Marisa Katz criticizes Burton Richter for writing two columns on "the intersection between science and politics." She notes that he failed to stretch himself sufficiently. I find this criticism of hers, and the contest requirement to show a broad range, misguided. One of the many shortcomings of pundits today is that they will talk about the latest hot topic, the current headline, whether they understand the policy details or not. All too often they contribute to the misinformation, rather than reduce it.

My favorite pundit is Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics.com, because he limits himself to his area of expertise: elections and public opinion. He doesn't talk about Iranian politics, U.S. foreign policy, global warming, interest rates, housing prices, or the like. He explores the latest polls and the latest election results with real technical knowledge, and thus his analysis of the data is usually some of the sharpest you can find.

Given how broad a topic the "intersection of science and politics" is, I think it would be fine if Dr. Richter wrote primarily on issues that fell within his area of expertise. In fact, I think the Post should be looking for a columnist who limits himself to things he knows about, rather than encourage its current columnists and its up-and-comers to shoot for a broad range. The complexity of scientific findings, policy proposals, and financial trends demands that pundits today speak not on everything with an authoritative voice, but limit themselves instead to the things they truly understand and to speak with sharply focused knowledge.

A mile wide and inch deep just ain't good enough anymore.

I understand why the editors are softpedalling a bit with their public comments. They do not want to alienate readers and constructive criticism is hard to provide when it's public. That being said, I hope the editors are a bit more direct in their private interactions with the finalists. I was hoping to see improvements in tighter writing, better opening/closing sentences, etc., in this round (compared to the initial entries) and so far I'm not seeing it.

I posted comments to Fred's and Carlos blogs, but they didn't appear. I'm having some trouble navigating this feature.

I'm really enjoying this feature, looking into the minds of the editors and seeing how they would have changed the articles. I am a nurse, so I'm reminded of "First, do no harm" because Gyamfi's piece was deeply moving as it was---to me.

Reading these entries, I find myself wishing I could read these articles "before" and "after" editing, wondering whether Gyamfi's would have less power for me, and Khalil's more.

As to the comments about the cabbie articles, this reader is outside the beltway area, and not familiar with the phenomenon of cabbie articles dropping into ones inbox every other day. I've never read anything I can recall about DC cabbies. Now I know why.

Your "light edit" failed to catch an obvious typo:

"Cabbies spend a lot of time listing to political talk radio."

They were probably "listening."

Ms. Katz wants more about the detached bystander theory? Been there, done that, got the t-shirt and matching pom-poms...check out CNN and every other spot for that angle.

Khalil doesn't seem conflicted. She wants Obama to decide. And, while I may not agree with her, I think she is clear on that position.