How about Anderson Cooper? His botching of the debate in the Reagan library notwithstanding, I think he's one of the more fair guys in the news business. His style would be significantly different, but I think he puts interviewees at ease and could do a good job.
so, .. it did not become successful until Russert changed the format, successful enough to draw ~ 4 Million viewers. if it ain't broke, don't mess with it.
LOL! Good one. Koppel makes too much sense. He's probably the most respected active journalist in America right now. That job should have his name written on it.
Cooper reeks of ambition - albeit deservedly so - and probably expects a big three desk at some point. I don't think he wants to be "limited" to discussing just politics, only once a week, especially when they're not always the biggest news topics. Discussing judicial nominees with Minority Whips three years away from an election for five weeks in a row could get pretty brutal.
They need a transition guy who is older, respected -- fair -- that sounds like Koppel. He would host for a few years (or less) as they move to a younger, long term host -- perhaps David Gregory.
I would say David Muir, but I think ABC is grooming him to be Jenning's and Gibson's successor. Imagine Muir the lead anchor at ABC, Anderson the lead at CBS.
You are confusing being conservative with supporting W. Scarborough called W on his BS, especially when he strayed from the conservative golden path.
Olbermann cannot get away from the occasionally smarmy, sarcastic bit. That does not bode well on a show like Meet the Press. Ted Koppel would be excellent though.
Question: What is the point of having a 'moderator' when said person makes no effort to actually fact check what people are saying in real time It would be better if the guests just talked and argued amongst themselves IMO
You obviously didn't see his interview of Hillary Clinton, for whom he clearly had a good amount of disdain by the time he had her on. He was professional as hell, firm but fair, and didn't let his personal opinions get in the way. I do agree though that he would almost certainly be viewed as too partisan. The thing is, among truly deep lovers of politics (like Russert, like Matthews, like Olbermann, like Scarborough, Carville, Matalin, Buchanan), you'd be hard pressed to find someone who didn't at one time come down clearly on one side. Russert seems like a model of relative fairness these days, but he was an extreme, hardball style partisan when he worked for Mario Cuomo and his work experience before that was under Moynihan. He was an absolute Democrat who absolutely subjugated his personal opinions in honor of his job. It's worth noting that when he signed his first contract with NBC (an outrageously long one at 12 years), he had virtually no "gravitas." He was in his 30's. In this way, and especially according to measures of enthusiasm, nobody is a more clear inheritor to the throne than Chris Matthews. It makes a lot of sense to try to replace the Russert that left -- the tough but fair, semi-senior sort of guy he wound up to be. But it might be an even greater nod to his legacy to ID the next person most capable of growing into the job as he did. To me, O'Donnell makes sense that way. So does Maddow (who did an incredible job as an out liberal of masking her preference in the primaries), so does Matthews in a way, so does Keith in a way. Gregory is milquetoast. I don't see him even capable of ever having the fire or enthusiasm of a Russert. I'd rank him nearly last on this list. He's the most likely pick and also the most lame one. That's not to say I don't like or admire him because I do; I just think he's too small for the job.
You're a thoughtful poster but this is a little bit of a silly post given Russert's history. He didn't fact check in real time; he fact checked before the fact. And he almost always had the right question to follow up any spin. He single handedly put the lie to the idea that any show of this sort would be better left unmoderated.
You seriously think that? I certainly don't. And putting that aside, I don't see her as having nearly enough experience. Besides, one corner of her mouth is always trying to shake hands with her ear. Great teeth, though. Trim Bush.
Yeah, I do. I honestly couldn't guess at who she favored. Early on I thought it was Obama, later Clinton. But she's said many times she's gotten hate mail from supporters of both who swore she was against their candidate. As an Obama supporter she drove me crazy many times -- far more than Matthews or Olbermann at least in seeming to buy what I regarded to be silly arguments on Clinton's part. Also, I totally love the idea of an openly gay woman achieving prominence in broadcasting. I'm so hyped by a black man finally having a real shot at the top job I no longer think any previously acknowledged barrier is unbreakable. I linked a thread from 2006 yesterday in which RocketRiver, rimbaud and a few other very smart posters said they didn't expect to see a black man seriously contend for the presidency in their lifetimes. I think we're on the verge of knocking every wall down. And I think having an open lesbian host a major Sunday show would be incredible. I freely admit she's a lefty. And that might well (and might well rightly) deny her the job, but yeah. I think she was very fair in the primaries.
