Who's Whackier? Lou Dobbs or Chris Matthews?

[Armstead]

Lou Dobbs rails against corporate power and so-called free trade and Bush foreign and domestic policy. Then he undercits that by referring to John Bolton -- the epitomie of everything Dobbs rants against -- as "the voice of reason" at the UN.

Chris Matthews gives brilliant criticisms of the debacle of the Neo-Cons and Iraq one day, and then bolsters Bush and slams Democrats and "the left" the next.

Which of these two is more wildly unpredictable and Jeckell and Hyde like? Which is more frustrating?

[AX10]

1. "They are both flaky airheads who can't be trusted."

[OXM]

2. I don't think erratic is the problem

The problem with Dobbs is that he's a xenophobe racist scum.

It's a slightly more nuanced problem with Matthews. On the one hand, he talks about being against the war http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/21/matthews-against-war">from the beginning, but on the other hand he attacks Democrats as if he's the moderator of a high-school debate class.

He attacks Democrats for opposing the war because he hosts a show called "Hardball," and he can't see himself agreeing with a guest. That's what so refreshing about Olbermann. He has an opinion and he doesn't feel constrained expressing it.

[Armstead]

3. Tweety doesn't constrain his opinions -- It;s that they keep changing

It's one thing to be a devil's advocate. But that role doesn;t require injecting his opinion.

Watch British journalists sometime. They hammer their guests. But they don't inject their own opinoions.

Tweetyt is always saying, in effect, "Here's what I think."

Problem is that what he thinks one day is often the polar opposite of what he'll think tomorrow. Then the day after that he'll go back to his first opinion.

[Armstead]

4. kick