the times speculated that it was a negotiating tactic as g.e. wanted to cut tweety's $5 million salary to $1 million; but apparently his ratings rebounded during the campaign, and he's now positioned better.

i was really looking forward to a campaign ad run featuring the video clip of tweets and g gordon drooling over bush's mission accomplished package.

I strongly suspect none of the suspects you say will win, and that the three Philly-area candidates in the race will cancel each other out. There is a sense that with Gov. Rendell and Sen. Specter from Philly, and Sen. Casey from Scranton, the Western part of the state needs some loving. If so, recently re-elected Auditor General Jack Wagner may be the Democrats' best shot.

Matthews, like Caroline Kennedy, would be a strong candidate, should either ever choose to run. He is, of course, a pretty sorry excuse for a Democrat, but the Netroots should concede to itself that that "celebrity status" is a huge advantage in any large media state.

All kidding aside, no substantial number of Pennsylvanians give much of a rat's ass how Atrios votes.

When the dust settles, the Senate wil be exactly one vote away from 60 Democrats. One of those votes belongs to Jim Bunning, the utterly unqualified baseball star whose celebrity status the more realistic Republican Party leveraged into a victory.

And here in California, we have a f--king weightlifter as governor.

In addition to Bunning's seat, another one that's keeping us shy of 60 is Specter.

I say, let's get us a celebrity.

If only there was some way to get that pompous fool off tv as well the human race would be making a leap forward.

What is the center of gravity of Chris? Is there any there there within him? He attacked Senator Clinton, viciously, fawned over McCain and Rudi, stood up to Bachmann, then tried to jump on the front of the Obama bandwagon. He appears to wake up in a different world, each day. But, I still remember how he and Tim Russert, after reaping huge bucks from their respective book and TV deals, and moving to the enclaves of the rich and famous on the island, sat around and smoozed as though they were, simply, two regular guys sharing brews in their working class neighborhood bar. And, this was the guy who kept talking about how great it would be to share a beer with Shrub. Just another "regular" guy, eh?

And here in California, we have a f--king weightlifter as governor. -Steve High

Whoa. He's an actor, too!

I challenge you, anyone, find me someone who can deliver the line, "It's not a tumor," with more depth and complexity of emotion.

Find me someone else who can study and mimic the brilliance and grace of Danny DeVito so much so that you cannot tell one from the other.

Find me someone who, despite an awful script and the passage of over a decade, will still be willing to reprise their iconic role...oh, wait, Harrison Ford fits that bill, too.

An Austrian Danny DeVito? Please, don't spoil two of my favorite movies, "Ruthless People" and "Drowning Mona".

Poor Harrison. Why did no one stop him?

The big loser in this, of course, is MSNBC. They had an opportunity to unload one of those TV "institutions" that everybody knows but very few actually watch anymore, giving them the chance to get someone more in tune with the Olbermann/Maddow audience on the air.

Mike

completely agree with Bertheclock's comments above.

Chris Mathews contradicts himself consistently, and without acknowledging so.

He is all over the map, he uses expressions and metaphors completely out of context or flat out inaccurately (quotes it wrong, for example).

And yet folks drool over him. He's all fluff. Over the top, dramatic fluff with that goofy smile and that "Let's play Hardball".

As in:
Let's ask whatever the hell,
and I'll cut you off whenever the hell
and I'll then agree or disagree with you
whenever the hell and I'll through in T.V. or
cinema lines that are bizarre non-sequiturs or incomplete and no matter what, I'll end with a smile and a chuckle, even though I don't know what the hell".

But I'll sound creative and deep and thoughtful and boldly opinionated with energy to spare.

I'll fake you all out and laugh all the way to the bank.

Once in a while he makes sense, has a coherent thought which he takes time to develop. But only once in a while. His nicer guests often have to slow down his manic ramblings. Jonathan Alter (or Fineman) are often having to clarify for the interviewer, saying things (delicately and politely, when they get a chance to get a word in edgewise) like: "Well, Chris, those are really two different questions...". Then they proceed to try to answer in two minutes the barrage of provocative and non-sequitur comments/questions tossed them.

Admittedly, when I first began to watch MSNBC, I used to think he was interesting/intriguing (for about a month, about a year ago), until I started listening with a more critical ear. It was like a light bulb went off, and I realized the guy is truly not that bright and can be downright annoying with his manic and overly-dramatic presentation. I also by then had much better journalists to compare him to.

But clearly it sells. I guess there's worse.

supposed to read: "Throw in T.V. lines..."

While I'm on a Mathews' rant, I note (now, covering Obama's latest economic address) that he often asks the same question five different ways, thereby eating up valuable time for the interviewee to respond with any true substance.

He sure likes to here himself talk.

Uh, that's supposed to read: "likes to hear (not here) himself talk". Apologies for the lousy spelling!

Let me start by more than acknowledging Specter's flaws. I lived in Philly in the early 70s, more. I read Jerry della Femina's devastating picture of him in ...FROM THOSE WONDERFUL FOLKS WHO BROUGHT YOU PEARL HARBOR. (Della Femina had been hired to do ads for Specter, and he wrote at a time when it looked like Specter's political career was over.)

But were I to go back to Philly, I'd probably vote, and even work, for him, unless the Democrats ran a truly outstanding candidate.

As I have been arguing, we need an opposition party that includes more than the insane (Bachman, Inhofe), the ultra-Conservative idiots (DeMint) and the corrupt (McConnell) -- with Palin fitting in 'all of the above.' We NEED them, not just to 'keep us honest' but to keep us focused. If the Republicans remain, or become even more the 'representatives from Mars,' there's a damn good chance we'll get so involved in ego-battles (Hi, Diane!) or bumbling (Howya doin,' Harry?) or battles over ideological purity that we could easily become paralyzed, especially once we've turned the corner on the crisis.

And what if, against all the evidence we've seen so far, Obama proves to be a failure? Don't we want to hope that the Republican moderates are strong enough that the party nominates an Eisenhower rather than a Bush or a Palin?

Specter is, indeed, ripe for the picking (old, sick, spineless, and republican in an ever blue-er state), and Matthews is at best a schizo-democrat, but I find myself lamenting his decision not to run.

While Pat Murphy the Iraq vet should do okay in Pennsyltucky, and has made a pretty big splash for a one-and-a-half-term congressman, he's still a oneandahalfterm congressman. Allyson is my congressperson, but I couldn't tell you what her distinguishing characteristics are; she keeps her head pretty low. Josh is a great guy, but he's a kid, really, in need of seasoning.

Can that really be all we have to choose from? How about Cosby?

Now you're talking. At 71, Cosby could give that old guy Specter a run for his money.

Matthews to every female guest: "Come closer to the camera! Now lean forward!" Who needs (more of) that in the Senate?