He did not respond directly to the speech, which was what he was supposed to be doing. He gave a crappy campaign speech.
That would be because I wasn’t here in 2000. 
It is interesting to note, though, that you had to go back almost a decade to think of a Democrat being mocked by CNN.
It is interesting to note, though, that for almost a decade Republicans were in charge, and thus featured more in the news than Democratic officials.
Sorry to puncture your admiration of your own cleverness, but I didn’t claim you were. I said I’d never heard you tsk-tsking about that as an example of media bias.
I don’t; there are plenty of more recent examples, such as the Edwards-hair fiasco and the snickering about Bill Clinton’s foot-in-mouth incidents hurting Hillary’s campaign.
And in any case, I don’t think that trying to change the subject to your eternal lament about “liberal media bias” is going to be very effective in shifting the thread focus away from the alleged, and apparently widely recognized, suckitude of Jindal’s speech.
What? You expected me to bring it up years afterward then?
I recall them being reported; I don’t recall “snickering”.
My comments have nothing to do with Jindal’s undoubtedly poor speech; it had to do with CNN’s role in mocking it. You know, like was mentioned in the OP?
Why not? When you embark on your periodic diatribes about what’s wrong with society, you routinely bring up the 1960’s, which were quite a while ago. Why shouldn’t your complaints about lack of media objectivity extend back as far as the comparatively recent 2000 elections?
The OP that asked “What did he say that was so funny? Did it deserve it?” That OP?
Well, since everybody, including you, seems to agree that Jindal’s speech was funny because it was pathetically poor, and therefore did deserve mocking, I guess the OP has been answered.
Cite for my saying it was “funny”? Cite for my saying it “deserved mocking” [esp. by an allegedly objective news source]?
You know I did neither. Some people are pretty good at verbal sleight-of-hand and some aren’t. My advice is don’t give up your day job.
Oh, you didn’t actually think that the poor quality of the speech made it funny or mockable? Why not?
This debate finally inspired me to actually go watch a clip of the speech, and I have to agree, it was hilarious. Think Mr. Rogers stoned out of his gourd, and you’ve got the idea.
So you’re admitting I didn’t say what you claimed I did? Well, that’s a first step. Now how about a retaction and apology?
As I said, it ain’t CNN’s place to mock him.
Nope, I didn’t make any false claims about what you said. It did seem to me that you were agreeing with the general views expressed here on Jindal’s speech, so that’s why I said that “everybody, including you, seems to agree” about it.
I did not realize that you were desperately clinging to your misguided attempt to defend Jindal’s speech from ridicule (even in an opinion piece?) despite your admission that it was “undeniably poor”. In short, I underestimated your delusive defensiveness about Jindal, and if you like, I’m perfectly willing to apologize for having done so.
Sorry, I see (post-edit) that your phrase was “undoubtedly poor”. It’s a very minor quibble, but I want to make sure I don’t risk upsetting you again.
Given that what I did say is obvious and in black and white; it’s very easy to see that I never said Jindal’s speech was "funny’ nor that it “deserved mocking”. The fact that you allege it seemed that way to you is dishonest, as I had said nothing whatsoever to justify such an extrapolation.
At first, you wouldn’t even admit there was anything bad about the speech; you just tried to change the subject to an (unsupported) allegation that it was inappropriate for the CNN pundits to be laughing at it.
Then when you finally admitted that Jindal’s speech was in fact “undoubtedly poor”, I assumed that you were caving in to reality, but I was wrong. As I said, I underestimated your delusive defensiveness, and I apologize for that; I don’t think I’ll make that mistake in future.
Ah, I love the smell of dishonesty in the morning!
So you’ve extrapolated from my pointing out that CNN shouldn’t be mocking politicians’ speeches that I was trying to change the subject?
And that by my saying “undoubtedly poor” you extrapolated that I was saying it was “funny” and that it “deserved mocking”, despite the fact I’d already said CNN had no business mocking it?
Go repeat all that in front of a mirror and see if even you believe it.
See, once upon a time I would have underestimated this, but I know better now.
THAT’S IT!! I knew he sounded like some sitcom actor, not Mister Rogers. All they need to do for 30 Rock is put the actor in black face. I spent the entire time I watched his speech (about 2 minutes) trying to remember what goofy actor he sounded like. Thank you for letting me know. I have no idea if the speech was good. The voice distracted me.
Imagine a debate between Jindal and Sarah Palin. Keep the Daily Show in material for months.
I used to live in Louisiana. Lots of people there are illiterate, but they aren’t stupid. Jindal treated his audience like we were. Going on after Obama made it worse. The new order involves treating your audience with respect - he should get the hang of it if he wants to get anywhere.
Yes, they certainly are:
Mock mock mock mock mock
Good morning Shodan! I invite you to defend your thesis that CNN was simply being partisan in it’s critique of Jindal’s speech.
Please let us know what aspects of his speech you found to be the most intelligent and illuminating.
The Dean Scream was in 2004, so really not all that long ago.