I'm retiring the Klosterman quote. Brilliant!!

Thanks pal, I knew I could count on you.

Russert's a fraud and a shill.

I can't think of a single TV personality worth a good goddamn.

Explain this for me beyond just not liking the guy. Seriously, how is he a fraud and just who exactly who is he a shill for.

And I love Mathews but he is an open shill for the Dems.

I like Lou Dobbs because he is on this career-suicide mission against outsourcing, illegal immigration and anything else that doesnt make money for the USA.

I think Matthews does a creditable job giving everyone equal treatment--he doesn't play favorites, and he doesn't lob too many softballs. It's no secret what his party/ideological affiliation is, but it doesn't impede his ability to confront issues nor politicians--I don't find him to be a shill at all. He's the only one I've seen, except for maybe Brit Hume, who can put their personal ideologies aside and tackle the news.

Russert is the opposite. I find that he tries to present himself as impartial, but you can see him fawn over his Dem guests, and relish in his petulance opposite a conservative guest. I can't give you recent specifics, because I stopped watching him about three years ago, when I found him to be no more than smarmy, vapid, and obsequious.

i fuh

One of the better 60+ going.

I disagree but I'm not gonna change your mind so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

They are basically cut from the same cloth. Except Russert has a bit more gravitas, as would be expected from the NBC Washington Bureau Chief, who happens to moderate the most respected television news interview show in history.

I know this is all in the eye of the beholder, but this should tell you something:

In 2001, Washingtonian Magazine named Tim Russert the best and most influential journalist in Washington, D. C. describing Meet the Press as "the most interesting and important hour on television."

In 2004, Reader’s Digest said he was “America’s best interviewer.”

When liberals and conservatives are both naming him as one of the best, you pretty much gotta figure he's impartial.

Then again, impartial to conservatives means he used to be Nixon's media guy...you know like Fox's fair and balanced Roger Ailes.

Are you a woman? 'Cause Lynne's a stone-cold carpet-bagger (if you know what I mean).

Now, Sec'y of Education Margaret Spellings - stone fox, and breeder unquestionably.

I fuh.

Eight years ago, I'd've said the same thing. My Sunday morning fare used to be Russert and McLaughlin. Something changed, however. I don't know if it was the McCain candidacy, or whatever, but the character of Meet The Press seemed to skew. This may only be my impression, but it's what I perceived, and it got bad enough that I'll only watch his roundtable is Safire is on.

Dude is like a freight train. He got going over the past year with outsourcing, and within the past few months (right when the minuteman thing started, I forget when that was) he's picked up illiegal immigration and nothing's holding him back when he gets started on either subject. For the most part, I think it's great- I think someone in his position can do a lot to make more and more people aware of these issues, but now and then I feel like he goes a little overboard.

And I like that he champions individual issues as opposed to party ideology.

As an aside, Ailes' latest is that they forcing their network owned affiliates (O&O's if you will) to enact a more "Fox News" type in their local news both in presentation and ahem philosophy. Oh and forcing them to carry Geraldo's new afternoon show.

Not that I watch local news or anything.....I'm just reporting.

Except of course that he's acknowledged voting for Bush in 2000 (and possibly 2004--he's sketchy about that) and was instrumental in torpedoing Dean's candidacy by playing "the scream" on a constant loop for two weeks. Not to mention his clearly articulated dislike of the Clintons...Otherwise, another water carrying Democrat.

Actually I would respect someone who worked for Carter and Tip O'Neil voting for Bush more than just a line tower. At least I think he probably thought about it a little bit.

And let's face it: Not many old line Dems like the Clintons.

Yeah but in the lofty perches of the West Wing, Rove's nickname is Turd Blossom. If it comes down to a nickname war, the Turd's gotta go.

This situation reminds me of the Abu Ghraib debacle, where underlings were left exposed to the oncoming bus, despite the fact that in the military a commanding officer is responsible for the actions of his reports whether he knows about their actions or not. The notion being that he's supposed to know and is ostensibly responsible. The military doesn't follow it's own rules under this commander in chief, so we can't really expect much from the White House with the same guy in charge now can we?

My personal preference here would be to see Bob Novack strung up by his balls. He's an ugly and petty little man with a cupboard full axes. He'll undoubtedly skate though.

Never heard of him voting for Bush..if he voted against Kerry, it wouldn't surprise me, having worked for Tip for so long...

And Dean sunk himself. Hardball's ratings aren't big enough for that to have much impact.

And Clinton deserves as much finger pointing as he does praise, from all sides, to be sure.

THE RETURN OF ALBION. Welcome back, sir.

All true, I'm just pointing out that Matthews isn't quite the idealogue as some other pols.

I also agree that the Clintons' romance with ANY wing of the party is drawing to a close. This is one of the reasons (among many) that I don't think Hillary will run for President, but I believe we've hashed that out already.

Its still not settled with me because no one has given me a good reason why shouldnt she run. The Clintons can raise money like Pharohs and are treated like Rock Stars almost everywhere they go despite being almost universally detested. If I were making book, I'd have her at no lower than 3-2

Dems hate the Clintons for the same reason the Right hates them. They are unapologetically successful people. They wake up every day with smug looks on their faces and joy (plus a decent mmix of lust) in their hearts......

I owe royalties to HST's estate. re: the above post.

OK, I'll tip my toe in one this...

I think Hillary Clinton knows full well that she cannot shore up any support outside of New York and California. Money is great, but Kerry raised more than any Democrat in history and it got him nowhere.

Her power is in the Senate where she can become the new Ted Kennedy. A power (pseudo-) liberal that can be a lightening rod, which increases her ability to raise money (thus bolstering her control of the party) while not requiring a national campaign. If the Clintons are anything it's politically smart. A national campaign for Hillary would be a boon for GOP fundraisers, and she knows that. She knows she's polarizing (to the general popualtion and registered Dems) and that does not make for a successful national campaign.

There's my 30 second explanation for why I don't think she'll run. Very interested to read other thoughts though.

Very well thought out, I think she'll run because she and Bill are competitive bastards, and they compete against each other as much as other people, and she wants to see if she can do it.

I'll be brief: hubris

JINX