PSoTD

Is it really necessary that 25 cable channels present the State of the Union address live?

It just seems like overkill.

I dunno, I think the "creative" people at CNN that thought of and approved this dumbass diminution of the primary process ought to be included in the "Demotion Derby".

At which point Charles Krauthammer will mock them. Consistent ignorance is voter bliss!

The best thing about Fred Thompson's run for President - it got him off Law and Order.

Sam - don't run for office.

Michael Medved has an interesting point, but fails to recognize that the personalities he mentions have been big losers for a long, long time.

One down, 33.4 million to go.

When will some media types wise up, create a cable channel covering only homicides 24/7, and take away the advertising revenue that CNN gets for about 8 hours a day of their programming?

Seriously - just how national is the Cesar Laurean - Maria Lauterbach case anyways?

And Tweety is starting to piss you off with his attitudes, I have two words you should at some point say while the tape is rolling:

Joshua Eilberg

Maybe a couple of times, I suspect it will annoy him.

Jay Newton-Small covers politics for TIME. She has covered the Bush 43 White House and also Congress from the DeLay era to the present.

If there's a less informative way to state how much time a reporter has had to gain wisdom while reporting on Washington, I haven't seen it. DeLay era? In theory, this could mean since 2005. You know, right before the Hastert era.

It's sad to see that an entity that portrayed itself as a leader in the "new economy" would report such shitty "old journalism" headlines as: Obama, McCain nab early votes in N.H. towns

I know it's a Reuters feed. Reject this kind of story placement on your front page. This story is about 17 votes. Total. Our block has more votes than that.

I know that bloggers do a lot of blasting of print media and headline writers, but it is time we take on organizations such as Yahoo and Google as well. This is as irresponsible of news prioritizing as you can see on election day. 17 votes are 17 votes. Mike Gravel will probably get that many today, and you won't see it headlined on Yahoo!

I'm not really a big fan of Hillary Clinton, but I think there is a real problem in how her campaign has been covered versus Obama's. When she was the "inevitable" candidate, there was a constant pursuit for cracks in the armor. The news media wanted a horse race.

Now we have a horse race, and the television news media is ready to declare Obama the inevitable candidate, all the news is that Obama has the momentum and will be swamping and perhaps ending the Clinton candidacy in practically a matter of minutes. Seconds. Did it just happen? Let's go to Wolf Blitzer live, for the latest on the upcoming autopsy of Hillary Clinton's campaign.

They're so easily bored. Cats could probably provide great longevity in coverage. Where's Puss Blitzer, anyways?

So much less than useful. And worse than that, it's really a disservice to the concept of citizenry - which, I think we can safely agree, the television news media doesn't fit well within anymore.