I saw that Matthew has a post up about Colbert at the White House Correspondence Dinner - basically saying, that Colbert wasn't funny.

Well, for what is is worth - I certain found his monologue funny.  Although I must agree that the video segment with Helen Thomas wasn't good. 

I wonder though, what people were expecting.  The thing about Colbert is, the shtick is an acquired taste.  The first couple of times I watched Colbert, I was - "eh, it's okay."  But by the 5th time (I've probably caught about 10 shows since he started), to me at least, he kept getting funnier and funnier, "growing on me" as they say.

And his act at the WHCD - you have to say, it was completely in keeping with his act on his show.  In fact, a few of the jokes that people are calling "rude" were recycled. 

So, I'm wondering more, what the people who booked the show were thinking.  Colbert did his thing, the thing that he always does on The Colbert Report - he just did it with Bush 20 feet away from him, and the Washington Press Corps looking on. 
But that wasn't out of character - not in the least - with what he ALWAYS does. 

To expect him to do something different than what he was hired to do, is unrealistic. 

Of course, this is really such a small matter in the larger scheme of things.  It's interesting only in the way that - with the same material - people can experience it different ways.


Now, for an integral discussion -