The NY Times takes on Chris Matthews

I didn't watch the Thuglican debate last night. I was attending what may be one of the final performances at the legendary Paper Mill Playhouse, which is about to fall into bankruptch. But, even if I hadn't had tickets to the theater, I wouldn't have watched that ship of fools. I was bemused, however, by the NY Times' take on Chris Matthews this morning:

Viewers who stayed with MSNBC for the full 90 minutes had reason to be confused. The candidates had reason to be annoyed.

The entire evening seemed intended to diminish the presidential aspirants rather than distinguish their positions. They faced the tail of Air Force One suspended in the air — as if Reagan’s presidential airplane was leaving them behind. They were placed in front of a huge backdrop dotted with the logos of the Reagan library and MSNBC and politico.com, the sponsors of the event, as if those were the only names that counted.

As they stood obediently still behind 10 identical lecterns, Chris Matthews and his co-moderator from politico.com., John Harris, strode dramatically up and down the stage as they asked questions — choreography that did not add clarity or serve any other discernible purpose other than to upstage the candidates who were supposed to stand out and instead stood frozen.

But, the final dig at the Democrats at the end of the piece struck me as totally off the wall:

It was a formal, sober exchange in a grandiose setting, and Mr. Matthews, in a blue shirt and green tie, was cheerful but a bit too casual for the setting, his diction a little slurry and his syntax a bit loose. He asked a question about some candidates’ support for national identity cards and appeared to not fully understand their positions. He would have been perhaps been better suited to the Democratic debate on a college campus in South Carolina.

What is this? Good diction and tight sytax are not valued by Democrats, only Republicans? I don't get it.