With the original post, I frankly think she did an excellent job illustrating, albeit unintentionally, why liveblogging is generally a dumb idea. It’s one thing to liveblog in generalities (e.g., “the first fifteen minutes of this speech have been utter crap”), or to harp on something the speaker said that was inappropriate (e.g., Santorum’s disparaging remarks about Kerry’s overly broad interpretation of separation of church and state, which was clumsily worded to sound like a broadside against the very idea of there being a separation of church and state). If your beef is over what should have been said but wasn’t, it’s better to wait until the speech is over.

While I don’t agree with her assesement of Bush’s speech, I will point out in her defense that her comments were made in the present tense.

“I’m listening to Bush and so far he’s not saying anything. He’s boring. He should fire his speech writer. 1,000 soldiers died in Iraq and he wants to talk about creating a new tax code and going after trial lawyers?”

Bush did not talk about Iraq and meeting with the wounded and the families of the dead until much later in his speech. At the time she was listening and blogging, he had not gotten that far.