin had the easiest path. To go further, Capehart needs to remove his lips from Kevin's a.. And Kevin, please tell me I did not detect your desire to end the serious stuff quickly so you could run off and tell jokes with the boys in the back room. This is a rare chance in life. Weigh in on the BIG stuff that can turn America towards a path of greatness.

Zeba hit the BIG HOME RUN when she turned on the moderator's challenging statement, "do they care about winning?" "The Republican Party?" Zeba fired back with feigned wide eyed surprise. POW, out of the park! Zeba was articulate, clear and confident in her words and ideas, with a depth of knowledge on important subjects. Zeba also nailed it!

Courtney, clearly the best writer of all of the Pundits, did well. Faced always with the first question and aggressive challenge from a moderator who believes "the top story in America today is Palin's book tour and the huge crowds standing in line" (I presume he got his information from the doctored footage of crowds (from a 2008 campaign rally) Fox News ran), Courtney immediately turned the question to a struggling Republican Party looking for a savior of it's own (Sarah Palin as Fertility Goddess?).

My scoring of the round: Courtney - 10, Zeba - 10, Kevin - 10, and the Washington Post - 2 (the 2 is for running the contest).

The quality of the answers had the characteristics of a college freshmen debate. I expect articulate, coherent sentences. I also expect more in-depth analysis, new ideas and perspectives. Most of the content was cliche. A good pundit should bring new thoughts to the table, help me see from a unique perspective, put an edgy tweak on issues. Nothing new here.

I was pleasantly surprised how well the 3 contestants handled themselves while sitting on the hot seat. Kevin and Zeba were neck and neck in my opinion. Zeba does have a wonderful speaking voice and she looks good on video. I didn't have a big problem with anything that came out of their mouths, other than Courtney has an unfortunate little girl voice that isn't going to fly if she wants to cont. to pursue this sort of career. I'm not going to make anything out of them each coming across as having taken a little too much Vicodin before hand. I was so nervous for them, I wished I'd had one. I believe whole heartedly these 3 could handle themselves like the pros in no time. Still, with all that said, I'm for Kevin because he already writes like a pro and the other two need as much work (if not more) with their writing as with speaking in front of the camera.

PS: didn't realize at first that the Capeheart video above was the critique.
Did he actually watch the session on video before reviewing it? Would like to have seen what he said after viewing it; also would be interesting to get contestants' take on it after viewing....too much to hope for, I guess...

Kevin was like Shaggy from Scooby Doo. That's good because he's funny. Zeba was thoughtful and she's got a good voice for tv/radio. Once she gets some more television experience she'll be great on camera. Courtney seemed comfortable on camera but she doesn't speak like a pundit.

Kevin aced it--fell down a little on the last question with easy cop out "it's not going to happen." When he did answer, he sounded more like a Democratic strategist.....e.g., Republicans need not explain about the last 8 years, and I don't think it's helpful for them to refer to them and remind us all what a debacle they truly were--Kevin knows that.

Zeba did well, esp. with the last question, realistic, thoughtful, and deftly brought Jonathon back to his original question, i.e.: "what do Rep. have to do to give Obama a run for his money"? She gave the right answer. Good job, Zeba. She has a pleasing speaking voice.

This reader has severely critized Courtney, and sadly, will continue to do so. She was too timid. I wanted her to be tough on Obama, not offer flimsy excuses for him, which is what she did. Her voice range is against her; she sounds like a little girl, and the constant hand-fluttering when she spoke only served to emphasize her youth and inexperience.
Sorry, Courtney! With time and more experience, you will get better, and you may still win....

All of the participants deserve kudos for participation. This particular reader would not have got out a coherent sentence in such a stressful situation!