Bleah. Never again.
It turns out that my appetite for left-wing sarcasm and self-satisfaction is no greater than that for the right-wing variety. (Well, okay... maybe a little greater.) The hosts invited various Republicans on solely for the purpose of brow-beating them and talking over them. While I understand the visceral appeal in doing so, it's hardly the kind of thing that qualifies as "news" or "analysis." It's heckling, and if I want it I know where to go.
Further, speaking of analysis, what I heard this Tuesday night was piss-poor. And I'm looking at you, Maddow. (First Jon Stewart, and now Rachel Maddow. I really am going to have to turn in my Good Liberal card.) As far as cable talk show hosts go, she's better than most. But her take on Russ Feingold's loss was terrible. She blamed it on a lack of support from the national party, due to his being such a thorn in their left flank.
Wrong. First of all, if Harry Reid is going to bend over backwards to keep a man who endorsed the GOP nominee for President in the Democratic caucus, it is preposterous to think that the Democrats are going to let a Senate seat go just because they don't like the guy holding it. But even if the explanation made sense on its face, a very little digging would have revealed that Feingold eschewed support from the national party on principle. From TNR:
Ironically, a big factor in Feingold's struggles may be the stubborn independence he's supposedly lost. Consistent with his longtime opposition to unlimited campaign spending by outside groups, Feingold has told organizations that support him, including the Democratic Senatorial Senate Committee, to stay away from his race. The Sunlight Foundation has calculated that outside groups have spent around $2.7 million on advertisements in the Wisconsin Senate campaign. Of that, $2.67 million have been on ads against Feingold or for Johnson.I am not paid to speak intelligently about politics (and that's why I don't! Hey-o!), and yet I knew this. What with the research staff and high salary and all, you'd think Rachel Maddow could do better than such superficial, facile blather.
Say what you will about them, at least CNN makes an attempt to have analysts that represent both sides of the political spectrum. Their analysis is often shallow and an endless regurgitation of whatever conventional wisdom is emerging, but they're not nearly so damned smug.
Plus, that Anderson Cooper is dreamy.