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.  

The Daily Dose---2/25

March 4: How It Looks As Of Right Now

March 4, the date when voters in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont cast their votes for the Democratic nomination contest, is shaping up to be a split decision, at least according to new polling released today.  In Texas, which I predict as of right now going to Obama, a new CNN poll has Obama up by 4, while a new Rasmussen poll has Clinton with a 1% lead. Vermont, as expected, is heavily expected to go to Obama and it is the one state I can 100% say will go for him.  Rhode Island, on the other hand, is a state which I can confidently say will go to Clinton. She has maintained anywhere from a 10-15% lead there, depending on which recent poll you look at.  Ohio also appears to be leaning towards Clinton, but in the same way that Texas is leaning for Obama---meaning neither candidate really has a significant lead in either state and the races are still too early and close to call.  But, if I had to say right now, Clinton would win Ohio and Rhode Island.  Obama would win Texas and Vermont.  That's just how I see it currently.  Ask me about the race on Friday, and I'll probably be able to confidently predict the winners in all 4 states.

Am I Losing My Mind?

As I was eating a snack this afternoon, I tuned in to MSNBC's Tucker, where Tucker Calrson was interviewing Presidential candidate, Ralph Nader.  To my shock and horror, I actually found myself agreeing with Ralph on all the issues discussed, especially energy.  With that being said, I still disagree with Ralph on several of his positions that were not discussed, but it was a little shocking to find myself actually nodding in agreement with Nader.  But, let me be clear, this does not mean in anyway that I would support Nader in the election.  I firmly believe that a vote for Nader is a vote for a Republican.  It's that simple and I hope America realizes that this time around.

Absolutely Ridiculous Memo From Obama

I'll admit, Obama is growing on me, probably due to the fact that he will be the nominee, but today his campaign released a completely idiotic memo that blamed the Clinton campaign for distributing a photo of him wearing traditional Somali dress.  They accused the Clinton campaign of "fear-mongering" and said that they should be ashamed of themselves.  This is such a ridiculous thing because, for one, the picture wasn't even that bad, and two, why does it have to be the Clinton campaign who sent out the memo?  Obama needs to wake up and realize that he's not just facing the Clintons anymore, he's facing the right-wing slime machine.  As Maggie Williams said in a press release,

"Enough.  If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry.

We will not be distracted."

In Defense of  Hillary...

Hillary has been slammed on the blogosphere for "mocking" Obama's message of change.  But, at least in my opinion, she has a point.  I have yet to get an answer from an Obama supporter about what exactly Obama will do to solve all our problems.  Sure, Obama is an excellent speaker and knows how to get thousands of people fired up, but what about when this campaign is over.  What about when Obama sits down in the Oval Office, and the friendly crowds are gone, and it's time for Obama to be President, to be Commander-in-Chief.  Can he handle it?  I certainly hope so, but I honestly don't know.  In fact, I can draw another potential comparison between Obama and Deval Patrick.  Patrick was a great speaker and knew how to energize a crowd, but as anyone in Massachusetts can tell you, when it came to get down to business, Patrick fell a little short in his first months as governor.  His inexperience prevented him from being ready "on day one".  With all the challenges America faces, I just can't help but feel that we need someone to be ready, "on day one".  

The battle for prime time: a Review of cable opinions shows

The top 3 cable news channels all have their pluses and their downs. Then there is Fox News, or as Keith Olberman and myself like to say, Faux Noise. Here is my reviews of their prime time opinion shows and the network overall.

-CNN: CNN itself doesn't really have an "opinion" show, but rather shows that have guests who talk their opinion. Their best program has to be the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. Its features quick segments on the top news stories of the day while also featuring segments where political experts such as Carville, Huffington, Crowley, and more give their views on the hottest political news. Lou Dobbs is a terribly boring host. To be honest I could never watch his show for more than 5 minutes. Speaking of boring, Larry King needs to retire. His show brings nothing to CNN. While his interviews used to be sharp and crisp, he rarely follows up on anything his guests say and to top it all off, he rarely remembers their name. Then is Anderson Cooper. While an okay host, again he just doesn't add any spice to the mix. His monotone voice and needless stories just aren't what today's audience needs. CNN is like the CBS evening news, obviously catering to the older, traditional crowd.

-Headline Prime: Well there are really only two opinion shows on Headline Prime. Glen Beck is a bumbling right-wing idiot who sucks up to the base of his party like no one else's business. I'm surprised he hasn't been offered a contract by Faux Noise. His fear tactics are right in line with those of the GOP, in fact, a few months ago he and his guests talked about this current Iraq/Iran conflict causing the end of the world if we aren't careful. Than there's Nancy "Good Night Friend" Grace. What can I say about her? Comedy, pure comedy. Good for a laugh. Especially her frequent guest Susan "I rhyme everything I say" Moss. I would assume these two shows appeal to crazies.

-Speaking of crazy, we have Faux Noise. To be honest its kind of hard for me to review them based on opinions, because there is no opinion with them. Its "I'm right, you're wrong". Its right-wing bias taken to the extreme. And the kind of Faux Noise...the "Worst Person in the World" himself, Bill O. I really don't know how people watch this and make this the #1 "news" channel.

-Then there is the fastest growing news channel, MSNBC, my personal favorite. It has opinion shows, yet has diverse opinions. Tucker Carlson provides the conservative view. Chris Matthews provides the moderate view, and Keith Olberman gives his liberal opinions. Its a good mix and not to mention there is even further diversified opinions within the shows. Tucker usually features one republican and one democrat on the panel. Hardball with Chris Matthews has the daily Hardball Debate between a democrat and republican, similar to the crossfire days, and Countdown with Keith Olberman usually has all moderate guests, some leaning right, others leaning left. And then we have Dan Abrams, the male Nancy Grace. Easily MSNBC's worst show, they should give Allison Stewart or David Shuster their own show in that slot.

So the verdict:
1) MSNBC for its diverse opinions and sharp, energetic, and passionate commentators.
2) CNN by default. Not as bad as the following two, and if you like more calm, traditional shows, then CNN is for you.
3) Headline Prime's Glen Beck is enough to make this network go sour quickly, add in Nancy Grace and you have a network
thats would finish last on this countdown if I didn't have to rank Faux Noise.
4) Faux Noise, the reason should be clear.