MSNBC's New Line-up & A Review Of Their Current One

MSNBC will be changing up it's line-up as of next Monday.  Tucker Carlson's show will be getting the ax, replaced by a show hosted by David Gregory.  Andrea Mitchell will now be anchoring the news everyday from 1-2 p.m.  Live with Dan Abrams will be undergoing a name change.  Other than that, MSNBC's current programing line-up will, for the most part, stay in tact. With that said, he are my hopes and reviews of the current and future programming on MSNBC.

Morning Joe

I start off every morning watching Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski on Morning Joe.  Despite my opposing views with Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, I must say, I do enjoy the show.  They usually have a great variety of guests on the show and the exchanges between conservative Scarborough and liberal Brzezinski are priceless.  The one thing I must complain about, however, is Brzezinski's new found bias for Barack Obama.  I enjoyed the show, and her, much more when she was simply the liberal and Scarborough was simply the conservative and broad topics were discussed in relationship to the two parties.  Now, Brzezinski finds a way to make everything about Obama, even if the topic does not involve him or his campaign.  You get the feeling she is pushing him down your throats, and after a while, it gets really old.

MSNBC Daytime News

Not much to say here.  I don't hate MSNBC news, nor do I love it.  Truthfully, the only time I actually find myself tuning in to MSNBC daytime is when it's what they call "Super Tuesday", their all day political coverage, which is actually quite good.

Hardball

I used to be repulsed at Chris Matthews and his blatant bias, but he has been getting better.  He rarely takes sides any more in arguments and debates, and thats a huge improvement  And when you tone down Matthews' bias and listen to what this man actually has to say, you realize that he is a fascinating guy who knows more than most will ever know about politics.  For that reason, I have once again found myself a fan of Hardball, and if Matthews keeps behaving the way he is now, I will remain a fan.  It's so much nicer to hear Chris give his insights and analysis of politics in general and it's mechanics, rather than gushing over one candidate while constantly demeaning and degrading the other.  

Countdown

Keith Olbermann, to say it simply, has become the liberal Bill O'Reilly.  Keith used to be objective and would offer a straight forward analysis of the top stories of the day based on facts.  Now, it's the Keith loves Barack show.  Keith has recently, in essence, accused everyone who supports Sen. Clinton of being a racist and a Republican in disguise.  He appears amazed every night that the entire nation doesn't bow down and worship Obama as he has apparently become accustomed to.  And some would say that the "liberal Bill O'Reilly" is exactly what the Democratic party needs.  I counter by saying absolutely not. We need someone in the media who doesn't take the side of one candidate over the other, but rather challenges the conventional wisdom.  Keith used to be that person.  But now, he has let his ego get the best of him.  His show has become more focused on attacking the Clintons and tearing down their supporters than anything else.  The vibe Keith now puts out, rather than standing up to convention wisdom, is that you're only right; you're only a Democrat; you're only an America if you love Barack Obama and hate Hillary Clinton.  It has become painful to watch Olbermann degenerate as he has.  He used to be the best on MSNBC; now he's the worst.  

Live with Dan Abrams

Starting on Monday, Live with Dan Abrams will become Verdict with Dan Abrams.  Hopefully, despite the name change, the show will stay the same since Dan is now my top guy to watch on MSNBC.  Why?  Because, when I watch him, I feel like I'm actually getting a fair, balanced view-point, without any political bias.  His "On Their Trail" segment is one of the best in television.  He takes on Obama as much as he does Clinton and vice-versa.  And although I don't always agree with his calls on who's right and who's wrong, I will admit that he calls them as he sees them.  Many nights Obama has come away with more "X's" than Clinton and vice-versa.  Also, his two most frequent guests, Pat Buchanan and Rachel Maddow, also make for great television as they argue and debate the issues.  I just hope that with the new name, Abrams keeps up his fairness and objectivity.  It does this country a great deal.

Tucker

Thank god Tucker got canceled.  Admittedly, Tucker's show was good at times, but only good when he had a good panel on to access the day's political headlines.  Tucker Carlson himself added nothing substantive to the show.  The show was only good if the panelists made it good.  And although the key to any good political show is a good variety of guests, the host has to bring something to the table as well.  Tucker didn't.  Let's hope his successor does.

Race to the White House

Yup, thats the name of the show, hosted by David Gregory, that will succeed Tucker.  I'm interested to see how Gregory will do.  Will Race to the White House be a more serious toned show, like Meet the Press, or more loose and free formed like Hardball and Live with Dan Abrams? I'm not sure, but I would be happy with either.  The political junkie in me loves the serious toned, old school political discussions (even though I'm quite young) that take place on Meet the Press and like shows, but I also love the arguments and heated exchanges that are allowed to develop on the more free-formed shows.  I will say that they probably could have found a better host if they were going for a free-formed show, such as picking Rachel Maddow or Pat Buchanan. If it's a serious toned political discussion type show, Gregory should do well.  

On a side note: I'm still begging for MSNBC to get a Crossfire-like program with two hosts from opposing political views. They need to have a Buchanan vs. Maddow show. That would be gold.  But until then, we get David Gregory.  I hope he does good, but honestly, it's not as if Tucker set the bar all that high.  

Political Distraction -- A Case In Point

Will Senator Clinton choose Obama to be her V.P. if she is the Democratic nominee?  Will Senator Obama choose Clinton to be his V.P. if he wins the nomination?  The answer to both is no.

 

The subject makes great fodder for journalists and pundits who have too much time on air to fill, but the fact is that neither candidate has said they would choose their opponent to be the V.P.  People need to listen to what the candidates say and not what their campaign people say.  Campaign people will spin anything as a storyline even when there is no story.  It is part of the process to keep reporters up to date and to satisfy their desire to create news.

 

That is why reporters and journalists have a panel of so called experts to debate what a candidate said after the debates.  Depending on who the reporter, journalist, or panel member supports, it will reflect what they say about that candidate after the debate.  They even like to read into what a candidate says when there is nothing there. They overanalyze just for the heck of it, which does absolutely nothing for the American people.  

 

The ball that the people have to keep their eye on is what the candidates themselves say.  The people should put aside any notion of Clinton or Obama being a V.P. choice.  The words 'dream ticket or dream team" is just that, a dream.  The American people should not be distracted during the primaries.  The main issue is still the same: which candidate is the most qualified to be the Democratic nominee and potential Commander-in-Chief.