Definitely felt more like I was grading papers. MSJS comments right on target, and I agreed with their grades.
Also BOBMOSES'comment resonates with my exact impression of the final four as well.
You should have had an intermediate round with the online live exchange earlier. It is very revealing and helpful. In this case it sunk all four.

I'm going to agree with BobMoses. Why bother fast tracking the Republicans Like Tata and Cunion with Editors passes in the first round.

It's definitely what the liberal judges don't want to hear. Most definitely what the far left reader(usually the extremes actually get off their asses to vote in these things)doesn't want to hear. Actually letting them into the competition was a waste of their time.

A pundit, as defined by dictionary.com is "a person who makes comments or judgments, esp. in an authoritative manner; critic or commentator"

Your right wing selections did that as well as any of the putzes who advanced to the next round. Their only mistake was that the 'comments and judgements' they made didn't agree with the Posts almighty judges...as can be evidenced by Mr. Lehrman, one of their own left wingers, calling out the judges re: Cunion. He was the best you had out of the ten by far, only to lose favor with your esteemed panel of idiots casting the free pass card.(which reminds me - Did he write the Lake ST. Clair one of the great lakes speaches, or the when I invented the internet speach or were those off the cuff remarks by Al...but I digress)

This contest should have been 100% voted on by copy editors, managing editors, the EIC and the rest of the political and opinion writers of the post. People that understand what this type of writing is about. And it should have been done without any names attached to the paper. Instead we get a couple of idiots who try to define what a blog should be, people who look for a strong stand to be made then chastise the one who makes it and played favorites from day one.

What remains .... 1 cute and very good writer, 1 average , one naive kid who needs more school, and a cheater. All Liberal - What I read online the other day was the same answer out of each person's mouth. What kind of thought does that provoke? It's like arguing over periwinkle vs Carolina vs navy... all shades of blue. Does a few pantone shades really change anything?

The biggest loser, however is the 'Post.' I along with a large number of people both in the District and out came to the site for the better part of two weeks. A readership that is now lost, probably back to Rush, FoxNews and the NRA Newsletter. Oh well, not your demo anyway right?

The Irony is that the same group crying for diversity can't seem to drink their own damn kool-aid.

note - the interface sucks, I don't have any wordprocessing on this terminal - (yes I said terminal) so I'd appreciate it if the grammar nazi's held off on this one. I can't edit in a 1"x3" rectangle.
Ddog

It is normal, if they got here by their friends' votes, instead of their true writing capabilities.
Also, I am tired of reading people describing people as "liberals". What doesn't mean being a "liberal". Is it, that they are for equal rights, more taxes for the rich and less for the poor, give equal pay to women than to men, healthcare to every human being instead of discrimate them? There are too many "label" people who wants to label people without even knoe the true meaning of the words.
Sorry for my English, but I am not an English native speaker.

OK, I'll take a stand and provide my assessment of the Q&A round.

Ted:
Good response to the US vs. Europe recession remedies question.
Response to the Heartland question was a long-winded Kumbya. If that’s his view, fine. He can say that in 25 words, max.
5 questions in a row without a response, including the puffball DC voting rights question. Where was he?
Best answer to who’s your competition.
Emotion vs. rationality response was dry and underscored the point he was trying to make.
If he wants to ‘pierce the hypocrisy’ as a pundit, how about starting with all the votes he’s received from people, courtesy of his employer, who didn’t even read his material?
Liked his answer to what he might have written differently.
Overall, a mixed bag. Some responses were great, others were weak to non-existent.
Grade: C+

Lauren:
Several long-winded answers.
A few non-answers.
Some naïve answers.
In the end, they all more or less felt the same. Earnest and sincere, but predictable and not compelling reading.
Grade: C

Nancy:
Often too wordy.
Discussed foreclosure crisis in response to question about conservation.
Redefining the global US role was largely an indictment of the banking industry and wasn’t tied back to the question.
Unemployment remedies: Used the question as a platform for one of her pet topics, education, without explaining how it would remedy unemployment in the short run.
There was a string of 7 questions and she answered only 2, one of which was a puffball question (DC voting rights) and the other was a non-answer to the competition question. Where was she during that stretch?
Juan Williams: If I want Patricia J. Williams’ opinion, I’ll go look for it. I’m reading this because I want Ms. Goldstein’s view.
Confuses being willing to take someone on with her personal ideology. I’m not buying it.
A misspelled word is the best she can come up with that she’d change? Again, I’m not buying it.
Grade: D

Conor:
Authentic response to ‘what’s your Q&A prowess’ question, backed up by his answering more questions than anyone else, though a few responses were more long-winded I-Don’t-Know’s (US vs. Europe recession remedies and role of government in encouraging conservation) than anything.
If he’s a ‘freshwater American,’ I’m Kurt Vonnegut. That said, he sounds like what he is, an idealistic grad student, so he scores one there for authenticity.
Liked his response to the emotion vs. rationality question.
OMG, another Teach for America member. Not his fault of course, but my personal preference is not to go that route again this year. My bias, not going to deny it.
Grade: B

WaPo:
Consider eliminating puffball questions (DC voting rights) and questions containing an easy response within them.

Well, let me concur with Fred Hiatt in part and dissent in part.

I concur that there should have been more personality. I thought Conor and to a lesser extent Lauren opened up a bit, but Ted and Nancy continued to play to their slick personae instead of acting like real people. Of course, both of them already have well-established writers' voices, so maybe it's no accident that they come off as too polished.

But I would hope that none of these authors would be as needlessly and recklessly provocative as, say, Charles Murray, whom Fred Hiatt likes vastly out of all proportion to his talent.

Four contestants. Four partisan liberals.

Typical partisan Post. What a joke.