(I really don't care if Maddow is gay or not. I just don't think she's right for the job!) I just looked at the first couple of pages of that thread you mentioned and it really is fascinating. I was certainly excited about Obama, and still am. The main reason I defended Clinton for so long was that I genuinely admire both of the Clintons and think they have been giving their lives to the Democratic Party for several decades. The more Obama supporters attacked her, the more I wanted to defend her. And, wonder of wonders, she finally morphed into an rather amazing campaigner, after several missteps and pratfalls. I became as excited about what she was doing for American women as I was with what Obama was doing for Black America... breaking down the last great political door in this country. I still believe either one would make a fine President. That attempt at having a woman President is over now and I can devote my attention solely to Barack Obama. Like I said, that thread, what I reread of it, was really cool. Here's one of my posts from it. A blast from the past. All of two years ago: (I'm responding to someone called Kyakko, who disappeared) Interesting post. Of course, I disagree with you. Actually, I've been fairly consistent with my own views for a very long time. I voted for George McGovern in '72, when many here hadn't even been born. (yes, that makes me feel like crap!) I was looking at the Big Picture in '72, when Democrats had yet another in a multitude of uninspiring Presidential candidates. The Big Picture I was looking at was Watergate. I had no doubt that Nixon was involved up to his nose in it, and had committed impeachable acts. I also knew that McGovern had no chance to win, because the general public hadn't "bought into" Watergate... yet. History shows us that my "Big Picture" was in focus. I would posit you this- every so often this nation makes a fundamental change, politically. It can be Lincoln in 1860, FDR in '32, Jack Kennedy in '60, Reagan in '80. Whether the change is good or bad for the country can be open to debate, but sea-changes they were. The electorate, in my opinion, is a bit like a rubber band, the rubber band representing how they tend to vote. It can stretch and stretch, but keep voting the same way. Then, during one crucial election, the rubber band breaks, and we're presented with a new rubber band, and a new sea-change in American electoral politics. I think Obama could break the rubber band, and heaven knows the nation needs it. Maybe not a good metaphor, but I have a splitting headache, so it's the best I can come up with at the moment. I'm sure I'll think of another one, after it's too late for me to edit this. So you could say that I disagree with you. I think that conservatives, as represented by the current White House, Congress, and Republican leadership, are out of touch with the underlying political feelings of the American electorate. These aren't the conservatives of the days of Everett Dirksen, for example, or even Ronald Reagan. The current group, with their grip on power, have twisted even Reagan's conservatism so out of shape as to be damned near unrecognizable. I hear that said, perhaps not quite the same way, by Republicans I meet in day-to-day life, here in the state capitol. They are dismayed at the direction their party has taken. Hey, I'm often dismayed at my own party, especially the people chosen (not by me!) to run for President. I understand why you might feel that liberals and a term I really like, and one Obama uses, progressives have been out of touch with reality regarding politics at the national level. I would say that you should consider just how much the "lens," through which progressives have been viewed is distorted by those who have captured our government, and their supporters in the media. Your average Democrat, in my opinion, is far more pragmatic than that distorted lens would have you see, or that several of our Democratic candidates for President might indicate. Some thoughts through my own strange lens, suffering from a really bad sinus headache. Keep D&D Civil. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=115104&page=2&pp=20 That rubber band is going to break in November.
I don't care that Maddow is gay either except that it represents another rubber band breaking, to use your terms. And I'm sorry but I don't agree that a woman becoming president is the last barrier we have to break in this country. I think homophobia is alive and considerably more well in this country than sexism is. We have many barriers yet to break. I wouldn't put her out there at all though if I didn't think she was the smartest person in political punditry right now, and as I said in my first post in this thread I do think she is. I watch David Gregory's horrible show just for her. As for that old thread, read the whole thing. It's fascinating start to finish. I mean to read a lot of old threads here when I can find the time. I'm especially looking forward to catching up on old threads about the war. I don't remember exactly what was said but I clearly remember that George and basso and johnheath and treeman and bamaslammer said a ton of stuff that's since been proven dead dead wrong and that the rest of us issued warnings that have (unfortunately and sadly) been proven right. I'd rather have been wrong but it's nice to have a record of all that.
