I'm sorry, but he does. I was just watching CNN this morning, and there he was, going off on the CBS memos while Ed Gillespie was laughing at him. I've seen Terry on cable news twice with Ed in the past week or so, and both times Gillespie came off better (albeit still coming off like a slimy used-car salesman, as he always does.)
Ed's answers are on point and on topic, even when what he's saying is invariably either a tiny fraction of the story, or complete and total BS. Terry, by contrast, gives answers that are unclear, unfocused, meandering, and generally sound nothing like an actual answer to the question, just going off on a tangent with one old, generally overused talking point or another that he was evidently desperate to get out there. Wolf Blitzer will ask him a question about Kerry's position on Iraq, and Terry will almost completely ignore it and finish by ranting about George Bush and healthcare.
Now, Democrats who already hate Bush will eat this up, but who cares? They didn't need convincing anyway. Independents will see someone dodging the question.
What is the deal? How can the party be run by someone like this? And why is it so hard to find high-profile Democrats who will deliver smooth, direct answers to questions when the answers are clearly out there? (Hell, I can find the answers on this blog every day.)