Skip to main content

View Diary: One last debate thread (265 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  NY Times: Four More Weeks!!! (none)
    The Running Mates Debate

    "If his (Edwards') main task was to show that he could stand up to the older and more experienced vice president, he did everything he needed to do..."

    Signatures are for Girly-Men

    by enozinho on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:44:21 AM PDT

    •  Washington Post: Four More Weeks!!! (none)
      Again, Biatches!!!

      "Debates are partly about momentum, and if Democratic nominee John F. Kerry was on the upswing after last week's debate, nothing that happened last night is likely to stop that."

      Cheney vs. Edwards

      Signatures are for Girly-Men

      by enozinho on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:55:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then there's this Tom Shales trash. (none)
        He's always been such a bozo. He repeats the "never met you before today" lie with a grin on his face, and talks Cheney up to the skies. Lots of over cutesy purple prose that goes nowhere fast.
        •  I sent Shales an e-mail (none)
          shortly after midnight, right after his review went up on WashPost:

          "Dear Mr. Shales,

          "In your October 6 review of the Vice Presidential debate, you presented Cheney's claim never to have met Edwards as "a zinger likely to stay zung."  In fact, you led off your entire article with the sequence of comments leading up to that "zinger," so you must have been impressed.  I'm wondering if you'll also be impressed by this picture currently making the internet rounds:
          [insert pic of Edwards/Cheney at breakfast]

          "Cheney thanked Edwards by name at this February 2001 breakfast; they also encountered each other at the swearing-in of Elizabeth Dole.  He's a really good liar, isn't he?  

          "I don't know why Edwards let the charge stand in the debate; most likely he could not remember the precise occasions on which he and Cheney had met, and made a quick decision to just leave it for the post-debate fact-checking.  Whatever."

          I just couldn't resist.  

          •  Ex-Shales fan (none)
            I became addicted to the WaPo and to Shales when I lived in Washington. He's at his best when reviewing bad TV (I loved his recent column when he said he'd been on 24-hour suicide watch during his forced consumption of the new network shows).

            And he's at his worst when reviewing political content. He's not a political writer, he's a TV reviewer. Just because it's on TV doesn't make him automatically knowledgeable about the content. I don't understand why they let him "review" things like debates.

            I've never quite forgiven him for his clueless panning of "Earth 2" either. Add sci-fi to the list of subjects he knows nothing about.

        •  Email? (none)
          Where do I contact the post about this? That was so full of trash, its unbelievable.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site