Is is just me or does Bob Schieffer have no analytical skills at all?

[Wetzelbill]

He seems like he isn't good at that. Like he can't think on his feet the way the people on his show can. And why does he ask questions that he knows can't be answered and really don't matter in the first place? He kept asking Rahm questions about is Obama going to go to Washington and as a senator do this or do that. He's not going to get an answer to a generic question like that, obviously Obama is going to work to put his team together, that's a given. And if a vote came up that absolutely needed a Dem vote, I'm sure he'd go and vote on it. But Bob never opened up and asked a more focused version of the question, he just kept putting out the weak generic version that he had to have known wasn't going to get an answer.

So after he comes back to talk with his pundit guests, he says something about how "We didn't learn alot from that." Well yeah, and half of the reason why is because Bob can't analyze the situation and ask a pertinent follow up question that you might learn something from. He's a consistently weak interviewer.

[begin_within]

1. But his debate was the best one

[patrice]

2. Not enough change in the positions occupied by guys like BS; they've gone STALE

besides being old and narrow and they don't even know it.

[Wetzelbill]

5. very stale

I always joke about being behind all the other shows, but it really seems like while Russert/Brokaw and George S. were covering current info and events, Scheef was always about 3 weeks behind and always had guests that we've seen a million times already.

[patrice]

7. How long has it been since you've heard ONE of any of them say anything you haven't

already either thought of yourself or heard someone around you voice?

[Wetzelbill]

8. none of the anchors at all

for years. But once in a great while a guest will say something interesting that adds an interesting element to a topic. But generally, I never learn anything new from these shows. I do it to hear what they say and where people stand and mostly for entertainment.

[patrice]

9. Yeah, that's the most you get from them: where SOME people are on the issues and opinions.

[cliffordu]

13. I hate to say it, being of a certain age....but youare right - new blood is needed

in those chairs......

Clone Rachel Now!!!

[Wetzelbill]

15. or his frequent guest Lara Logan

Now that would be tv worth listening to and watching. :)

[cliffordu]

16. SO: Are those provisional ballots breaking your way???

[Wetzelbill]

17. it looks like it yes

[cliffordu]

18. How difficult will tickets to the inauguration be to get???

[lunatica]

3. I haven't watched him in years

It's not that I dislike him, because generally he's a mellow ,benign, nice, albeit not very bright man. It's that it's a waste of time because he doesn't add anything to the conversation. He doesn't have any insightful opinions or even memorable comments.

[Wetzelbill]

6. he does seem like he's

not all that bright sometimes. I've heard a guest blatantly lie to him and he will sit there like a bump on a log and then not even nail somebody on it.

[bermudat]

4. He is old. He needs to be put out to pasture.

[endless october]

10. I like Bob. I miss Dan Rather.

[Wetzelbill]

11. Bob is at his best in his ending statements

I mostly like him too, he's a weak interviewer though.

[endless october]

12. he was a decent moderator at the debates.

he's not the best interviewer, but i like him for sentimental reasons. kind of miss the old CBS team, Ed Bradley especially.

[annabanana]

14. Well... He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer...

and he doesn't do much to keep a conversation moving forward. But he is less patently offensive than many in his position.