home

Chuck Todd For MTP

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:59:02 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Me three:

Wow, what a great suggestion, and from Jonah Goldberg -- have Chuck Todd replace Tim Russert on Meet the Press. I can't think of someone more substantive on television who has the likeability factor that Russert had. And if I'm agreeing with Goldberg on it, there's clearly cross-partisanship support for the choice. It's a genius suggestion.

Never happen. David Gregory is a lock imo.

Speaking for me only

< Gore to Endorse Obama | Poor Pooch >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Chuck Todd For MTP | 74 comments (74 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    My guess (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by massdem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:07:58 PM EST
    My guess is David Gregory, but I wouldn't be shocked to see Nora O'Donnell chosen - maybe NBC wants to play nice with women after all the talk of sexism on their network (MSNBC).  I also wouldn't be surprised if they go with a series of guest hosts for a while to try them out.

    I just love Nora. (none / 0) (#9)
    by LoisInCo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:11:09 PM EST
    But I have no idea why.

    Parent
    Andrea Mitchell (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:45:07 PM EST
    would be chosen before Nora O'Donnell....

    David Gregory can interview people--but is very cozy with McCain and way, way too defensive about Scott McClellan's comments that the press failed in the run-up to the Iraq war.

    Todd would be very good, but who knows about his ability to interview foreign heads of state....but he doesn't need to fill the Russert mold either.....

    Larry King takes a lot of grief for asking softball questions....but open-ended questions from a non-hositle questioner can get people to spill the beans.    

    Parent

    I'm betting on Andrea Mitchell (none / 0) (#67)
    by BernieO on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:37:27 PM EST
    Not a big favorite of mine but she has the experience, gravitas, etc. AND she helps them get past the charges of misogyny. If they pass up woman with her long resume for a younger guy like Gregory they could be in trouble.

    Parent
    I'd rather see Kelly O'Donnell (none / 0) (#55)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:02:19 PM EST
    She is more of a real reporter, in my view anyway.

    Parent
    Can't see Norah. I think she's (none / 0) (#75)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:13:47 PM EST
    pregnant again and KO probably wouldn't approve!! Tweety's enamored with her, but she's not strong enough.

    Parent
    Like I'd ever (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by pie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:08:07 PM EST
    take a suggestion from Doughy Pantload seriously.

    That guy is such a comedian.

    I agree about Gregory.  He'll be just as effective a corporate medai whore as Russert was, too.

    But at least we have the YouTube footage (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:18:01 PM EST
    of him rapping with Karl Rove.  

    Parent
    I nominate (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:17:27 PM EST
    Joan Walsh

    OMG, what an awesome idea! (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:19:30 PM EST
    Never happen. Female AND doesn't Hate Hillary. Plus, smarter than Gregory, Tweety and Williams.

    Poor lady. She's just too good to be promoted. ;-)

    Parent

    Not bad. nt (none / 0) (#31)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:26:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Yeah, (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by massdem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:18:12 PM EST
    Maybe they could pick the brown haired guy who isn't Steve Ducy (as Stephen Colbert calls him).

    Hillary Clinton!!! (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:21:43 PM EST
    They'd do it for the ratings, I'm sure!

    I thought that too. She's a policy wonk (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:32:09 PM EST
    and invariably gracious.

    Parent
    What they most likely will do (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:37:38 PM EST
    is have each of those in the running guest host the show, possibly more than once. Then they will do whatever it is networks do, from polling to "mock juries" to ratings, and decide.

    If I had to guess, I'd say you can expect to see both David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell as guest hosts in the future.

    It won't be one of their pundits or analysts.

    you mean like they did on (none / 0) (#65)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:43:43 PM EST
    "The View"?

    Maybe they can bring back Rosie O'Donnel.  LOL

    Parent

    Andrea Mitchell doesn't think (none / 0) (#76)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:15:50 PM EST
    too quickly off the cuff. She hesitates and can't always find the words she wants. She used to be one of my favorites tho' until I saw what she did and said about Hillary.

    Parent
    Get John King (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by wasabi on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:23:28 PM EST
    from CNN

    No Rachel Maddow? (none / 0) (#1)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:00:20 PM EST
    SNARK!

    Like they'd pick a woman on that network.

