<p>Thoughts?</p>
<p>I personally think it’s a great choice…can never replace Tim, but a great choice…</p>
<p>I was disappointed. I don’t think he’s strong enough.</p>
<p>NYmom: who were you thinking of? just curious…</p>
<p>I think David Gregory is a fine enough choice but I personally was hoping to see John King in that role.</p>
<p>I was hoping for Chuck Todd. I like something about him. I hope they keep him around.</p>
<p>rodney, The person I’d like to see in that chair is Rachel Maddow. But I know there’s no chance of that. I was not able to think of anyone else who I thought was right.</p>
<p>I like Chuck Todd, but I think he’s too focused on the numbers (polls) and election strategy and not enough on policy and governance.</p>
<p>David Gregory is very smart, personable and curious like Tim. If he does the incredible research as Tim used to do, he could pull it off. Then he’d keep the seat warm for 20 years until Luke Russert can take it :)</p>
<p>I believe in dynasties.</p>
<p>Glad to see he graduated from the same university, and the same program, my d. is in. ;)</p>
<p>David Gregory is a smart guy, but I’ve never found him very appealing. It’s times like this that I truly miss David Bloom.</p>
<p>I really like David Gregory - good choice, IMO.<br>
Rachel Maddow - too sarcastic and shrill for my taste. I have yet to sit through more than 10 minutes of her show. Perhaps she has another side?</p>
<p>Rachel Maddow is the most brilliant and well-informed person on TV. I don’t find her shrill and sarcastic at all. She’s actually quite pleasant.</p>
<p>I second the motion on Luke Russert! Wouldn’t it be great if he ended up with the show? I remember that heartbreaking photo of him standing next to his father’s chair.</p>
<p>I don’t know anything about the “brilliant and well-informed” part, since I don’t know anything about her. I never heard of her until she got her show. She strikes me as a female Keith Olbermann, whom I used to love, but he just got too much for me.</p>
<p>I will make a deal with you though, since I am an open-minded person, I will watch her show tonight from front to back. I will take notes and come back tomorrow with a critique.</p>
<p>Luke Russert undoubtedly has a future but he is a little young yet. He could get there eventually.</p>
<p>JustAMom, I agree that Olberman is a bit much, although I usually agree with him. Ranting is hard to take on a constant basis.</p>
<p>I congratulate you on your open-mindedness! I’ll be interested in your opinion on Maddow’s show.</p>
<p>Hopefully Gregory will do some more racist rapper impesonations with Karl Rove at next year’s correspondents’ dinner. I’m sure NBC would be proud.</p>
<p>NYMomof2 - I dunno, different strokes for different folks, I guess. I watched the show - well most of it. She just turns me off. I have a sense of humor but I don’t get hers - it just seems like everything is funny to her.<br>
It isn’t real reporting or even though provoking. It is a one sided flippant diatribe.
Like when she said “lame ducky”. And all those rhetorical questions - sort of make me crazy! I guess I am just an old fart.
Meet the Press doesn’t seem like it’s her style at all.</p>
<p>I was hoping you would be a convert, JustAMom, but I guess not. Good for you for watching, though! (And I’m willing to bet I’m an older fart than you are!)</p>
<p>Rachel Maddow has a DPhil from Oxford in Political Science after earning an undergraduate degree from Stanford, so she is no intellectual slouch. That being said, she gets a bit silly (as opposed to shrill) with some of her regulars…particularly that fellow who does contemporary culture news. Most impressive was how she handled the extended interview she had with Obama before the election…she posed questions in such a way that he revealed much more of his intellectual approach to leadership than anyone else had managed. She is a bit tainted with the adolescent over-reactions of Olbermann, whose credentials began as a sports commentator, which is a shame…she is not as intense as he is, but she is more measured in judgment and commentary, and she certainly has an excellent education as a background. That Obama interview could have served as an excellent and successful audition for Meet the Press, but she needs to separate from Olbermann and establish her gravitas.</p>
<p>She may be intellectual but she seems unprofessional. Am I supposed to laugh at all the weird faces and remarks she makes?
I haven’t seen her do a serious interview. Last night she did a piece on the GAO questioning the bailout money and interviewed a NYT reporter - another Journalist and Rachel did most of the talking coming to her own conclusions. Why did she not interview anyone from the GAO?
I will watch again tonight.</p>
<p>I realize she has a PhD in Poli Sci but her work was in HIV/AIDS and prison reform. Doesn’t mean she has a clear understanding of the American political system - which she very well may.</p>
<p>This is a case where she really does need to read her reviews…she can do better. I did not know what her emphasis was for her academic research. She does probing interviews, but there is too much silliness in the material which fills much of the show.</p>