I watch one of these every once in a while and I'm consistently underwhelmed. It has nothing to do with what's being said, but they are just lame and mostly content free.

There are people who can be compelling talking to a camera with no one around them. Those people are not the Salon staff.

Whoever chose to use these words should be suspended without pay for two weeks. Same punishment as for the commentator who said Chelsea was being "pimped out". Same for the "terrorist fist pump " Hill.

David Gregory has filled in for him recently, hasn't he?

Russert was more like a political operative in that he was always playing "gotcha," but never over serious issues, like the reporters on 60 Minutes. He latched onto slips of the tongue and words taken out of context, which created good sound bites and "buzz," but didn't provide the audience with much information or insight.

This is my main problem with his style too. He'd give a person who'd had a turkey sandwich for lunch and said it was ham (even if they weren't George Allen) just as much of a grilling as someone who said Sadam Hussein planed 9-11.

The other annoying thing was his relentless pursuit of Shermanesque statements about whether people would run for office or accept a spot on the ticket. But my "favorite" Russert moment was him grilling Barack Obama over the crazy comments of Harry Belaforte re: Chavez and making sure he repudiated it. Apparently Barack had to answer for every crazy black man in the whole country.

All that said, he probably WAS the best of the bunch and I did watch his show regularly. Personally I prefer Scheifer's style who, in his grandfatherly way, actually asks more pointed questions and will tell a pol "That's not an answer. I can see I'm not going to get one, let's move on."

I'll be sorry to see him go. I think David Gregory filled in for him on occasion and that I'd like to see, but he too may trade skepticism for access and that would be a shame.

I skimmed the speech and saw nothing directed at McCain's age or luddishness. Enlighten me.

Apparently because Obama mentioned the word "Google" three times and McCain sort of misused the word Google last week, this is an "unsubtle jab"?

Just not getting it.

I guess the "fist-bump" is a dig at McCain's old fashionedness by relying solely on hugs and handshakes?!?!

My understanding is that she can pay off this debt over time by raising money for her future Senate campaigns. And, she's got a lot of money given to her by maxed out people to fund her general election presidential campaign. She can funnel that money into her Senate campaigns. What she can't do is divert the GE money to pay off primary debts.

But, she can, if she wants, fund future senate campaigns out of her GE trust fund while using money she raises in that cycle to pay down this debt.

So whether she raises money now or not, I think she'll be OK. I'm impressed, actually, that she's not looking to pay back her $12M.

It'd be kind of hard to be shot down from a PT boat, don't you think? :-)

George HW Bush was shot down in WWII.

I have no problem with the "getting shot down is not a qualification" comments. It speaks to McCain's character, but not his grasp of foreign policy.

But the comments about commanding a squadron "during peacetime" I thought were out of line. Actually this is the first I've heard about that service and should probably know more about it. But he did "question" this service by saying it really didn't count.

@tailspin: Exactly. Teachers' unions are formed by teachers to look out for teachers' interest. Why this surprises anyone, I don't know. That's the way it should be. The UAW is not responsible for looking out for GM and its shareholders, nor for the people that drive Chevy's. Where the interests of the UAW coincide with the shareholders or the passengers, they can be expected to work together. Where they don't, no one expects them to.

Teachers' unions are no different. If some of the actions required to fix our education system are contrary to their members' interests, they will not, nor should we expect them to support them. But we should do it anyhow. In this case, we are the shareholders and the customers.

Only seating unions at the table makes as much sense as letting the UAW write GM's business plan or letting the UAW write vehicle safety standards. Both are crazy.

@dataguyx: Absolutely NONE of this suggests we should get rid of teachers' unions or not let them have a voice. We just need to stop pretending that their top priority is students. Your own post illustrated it's not. All the ills you cited were visited on TEACHERS in the past, not students.

God, I never thought I would be longing for the return of Alex.

Please, Salon, with what you're paying these two guys, can't you just buy a feed of the Carpetbagger report?

Remind me again, what is Hilary a candidate for? Oh yeah, that's right. Nothing.

She's not a candidate any longer for any office this year. Or next year. Or until 2012 (when her Senate seat is up).