    No Keith Olbermann? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:08:11 PM EST
    Nah, I guess it wouldn't work, since he could only have the 10 yes-men and yes-women guests he cycles through his own show.  It would get boring after awhile.

    Parent
    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:14:19 PM EST
    Now that's a funny thought.

    Olbermann doesn't DO interviews. The amount of time left for bloviation and head explosions would be shortened to an unacceptable degree!

    Parent

    I have an idea... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by massdem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:16:24 PM EST
    They could have Olbermann and O'Reilly co-host.  Now that would get ratings!

    Parent
    Can you imagine (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:20:59 PM EST
    the red faces? The hair flying? The b!tch-slapping?

    It would be so hilarious! It would have to be re-titled, though:

    MTC (Meet The Clowns)

    Parent

    They would have (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:18:59 PM EST
    to relocate the soundstage outdoors.  The two egos would never fit inside the same building at the same time.

    Parent
    Nah (none / 0) (#69)
    by Pol C on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:45:36 PM EST
    Olbermann would be revealed for the wimp he is to all the world. He shrinks from face-to face confrontation. O'Reilly would have him for brunch every Sunday morning. I'd love it, but it's the stuff of dreams.

    Parent
    Incitatus for MTP! (none / 0) (#2)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:06:56 PM EST
    Could it have been any worse over the last 18 years?

    Is the mourning period officially over? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:08:28 PM EST
    Can we write what we really think?

    Parent
    HA (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:15:57 PM EST
    I started doing that on saturday.  there is a pretty good article on the excesses of the coverage here:

    The affection that Russert stirred in millions was testament to his skill. But the coverage of his death was often overblown, self-congratulatory and self-indulgent. It was no way to treat a news icon.

    Parent

    I will wager that there was more time spent (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:21:49 PM EST
    at NBC and MSNBC on the passing of Tim Russert this weekend than coverage of Darfur for six months.

    Parent
    it rivaled the Pope (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:40:40 PM EST
    Tim probably would have liked  that.


    Parent
    Well, I'm not Catholic nor a fan of the (none / 0) (#42)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:46:10 PM EST
    former pope (being gay and all), but his death deserves some in-depth coverage.

    Parent
    Thaey prolly rival the demise of Andropov (none / 0) (#61)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:36:11 PM EST


    Parent
    sad to say it reminded of the reagan (none / 0) (#35)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:36:30 PM EST
    coverage. way too much and it fails to properly honor the person in that manner. so it drives viewers away and fails to really honor the person. what is accomplished? the answer is not much.

    Parent
    NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Jackson Hunter on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:37:37 PM EST
    You may just hurt Keith's widdle feelings you know, and that is far more important than silly little things like truth and perspective.

    It sickens me to no end, do any of you think that this had been Charlie Gibson or George S. that anyone at the certain place would care?  But Russert was in the tank for Obama (or at least was anti-Clinton) so now he must be deified.  What a sad joke.

    Gregory is a corporate tool, so of course he'll get it.

    Jackson

    Parent

    somerby is giving it a week (none / 0) (#46)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:53:49 PM EST
    But he dipped a toe in the water today.

    Parent
    Watch it. (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:30:01 PM EST


    Parent
    Todd? (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:08:35 PM EST
    Hmm, I don't think he has the world's greatest TV presence, frankly. I expect Brokaw to keep it through the election--if he wants it anyway.

    Brokaw does not want it (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:09:56 PM EST
    And they want Gregory to build his own audience during the campaign.

    Rachel Maddow gets the 6:00 pm MSNBC show.

    Parent

    Good point (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:13:05 PM EST
    Gregory could do OK, but he's never been a great host. You ever watch him sub for Matthews? Snooze fest.

    It would be more entertaining and interesting to bring Buchanan and Press back together.

    Parent

    yup (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:45:23 PM EST


    Parent
    My vote (none / 0) (#49)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:56:11 PM EST
    is for Aaron Brown.  

    I think Brokaw is the only one at NBC who has any true gravitas. He is the one who on air tried to curb some of his colleagues' anti-Hillary meme by pointing to her successes.

    The story about Olbermann that BTD discussed here over the weekend makes me think his blanched look on Friday evening was guilt for not heeding the departed, etc.  Tweety, when asked for his reactions on Friday, honested stated he was not as close to Russert as others at the network. And, Tweety's comments contained a couple of oblique jabs.  Todd was picked by Russert, but I think Todd may be seen as too green at this time. I just don't see why so many think Gregory is smart or hard-hitting; as I recall, he did not start asking tough questions at White House press conferences until the President's poll numbers had been in the basement for a while.

