Veepstakes and Meetstakes

Happy Monday, friends.

The past few days on many networks have seen a funereal tribute to the late Tim Russert. While it's easy to overstate a man's greatness after his death, in this case I really get the sense that the people who speak about him had every bit the reverence and respect that they describe. He was truly a monumental figure in his field, which needs more like him.

Of course, there is now the question of who takes his place. Unsurprisingly, the Politico takes the most clear-sighted view of the Meetstakes (excuse the flipness of my term). They quote a consultant saying NBC will stay in-house, which means the list is limited and familiar. They quote another consultant, Jon Friedman, backing David Gregory, NBC's White House reporter, as the best man for the job. He's a good place to start my little rundown.

Gregory is familiar and steady, and has guest-hosted MTP in the past. There's no question he's a safe choice. However, I really, really, REALLY hope they don't pick him. Gregory is, simply put, a jerk who acts like a jerk on the air. He thinks extremely highly of himself, which isn't a crime, but it comes through in a smug air of superiority, which is for a newsman. He's also been undistinguished in his coverage. When Scott McClellan's book criticized the media for swallowing wholesale the swill that the White House fed them about the Iraq War, Gregory was absolutely obnoxious in his defensive self-excusing. Rather than take a serious self-examination and expect the best, which Russert would have done (and did), Gregory gave a thousand reasons why he was not to blame. It's true that he and the other reporters were misled, but this is Washington, jerkface, assume people are lying to you and investigate a little. Anyway, I can't envision looking forward to David Gregory on Sunday Mornings.

A more appealing option is Andrea Mitchell, a close friend of Russert's who has been a team player at NBC since they bumped her to the Senate from her promised White House beat. She's a great reporter, equally steady, and devoid of the smugness I find in Gregory. She also lacks his edge. I could believe she just hasn't had to be hard yet, and has it in her to ask the tough questions, but we've seen that stridency from Gregory, and not from her. That said, I think it's time for another woman to moderate MTP, who hasn't had once since their inaugural moderator, Martha Rountree, more than 50 years ago. "Mitch," as only Russert and her father called her, has guest-hosted MTP and is also fairly unpartisan; her husband, Alan Greenspan, similarly is connected but has no real political affiliation.

The politico lists some MSNBC analysts as dark horses, including Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough. I'll add Keith Olbermann to that, even though no one's mentioning his name. While Matthews and KO both have the same everyman appeal that made Russert great, they're all just too partisan for me to see it working well. KO likes being a firecracker and making special comments, Chris Matthews is a caricature of himself and wants to run for Senate. Joe Scarborough is too much of a pundit and not enough of a journalist. Dan Abrams would bring the same lawyer's mentality, but he, like the others, is just too lightweight.

Tom Brokaw could do it, but why would he come back to a prominent role after leaving the most prominent one two years ago? Plus, at a time like this, looking forward is a virtue. A very interesting idea is Chuck Todd, who was a protege of Russert's and who the NBC family credit, along with Russert, for making the networks the strongest news source on air right now, top to bottom. There's also some Russert parallels, as he's a guy with a position that's not usually on the air. Russert coaxed him out to the point where we all know his face and name now. He's also worked for Atlantic Monthly and National Journal, so there's balance to his views, and his research and technical skills are second to none. He's also young and not much of an interviewer so far, but he has a cult following (see: Viva Chuck Todd, and Chuck Todd Facts) among people like myself who appreciate the much-needed depth, complexity and energy he has brought to NBC political news.

Aside from that, there are some others out there I find intriguing, if unlikely. Washington Post's Dana Milbank is often an MSNBC guest analyst. His star has been rising in journalism circles over the past year, but he turned down a Newsweek offer not long ago, and one wonders if he's interested in leaving. Also, it's a big leap from bespectacled writer guest pundit to MTP moderator. Other frequent guests are too soft (like Eugene Robinson, Jonathan Alter, or Chris Cillizza) or too nuts (Rachel Maddow, Pat Buchanan), but Milbank's got enough cache to be a respectable not-gonna-happen choice.

For the promised veepstakes update, rumors about Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) will not die for McCain. I'm pretty sure that would make Lieberman the first-ever veep candidate for both major parties. Anyway, I don't see it. Picking an old guy who many of us think is a little nuts, whose supposed strength is foreign policy, and is completely opposite the country on the Iraq War = balancing the ticket? Uh, no. Someone mentioned Fred Thompson at a McCain forum the other day, because another old guy with cancer is apparently what the campaign needs? My money remains on Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Especially with the evangelicals coming out for Obama more and more, McCain's going to need someone who speaks their language.

On the other side, perhaps you will remember that John Edwards said he was not interested in the veep position to an Italian publication last week. Well, he was on This Week Sunday, and said that wasn't exactly what he meant. He's not seeking the position, but if asked he'd think about it. So, to recap, his position on the second spot is exactly the same as Hillary's, which to me sounds like he's in it. Not that it matters; I appear to be the only one in the country who likes the idea of an Obama/Edwards ticket.

Polling currently indicates that 20% of people say the veep will not influence their decision on Obama, and the remainder split 40-40 that Hillary would make them either more likely or less likely to vote for him. This, to me, says two things: 1. People pretend veep selection matters more than it does. 2. Hillary is just not that great a choice. With somewhat less confidence, my money here remains on Ted Strickland. Nice, bland, good Midwestern white man who probably delivers a big swing state and was a Hillary backer? Done.

As for the voters (mostly women) who claim they will vote for McCain out of spite, because somehow it's Barack Obama's fault there's sexism: 1. Voting against what you believe in, and against what Hillary believes in, neither helps Hillary nor honors her accomplishment. 2. There can't be that many people who are driven that weird by spite alone. 3. Voting for a man who favors the repeal of Roe v. Wade and uses the c word like it's the latest slang does not help eliminate sexism.