goodgovernment: Thanks....it was so supposed to be snooty....you know, satire...
seriously, I love eugene robinson...just giving him a hard time...

Oh, and I forgot to add, MartyMar123 that comment about the rest of the unwashed being unfamiliar with the works of Weingarten and Jonathan Swift was a little snooty.

I have learned a lot from following this competition and in reading the comments of others. Thanks for the experience.

As one who often marches alone, I am smiling because I agree with Eugene completely. Either I have learned something, or my brain cells are still capable of being creative.

Although I did not engage in back-and-forth with some of the other commenters, I did observe. I think I'll miss you.

And, I look forward to reading what Kevin brings to us.

Hey, MFKPF, MSJS, and others....I plan to stick around and read Kevin's 13 columns.
I hope you will, too, because if you choose to boycott them, well, I am part of that union, too.....

Now that the contest is (officially) "over"(but see my comment following the Achenbach critique)....I'm assuming it is OK to turn up the heat on Kevin. And since he is now a "real" pundit, well "snarky" reader comments go with that territory--and no soft-pedaling out of sympathy.....I'm happy about the fact that I voted for the competition in the final rounds...I feel no compunction now to spare (oh, poor) Kevin...

Art Buchwald.

Eugene Robinson...WaPo finally brings on the heavy hitters. As I've written before, being way out here in the Northwest Territories I get WaPo online and I had never heard of a number of the judges...Probably more a problem with my ignorance than the talent of the people involved, but Gene, I know of you...WaPo, MSNBC, etc. You're a nice guy with the politeness of your South Carolina roots and your critique shows that. I was a little rougher but those comments were directed at the writers on their respective pages...Kevin wasn't funny this time and Zeta missed an opportunity. Tell us what the problem is with the Freelancers plan and the Obama reform.
I wanna comment on something else. I participated throughout this contest. Yes, I didn't make the top ten but I accepted the invitation to read the work and comment. Marty, Chuckie, MSJS, even Wiggan's Limbaughesque rants, and others...it became a shrinking community of commenters and contestants and I've thoroughly enjoyed this little community. Today, however, there were many new and returning commenters. What exactly does "snarky" mean? I think I can speak for the regulars...we didn't intend whatever that means. I honestly found myself rooting for Kevin, Zeta, Courtney, Jeremy, and others. I hope you would take our critiques in stride. Thanx to everybody, I'll miss ya. Keep writing!

I've already critiqued Ms. Khan's and Mr. Huffman's work elsewhere, so I'll comment on Mr. Robinson's assessment here.

I was immediately struck by the earnestness and sincerity of his evaluation. And being the snarky cynic that I am, I didn't believe a word of it. The strong points of each column were waaaay too praised and the weak ones almost sounded like strengths.

And I'm left wondering what Mr. Robinson is really thinking. My guess is the marketing wizards who dreamt this contest up left those words on the cutting room floor.

Or maybe I'm just a snarky cynic.

Regardless, I wish the WaPo editors all the best in dealing with the winner's work.

"Writing a whole column with tongue planted so firmly in cheek is exponentially harder than it looks. If your name is Gene Weingarten or Jonathan Swift, then go ahead, you can pull it off. If not, it's best to try some other approach. Any other approach."

Gene Weingarten or Jonathan Swift...Oh, dear. If you know something about the history and scope of English literature, fine to refer to the Great Ones. Otherwise, better leave the implied gold standard stuff to those who have studied it, and do know.....

Otherwise, well-written analysis, except for last line which led me to speculate
that Robinson's eyes are perhaps better than his ears.....but who could blame him?

Is there not justice in the world? Why should not degree of difficulty count for something?

Huffman did include a number of links to back up his argument. I'm not a fan of his style, but this column had substance -- and since Republicans in Congress are almost unanimous in opposing health care reform, directing comment at them for using rhetoric about cutting costs and opposing measures to do that very thing was appropriate.

Khan did set a simpler task for herself, one that she could have managed in about two paragraphs: health care reform should be fair to contractors, and I would know because I'm one myself (OK, maybe less than two paragraphs). She weakened her argument by passing along an assertion, without documentation of any kind, by one individual and endorsing it without an explanation. I actually dislike her writing style less than I do Huffman's, but he put more work into his column here and produced a piece that told me more than Khan's did.