    Parent

    That would definitely be a good choice (none / 0) (#50)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:57:58 PM EST
    but, Aaron Brown just accepted a show on PBS.

    Parent
    How about Rachel Maddow? (none / 0) (#10)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:11:13 PM EST
    Or, like, a woman?  We are post-sexism after all.  Surely there is a qualified woman.

    see below (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:18:23 PM EST


    Parent
    oops (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:20:43 PM EST
    above now, anyway
    Joan Walsh.
    she was the most sane talking head in talking head land for the past few months.


    Parent
    Joan Walsh. Great idea. (none / 0) (#32)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:27:54 PM EST
    I bet you money if we hear any possible replacements it will be like 4 men and one woman, and they will go with a man.  This in the post-sexism century.

    Parent
    In a post-Tim Russert world, America needs (none / 0) (#24)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:19:16 PM EST
    a man. (That's snark.)  It would shock me to no end if the Obama network put a woman in that slot.

    Parent
    It wouldn't be Gregory (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:46:48 PM EST
    Gregory is very tied into the Washington culture--and especially that culture that adores McCain.....

    Parent
    Judging from what I saw this weekend (none / 0) (#44)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:52:04 PM EST
    You can't get much more tied in to the Washington culture than Tim Russert.

    Parent
    Ergo, (none / 0) (#54)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:01:12 PM EST
    it's Gregory.....too bad

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:03:57 PM EST
    I do not sense a hunger for a change of direction at NBC.

    Parent
    Oh the snark is thick today. nt (none / 0) (#30)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:25:49 PM EST


    Parent
    Patti Solis Doyle (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:37:01 PM EST


    Parent
    agree (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:13:30 PM EST
    never happen.  you can tell he is not one of the club

    I really like Rachel Maddow (none / 0) (#13)
    by massdem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:13:35 PM EST
    but I don't think she's ready for MTP.  They should give her a show on MSNBC - hopefully Keither Olbermann's slot.  

    I'm sorry (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:58:41 PM EST
    but Maddow lost all perspective and journalistic objectivity this primary season along with all her male cohorts.  I have lost respect for her and no longer trust her to be an independent analyst or even try.

    Parent
    Maddow lost when when she started (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:40:58 PM EST
    calling Clinton's 3am ad "fear mongering", when it was nothing more than her continuing theme of "ready on day 1".

    Parent
    I love Maddow (none / 0) (#33)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:35:22 PM EST
    But they can't give that job to an avowed liberal like Maddow or Walsh, as much as I would like it.

    Parent
    She disappoints me (none / 0) (#48)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:55:41 PM EST
    She seems to be too eager to please the men at the table and flips her viewpoint to agree with her male counterparts. About the only person I see her disagree with is Pat Buchanan, and anyone can do that now and then. She's too willing to agree with everything KO says, no matter how foolish and wrong.


    Parent
    She's a careerist, first and foremost (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Pol C on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:27:00 PM EST
    I think that was established pretty clearly during the folderol about Matthews' conduct towards Clinton after New Hampshire. She praised him as the best pundit on the air to an AP reporter, and Phil Griffin rewarded her with a salaried pundit position before the week was up. Her credibility took a big blow after that.

    She's about making money and her own advancement, period. On her radio show, she does ads for a commodity investment company and identifies herself as a gold investor. I couldn't believe that I was hearing this from a left-wing commentator.

    Parent

    I heard Air America has filed bankruptcy (none / 0) (#71)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:47:07 PM EST


    Parent
    I like her a lot better on her radio (none / 0) (#53)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:00:48 PM EST
    show.  She gets more time to lay out a train of thought. She hold her own on MSNBC well enough for me. Not perfect, but I'm happy they hired her.

    Parent
    She has ticked off , (none / 0) (#57)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:04:42 PM EST
    to the point of rage, both Joey Scarborough and Lawrence O'Donnell....

    Scarborough walked off set; and Rachel said something like "hold on there, cowboy" to O'Donnell...She seems in her element as a commentator....as the moderator, she seems less sure of herself or able to question quests.  Very smart though, Ph.D. from Oxford....

    Parent

    Juan Williams! (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:17:16 PM EST


    yeah (none / 0) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:18:06 PM EST


    Parent
    well juan even wrote a book too. (none / 0) (#38)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:37:55 PM EST
    i think it is a grand idea doomed to failure.

    Parent
    I'd love to see a woman get that job (none / 0) (#34)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:36:10 PM EST
    I'd even take Andrea Mitchell or Cokie Roberts.

    As long as it isn't Aaaaandrea (none / 0) (#45)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:52:18 PM EST
    Mitchell, who can in no way EVER be considered objective.  I got so tired of her saying every night, "the Clinton campaign claims that..." and in the next breath "the Obama campaign says that..."  See, one is the not-so-subliminal "the Clintons are liars" and the other is "no one has done more for the truth than Barack Obama."

    Rachel Maddow may be brilliant, and I used to enjoy her on Air America before the primary season, but she crossed over to can't-be-trusted territory in this campaign; there was nothing the least bit objective or reality-based in her coverage or commentary.

    I don't think any of these talking heads who so clearly committed to any candidate ought to be heading up a show like Meet the Press, and certainly should not be elevated to "Washington Bureau Chief."

    Now, maybe NBC just doesn't care about adhering to any jouranlistic principles whatsoever, but the smartest thing they could do - if they ever want to be taken seriously ever again - is to put someone in that spot whose political leanings are a complete mystery.

    Yeah, like that would actually happen.  What was I thinking?

    Neil Cavuto (none / 0) (#52)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:00:04 PM EST
    He is calm, doesn't talk over his guests, asks tough questions, calls people on their viewpoint when he finds it inaccurate or not backed by fact.

    You're kidding right? (none / 0) (#63)
    by MonaL on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:39:46 PM EST
    Why not Billo?

    Parent
    Meet the press (none / 0) (#58)
    by This from a broad on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:08:16 PM EST
    I vote for Chris Matthews, so that he can spit all over everyone.

    I'm for a female host, too. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Pol C on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:41:10 PM EST
    NBC really needs to get the sexism label behind them, and giving the catbird seat to a woman would really put the aging frat-boy MCPs in their place.

    From the current NBC crowd, the best person would be either Norah O'Donnell or Maria Bartiromo. Andrea Mitchell's the only other female personality who has the gravitas and experience, but she's dull as dishwater. Her marriage to Greenspan could open the door to a lot of controversy as well, as there would be concerns that she would slant economic coverage by keeping his critics off the air. There's a fair amount of speculation as it is that she's used her clout to keep the likes of Paul Krugman off all NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC shows. I like O'Donnell the most, largely because she's redeemed herself from the "Noron" label of a couple of years ago, and I think it would be great for the job to go to a working mom.

    Chuck Todd would be a really ignorant choice. He's a researcher and a data analyst, not an interviewer. Frankly, I think he'd be too smart to even accept it if offered. It's not what he does.

    It'll probably end up going to David Gregory.

    Putting a woman in that seat does not (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:06:43 PM EST
    negate the sexism, especially when you consider that a number of the female members of the NBC family either did not speak out about it, defended it, or participated in it.

    It's just like saying that as long as Obama puts a woman - any woman - on the ticket, that will appease the Hillary supporters and make all that sexist baloney evaporate.

    What they need in that seat is someone who can be objective, who doesn't, week after week, pretend to be a serious journalist while stacking the panel with a pretty much one-sided view, and who only holds to the fire the feet of those guests he - or she - wants to burn.

    Parent

    Chuck Todd?? NO WAY (none / 0) (#77)
    by northeast73 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:29:20 AM EST
    Am I the only person who actually thinks Chucky Todd is WAAAY overratted and is actually quite irratating.

    The man cannot do ANY political analysys without resorting to sports analogies...."if this were football, would you take thepoints or the spread", was one of his recent gems.

    His constant MATH crap all primary long drove me batty.  "Hillary cant win, she cant catch up, she cant she cant she cant".....while always FAILING to mention that OBAMA would never hit the magic number either.....

    Todd is the epitome of the MSNBC "frat boy" image and I would be very disappointed to see him do anything beyond being KO or CM's "bobble head"

    Chuck Todd For MTP | 74 comments (74 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment