Post-Russert Speculation

Michael Calderone's got it:

Tyndall said that if he were NBC News President Steve Capus, a short list for the position would include White House correspondent David Gregory, chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell — both of whom have guest-hosted “Meet the Press” — as well as political director Chuck Todd and “Hardball” host Chris Matthews. Two dark-horse candidates could be “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough or perhaps former “Nightly News” anchor Tom Brokaw — that is, if he had any interest in returning to such a prominent role.

Matthews seems like the most likely choice to me, since for several years now in addition to Hardball he's been doing a more staid Chris Matthews Show on Sunday mornings that appears to me to have been training wheels for eventually stepping into Russert's shoes. I'd say the best choice would probably be Chuck Todd, who based on his on-camera work during primary evenings would bring a different approach rather than trying to do what Russert did and not doing it as well.

UPDATE: Of course you could really shake things up by going outside the box with Mélissa Theuriau but there's no evidence she speaks English. Closer to the box, several commenters have suggested Gwen Ifill who would be good if NBC is willing to hire someone from outside the network.

Comments

I'm for Chuck Todd. But you're right, Matthews is the likely choice.

Posted by NattyB | June 15, 2008 11:04 AM

Scarborough? Really?

Posted by Richard | June 15, 2008 11:06 AM

I don't think I can watch this show if Chris Matthews takes over.

Posted by Bryan | June 15, 2008 11:07 AM

Of those, Gregory seems most likely to me. He has the 'gravitas' thing down and really hammered the press secretary when he was in the white house press corps (Is he still doing that gig?)

Chuck Todd seems like more of a behind the scenes guy, and Chris Matthews is just a mess.

Posted by john | June 15, 2008 11:09 AM

Todd would be my choice - he's pretty much the only political commentator on TV worth watching right now. But I assume this list is "NBC only"? Why not look outside, and try to lure Gwen Ifill back from PBS - she has the 'gravitas', she's very smart, + she changes up the whole "blue collar white guys are the pulse of politics" equation. Course, since that who the audience is mostly...

Posted by Aaron | June 15, 2008 11:14 AM

I'd be totally stunned if Matthews was selected. On some level, NBC knows that "Meet's" niche is that it can work across the political spectrum to bring in all the main players on any particular issue. Matthews cannot do that.

Posted by NAPatriot | June 15, 2008 11:17 AM

Gregory's TV chops are a little bit in question to me. I would like to see Todd get it. He was essentially "the guy with the whiteboard" this year and yet would probably bring something palpably different to the job than Russert.

Posted by Martin | June 15, 2008 11:17 AM

David Gregory? I heard him on Diane Rheem equate sugarcane with switchgrass - aren't they the same thing? Not too on top of it I would say.
Whose scion is he anyway?

Posted by jemerk | June 15, 2008 11:21 AM

I will repeat that "Meet the Press" needs to be actually meeting (some of)the press, as it was in the Lawrence Spivak era. Any of these (except Matthews) would be ok as Moderator, and get a panel of real working journalists to ask the questions with followup.
I got tired of "Meet with Tim Russert". It could be better and the old way, in this instance, is it.

Posted by MR Bill | June 15, 2008 11:21 AM

I doubt it's going to be Matthews. Matthews was looked down by Russert and NBC brass. His contract was in doubt of being renewed, though that should change perhaps now.

I guess Gregory is more likely.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | June 15, 2008 11:21 AM

I wouldn't take that job right now for all the tea in China. The shoes that need filling are too big, and anyone taking that role is bound to fail. Mark my words: the next person to take the job will end up being transitory. And please God don't let it be Gregory. He's fine as a reporter, but completely lacks the maturity for MTP. I frankly think it would be a kick to see how Matthews does (I'm guessing "not so well" but what do I know). Or, here's a vote for heading back to a two man team like back in the day: Ambinder and Yglesias.

Posted by Jasper | June 15, 2008 11:21 AM

please not Chris Matthews.

Posted by Carol Corbett | June 15, 2008 11:27 AM

Chuck Todd is just a political reporter. He covers horseraces. I'm sure he has other hidden competencies, but so far I've seen no reason to think that he knows a lot about foreign policy, domestic economic policy, finance or the other sorts of things they do on Meet The Press.

Chris Matthews, with his self-centered, diarrhea mouthed, buttinski style would simply be terrible at the more sober, thoughtful, Sunday morning style that Meet The Press tries to maintain, and would also send a terrible message to the public about the appropriate standards for reasoned discourse in our society.

Andrea Mitchell is definitely the smartest of the bunch, and also has the right sort of high-level Washington insider cache that seems to fit the Meet The press mold. She seems like the best candidate to me, with Gregory second.

But if they really want to do something bold, they should reach outside the NBC circle and get someone like Robert Siegel from NPR. Siegel is smart as a tack, very well informed and a truly excellent interviewer. He might not want to leave NPR though.

Posted by Dan Kervick | June 15, 2008 11:31 AM

Of all those I'd pick Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd, or Brokaw I think. At least they are not decorticate. Todd doesn't do the "this election is a psychodrama for ME!" coverage that so many of the others do, and he really does know his ground-level politics, but I'm not sure about his policy chops: important in non-eleciton years especially.

Re Matthews: Sunday morning is not the time to unleash an uncontrolled Id who "analyzes" politics by comparing events with Hollywood movies and golden-age-of-movies stars. He's practically content-free regarding policy and actual politics (as opposed to the cinema in his brain).

Scarborough: Just as the south is receding in importance in national politics (for the dems especially), put a faux-bubba on to drag it back center stage.

David Gregory is basically Sam Donaldson, except Donaldson annoyed the president when that Prez was popular, too. (for those thinking I'm flattering Gregory by the comparison, I'm not--Donaldson is Conventional Wisdom Lite, and so is Gregory).

Posted by riffle | June 15, 2008 11:33 AM

Todd's a behind-the-scenes, number-crunching guy. That's valuable, but not suited for a gasbag show. Matthews presumably has first refusal; if it's an in-house hire, Mitchell is better suited.

I think they'll ask Brokaw to stand in for a couple of months, though, perhaps in a two-person format with potential successors, because it gives them time to think about the format.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 15, 2008 11:37 AM

Russert was great, but the show needs to make a real transition with it's new host. Chris matthews, David Gregory, and pretty much all the NBC people - even Andrea Mitchell - would just try to emulate Russert's style. For the show to move into it's next stage, it can't be Russert-lite.

Here's my suggestion: Gwen Ifill

She's tough but kind (a combination of character traits that Russert also had). But she's got a very different sensibility to her - and obviously a different look for the show.

Posted by artward22 | June 15, 2008 11:40 AM

Our standards and expectations seem so diminished.

The only host I could ever watch more than twice was Dick Cavett.

Why do we prefer bumpkins asking silly questions and accepting ridiculous answers to intelligent and informed citizens engaged in substantive conversation about serious subjects in a serious world?

/ehj2

Posted by ehj2 | June 15, 2008 11:40 AM

please not David gregory. As somebody else said on here: not mature enough. His ambition is naked, and I think it would trump thoughtfulness. Great reporter, not so great moderator -- already doing a crappy job on that crappy race to the whitehouse he's moderating.

Chris Matthews: luv him at what he does now, but not smart enough for meet the press.

I don't think any of the NBC guys is a good fit.

Chuck Todd is great at what he does, but ready to be moderator of meet the press? Don't think so.

Posted by cnnr | June 15, 2008 11:41 AM

Anyone but Scarborough.

Posted by 55 | June 15, 2008 11:41 AM

I think they should pick one of the Ladies of MSNBC. Vote for your favorite!

http://www.rateitall.com/t-20340-ladies-of-msnbc.aspx

I'm usually all about Contessa Brewer, though I have my Amy Robach days.

Posted by Bill | June 15, 2008 11:42 AM

Where's the Brian Williams love? The man's a genius! Have you SEEN his Daily Show appearances?

Posted by fumphis | June 15, 2008 11:43 AM

Re: Todd's policy chops

It's not clear at all that he has them, but then, on the other hand, there was no reason to believe he was some sort of expert on the Dem nomination process until he had to be, at which point in time he read everything he needed to, absorbed not just the logistics but the logic of it as well, and turned himself into the top guy in the MSM on the ins and outs of the process. Now, maybe that ability to research, absorb, deduce, etc won't extend to all or even any individual issue, but I tend to think that's a specific type of intelligence that can translate very broadly.

In short, I feel like if Todd thought he had to be an expert on issue X for the theoretic next show, he'd sit down and read up on it until he was at least competent, if not fluent, on it.

Posted by Michael | June 15, 2008 11:47 AM

Agree that Gwen Ifill would be very good. Ray Suarez would also be great.

I would put David Gregory in the low Sam Donaldson category. Gregory actually has half a brain and can move away from his pre-prepared, scripted questions when he has to, to follow the discussion where it leads. Donaldson was a fool, the classic Boob with a Baritone beloved of TV news execs.

Posted by Dan Kervick | June 15, 2008 11:51 AM

I would put David Gregory in the low Sam Donaldson category.

Sorry, I meant to say I wouldn't put David Gregory in the low Sam Donaldson category.

Posted by Dan Kervick | June 15, 2008 11:55 AM

Yeah, I really wonder if Matt actually read the NYT Magazine profile on Chris Matthews. It was stunningly clear that Russert looked down on Matthews as kind of cable news sideshow. Or, as Mark Leibovich put it in that piece:

A number of people I spoke with at NBC said that Russert can be disdainful of Matthews, whose act he often sees as clownish. They also told me that Russert believes Matthews is something of a loose cannon who brings him undue headaches in his capacity as NBC’s Washington bureau chief.

This friction was immortalized in notes revealed during the trial of Scooter Libby. Mary Matalin, an adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, was quoted as having suggested that Libby call Russert to complain about Matthews’s rants against the White House’s Iraq policy. “Call Tim — he hates Chris,” Matalin supposedly told Libby.

Russert denies that he felt this way then or now. “I’ve always had a very good relationship with Chris,” he told me. “We do different things.” Matalin, for her part, insists that she doesn’t remember ever saying that Russert “hates Chris.”

Seeing as the dead man himself declared that he and Matthews "do different things," I find it highly, highly unlikely that Matthews will get that chair.

I actually think Andrea Mitchell is the worst possible choice. Her whole style is consummate DC insider. It's like whenever she offers her opinion, she's simply reciting what she said the night before while she casually swirled her martini in her hand at a Georgetown cocktail party. However, I think that in light of the Couric fiasco, network executives are going to be squeamish about putting a woman in such a big chair. So I don't think Mitch is likely...

I'd guess that Gregory and Todd are on the short list, and that NBC is thinking about outside-the-box solutions, like a return to the panel format or a surprise hire from the print world or even a NBC producer who's never been in front of a camera (it's worth remembering that Russert was a producer had no on-air experience before being tapped for MTP, which allowed him to create an on-air persona from scratch).

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

Posted by Philly | June 15, 2008 12:00 PM

I had some issues with the HTML tags--the italics above should continue to the phrase "hates Chris."

Posted by Philly | June 15, 2008 12:09 PM

Where's the Brian Williams love? The man's a genius! Have you SEEN his Daily Show appearances?

He's a terrible choice. He's a self confessed dittohead. My vote is for Jon Stewart.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | June 15, 2008 12:23 PM

Todd gets my vote. Mitchell or Brokaw would be good. Gregory isn't bright enough. Scarborough is too partisan in that snide way of his. Matthews is too Matthews.
Bringing in a smart internet savvy guy like Sullivan would actually make the show interesting.

Posted by Jack H. | June 15, 2008 12:30 PM

I like the Robert Siegel, Gwen Ifil suggestions. Smart people who aren't complete self-involved gasbags and can maintain high journalistic standards. They have a great temprament for MTP.

For as much as I can sometimes enjoy Hardball, Matthews is just too much if NBC wants to maintain the stately air of MTP. Gregory lacks gravitas (IMO), and Chuck Todd seems more of a reporter/number cruncher than an interviewer. I'd have to go with Andrea Mitchell of the in-house options, who I've come to be able to stomach lately. I believe she could elevate herself if given the opportunity.

I know a lot of bloggies had issues with Russert, but personally I think he did a pretty good job for the type of show that MTP was. IMO, it was the best MSM political show out there, and the only one worth watching.

Posted by In Cambridge | June 15, 2008 12:31 PM

I Scarborough gets that gig, I shoot my Teevee.

Posted by joeyess | June 15, 2008 12:50 PM

It's probably going to be David Gregory, which isn't a good thing at all (formerly he may have asked good questions at WH press briefings, but he's actually no better a man than Russert was (that is, he's beholden to the corporate interests)).

Matthews?? No way. That guy is so offensive.

Posted by Swan | June 15, 2008 12:57 PM

I don't find any of the MSNBC crowd all that appealing though I'm sure Matthews THINKS he deserves it. Personally, I'd like to see John Stewart, humor aside, or someone with his interview style in there.

Posted by tom.a | June 15, 2008 1:14 PM

Hitchens.

Wouldn't it be nice?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 15, 2008 1:19 PM

I agree with the Ifill suggestions. Her PBS show is great and she clearly fits the tone of MTP well.

Posted by Dave M | June 15, 2008 1:23 PM

In short, I feel like if Todd thought he had to be an expert on issue X for the theoretic next show, he'd sit down and read up on it until he was at least competent, if not fluent, on it.

But that, for better or (probably) worse isn't the remit of the Sunday Gasbag Show, which is about narratives.

My guess is that NBC's news division has people who'd consider changing not just the format but the overall approach, but who are understandably nervous about how such a change might be perceived, given Russert's untimely death. On the other hand, it's possible to draw a line under that format and say 'Tim can't be replaced, and we're not going to try.'

But as Jasper says, it's not a role than any high-profile news/pol type would likely take with any comfort, even if the political calendar demands that something happens quickly. In an off year, NBC would probably spend six months with guest hosts or semi-experimental formats.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 15, 2008 1:50 PM

I'm much less interested in who takes over on MTP, than I am in who takes over as Washington Bureau Chief. We can only hope that it's Brokaw.

Posted by Brautigan | June 15, 2008 1:51 PM

I also like the suggestions of Siegel and Ifill. Maybe NPR would share Siegel? I also like Steve Inskeep -- his ability to point out hyprocrisy during the primary season has been refreshing.

Posted by Scott | June 15, 2008 1:52 PM

No way are they going to give Blunderbuss Matthews the NBC News crown jewel (as unimpressed as I have always been by Russert's schtick). I was writing off Mitchell because she's Mrs Greenspan, but I guess since he's retired, that's no longer an obstacle (whether it should be....). I'd go with Gwen Ifill; she's an alumna, and you can't get much more drearily respectable as these things go that Washington Week in Review.

Posted by Jim | June 15, 2008 1:53 PM

The very talented James Warren of the Chicago Tribune has that easy William Powell 'Thin Man' quality.

Posted by Myrna Loy | June 15, 2008 1:55 PM

We'd need someone sober on Sunday mornings, so Hitchens would be right out.

I say GE makes the biggest donation to PBS in history and in lieu of 500 canvas tote bags they ask for Bill Moyers.

Posted by Chris | June 15, 2008 1:56 PM

What an awful, awful set of choices. Todd is good at what he does, but wouldn't be a good frontline guy. Gregory is good only in comparison to the others. Mitchell is smart in her way, but too implicated by Greenspan. Scarbrough and Matthews are horrible. Brokaw would be barely OK but he's semi-retired.

Posted by John Emerson | June 15, 2008 1:57 PM

Chuck Todd is a political wonk who wields Russert's white board masterfully; but MTP is about getting politicians and administration officials to defend and flesh out policies. Can you picture Todd pinning down Condi Rice on Mideast policy or nudging McCain or Obama out of spin cycle on the economy? Maybe, but he's totally untested doing that on-air.

Andrea Mitchell is a DC insider without Russert's common touch, several degrees too cool and prone to condescension. Joe Scarborough is a folksy anti-Mitchell who would turn MTP into something like Charlie Rose. Brian Williams is a news reader, not an interviewer. Anybody who'd seriously contemplate Chris Matthews needs intervention and treatment.

Tom Brokaw is the safe, seasoned, well-connected, Bob Schieffer-like choice, but almost surely an interim host to get the show through the election and inauguration.

David Gregory is the likeliest in-house pick to carry the franchise longer term.

Outsiders worth considering: Gwen Ifill, Al Hunt, Ted Koppel, Judy Woodruff, John Harwood, Aaron Brown and, as a wild card, Mike Barnicle.

MTP's interviews should stay one-on-one. The old panel format rarely netted more than sound bites. And a two-host format needs extraordinary chemistry and sensitivity to newsmaking moments, rare enough with two print journalists, unheard of with celeb-ego TV types.

Posted by allbetsareoff | June 15, 2008 2:00 PM

Gore Vidal. His time is slipping away, but he's still got it. Nobody would be better than him.

Of the feasible choices - only Mathews would bring any brio to it. Gregory is a simian lightweight. Todd doesn't register as a presence. God, the others mentioned are just awful. If worse comes to worse and they can't find anyone - I may have to step in. I'll just tell 'em I'm Jewish and see if that works.

Posted by Trevor | June 15, 2008 2:01 PM

The very talented James Warren of the Chicago Tribune has that easy William Powell 'Thin Man' quality.
Posted by Myrna Loy

An interesting choice, which is why it will never happen. Too ironic, too low-key.

Posted by Jim | June 15, 2008 2:01 PM

Chuck Todd is a political wonk who wields Russert's white board masterfully; but MTP is about getting politicians and administration officials to defend and flesh out policies. Can you picture Todd pinning down Condi Rice on Mideast policy or nudging McCain or Obama out of spin cycle on the economy? Maybe, but he's totally untested doing that on-air.

Andrea Mitchell is a DC insider without Russert's common touch, several degrees too cool and prone to condescension. Joe Scarborough is a folksy anti-Mitchell who would turn MTP into something like Charlie Rose. Brian Williams is a news reader, not an interviewer. Anybody who'd seriously contemplate Chris Matthews needs intervention and treatment.

Tom Brokaw is the safe, seasoned, well-connected, Bob Schieffer-like choice, but almost surely an interim host to get the show through the election and inauguration.

David Gregory is the likeliest in-house pick to carry the franchise longer term.

Outsiders worth considering: Gwen Ifill, Al Hunt, Ted Koppel, Judy Woodruff, John Harwood, Aaron Brown and, as a wild card, Mike Barnicle.

MTP's interviews should stay one-on-one. The old panel format rarely netted more than sound bites. And a two-host format needs extraordinary chemistry and sensitivity to newsmaking moments, rare enough with two print journalists, unheard of with celeb-ego TV types.

Posted by allbetsareoff | June 15, 2008 2:02 PM

I'm astounded that anybody would consider Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, or Chuck Todd qualified to host MTP. They belong on ESPN with Olbermann.

Before Russert took over MTP, it was a serious news show, hosted by real journalists. Only Andrea Mitchell still resembles a real journalist, but despite her credentials and experience, I doubt she will get the top job at NBC News.

You see, she's an "old white woman" and we wouldn't want Tucker Carlson to involuntarily cross his legs while watching MTP, and we wouldn't want Chris Matthews to complain that this "She-Devil" only got the job because of her husband, and we wouldn't want Mike Barnicle to wake up on Sunday mornings and feel like he's seeing his first wife standing outside of a probate court. Furthermore, we wouldn't want Bill Kristol to watch MTP and be reminded that "white women are the problem." It is especially problematic when one has the courage to criticize her sexist colleagues openly. For that, Keith Olbermann, trying to save face, will call the uppity white woman who dares to speak out, "The Worst Person in the World."

Posted by Karen | June 15, 2008 2:13 PM

My votes are for Gwen Ifill, Andrea Mitchell, or Tom Brokaw. They've all got gravitas, "aim for the jugular" - type personalities without seeing like asses, i.e., Chris Matthews, who seems to have an affinity for interrupting people constantly on his show and that annoys me to no end. David Gregory's MSNBC show, "Race for the White House," makes him look like a lightweight. Not sure if Chuck Todd is really a front guy.

Or, how about Ed Schultz or Rachel Matthaw (sp?). They're both great interviewers and Rachel Matthaw's analysis is usually spot-on. And, it's about time someone gave Rachel Matthaw her own show.

Posted by sbc | June 15, 2008 2:14 PM

I think they should cancel the show and focus more on making appliances than influencing politics. It would save us all a lot of pain.

Posted by Condor | June 15, 2008 2:26 PM

I've gotten to know Chuck Todd, and he seems like the best choice. Russert brought him to NBC, so there would be respect there. But Chucky T has his own updated spin on politics and analysis that would be refreshing and stray from an outright imitation of Tim.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | June 15, 2008 2:29 PM

Matt Drudge--he rules their world, might as well cut out the middle men/women!

Posted by Andruw | June 15, 2008 2:31 PM

This is like the veepstakes, only because it's lower stakes, it doesn't feel so dirty.

My dream is for NBC to move Gregory from his MSNBC show to MTP, then finally give Rachael Maddow the show she ought to have.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | June 15, 2008 2:35 PM

If MSNBC looks outside and gets Ifill, MTP will easily be the best show on Sunday mornings. Race and gender aside, the woman is thoughtful as well as intelligent. She's eminently fair and not about "gotcha" moments. I'd expect she'd treat guests with respect, decency and fairness, but never, ever pander.

Jon Stewart would be gift from God, but I don't see him leaving Comedy Central. I'd be thrilled but shocked if he suddenly all but abandoned comedy for Serious Journalism. That said, he'd be terrifically incisive.

If MSNBC stays in-house, my pick is Andrea Mitchell, though Chuck Todd might be able to step up to he plate. Anybody else? Forget about it... Yes, Matthews is calmer on his Sunday show, but he's talking to journalists. I don't think he could keep his star-struck delight in check on MTP.

Posted by Judy | June 15, 2008 2:40 PM

The sad truth is, none of these choices really matter at the end of the day. Whomever takes the MTP chair will have their salary paid for by GE, Boeing, and Archer Daniels Midland. So no real, important policy issues -- such as our insane military spending and our abysmal agricultural policy -- will ever get discussed.

Posted by Frank | June 15, 2008 2:41 PM

How about bringing back the PRESS in the Meet the Press program?

With all due respect to Tim Russert, I always felt the program lost a lot when it abandoned the multi-journalist approach. Instead it became MTR (Meet Tim Russert).

Posted by Vincent | June 15, 2008 2:47 PM

They should at least have the courtesy to ask Jon Stewart if he wants the gig.

Posted by pdf | June 15, 2008 2:49 PM

They should at least have the courtesy to ask Jon Stewart if he wants the gig.

I was going to suggest that, at least as a stand-in while NBC considers its options. Except that Stewart's interviewing style with politicians is softball for a reason: he expects the professional political media to do their job and ask the hard questions, because he's a fake news anchor.

So, yeah, Gwen Ifill.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 15, 2008 2:56 PM

You guys are nuts. Dick Gregory would be awesome!

Posted by JJO | June 15, 2008 3:22 PM

Isn't Joe Scar tainted by his politics and the dead intern?

Posted by Hedley Lamarr | June 15, 2008 3:29 PM

Gwen Ifill is b-o-r-i-n-g. Very boring.

Andrea Mitchell has acne. Bad acne.

Posted by Trevor | June 15, 2008 3:34 PM

It's hard to guess what role corporate politics plays in this decision but, yeah, Gwen Ifill would be an inspired choice. I wish I would've thought of it first.

Andrea Mitchell would be horrendous. It would kill the show. I have no interest in watching her shilling. Most likely, it'll be David Gregory or some other up & comer the brass want to control.

Posted by Vincent | June 15, 2008 3:43 PM

Screw it. Bring in a real journalist and let the Brits save the day.

Bring in Jeremy Paxman from Newsnight and we ll see some really tough questioning.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | June 15, 2008 4:22 PM

Gwen Ifill is talented and has solid liberal Democratic Party credentials. I would like to see her selected for Meet the Press.

Ifill would also be a valuable and predicatable stooge for the Democrats. That is why I would want her selected.

Posted by Jeff Davies | June 15, 2008 4:26 PM

My dark horse candidates, who I pick solely based on their ability to be fair and allow all voices to be heard.

Ray Suarez and Brian Lamb.

But then, these two come from public radio and C-Span. I doubt they'd work well within the NBC corporate framwork.

Posted by The Other Steve | June 15, 2008 4:33 PM

My choice is for someone that will ask tough questions and have the balls/brains to follow up a misleading response.

Russert must have had a great staff that was able to dig up some interesting quotes and questions, but Russert seldom called out the folks that were lying to his face (probably because he didn't realize it or care about it).

I like Chuck Todd (even though he's pretty much in the horse race). He seems like a nice level-headed and honest reporter that has some political connections but isn't afraid to call people on his bullshit.

For partisan reasons, I'm not a big fan of Gwen Ifill (she wasn't great during the Kerry-Bush debate in 2004 and seems to have some sort of problem with Obama).

Andrea Mitchell, of course, is married to Greenspan, which would probably affect the coverage of the enconomy and the housing bubble.

David Gregory seemed like an attack dog in the White House briefing room, but a puppy when interviewing political VIPs.

Scarborough and Matthews, of course, are in love with the strong, manly Republican men. You can't entrust them with such a place in the national discourse. They largely reduce national politics to the junior high level.

Ray Suarez seems like a fair moderator, but he seems pretty passive.

Posted by ben | June 15, 2008 4:56 PM

As far as filling Russert's shoes, the only man who can do that is Brokaw. I'm not seeing that happening, personally, but he'd be the only one who could, right off the bat, have the gravitas for MTP.

Other than that, I have no idea who would take the role as it now stands. The best NBC can hope for is that someone grows into the role that Russert left behind - they cannot hope to start anywhere near it.

Posted by B. Minich | June 15, 2008 5:23 PM

Normally, I'd agree that David Gregory was the most likely, but one thing that was mentioned indirectly during the MSNBC wake was that Mitchell had been passed over not once, but twice, for the White House gig, both times by a younger, newer (second time by Brian Williams).

It would be a very, very nice gesture if MSNBC gave it to her in these particular times. And it would resonate the wrong way if it went to Gregory for the same reason.

As for her being an insider--please. As if Russert was anything but. I don't much care about her ability to do the job, as I wasn't a big fan of Russert, either.

Mathews? Only if they have gone completely insane. But I bet he was calling the decisionmakers before Tim's body was cold.

Posted by Cal | June 15, 2008 5:33 PM

If it's not Hillary Clinton, I'm not going to watch! Hillary earned the MTP gig!

Posted by lampwick | June 15, 2008 6:58 PM

I suspect Brokaw will serve as host through the inauguration, and then let somebody else fill the chair.

Posted by The Bag of Health and Politics | June 15, 2008 6:58 PM

I think Andrea Mitchell would be terrific.
Joe Scarborough??? He is an intellectual lightweight! A joke. He barely makes it on his morning show. Ugh!

Posted by Kathy | June 15, 2008 7:02 PM

Andrea Mitchell is very good but might it not be awkward on some occasions because of her husband? I know he's retired but still....

I think Chuck Todd could surprise all of us with what he's capable of being and doing. He's the only one with Russert's sense of ordinary goodness and openness combined with a steel-trap mind.

My out-of-the-box choice: Aaron Brown. Formerly of CNN and now free to work again. Different style but he's prepared, is always courteous and civil, and asks very interesting questions.

For the moment, however, I sincerely hope that Brokaw can and will cover it until the election. It would be torture for anyone "on trial" to step into that spot right at this juncture. And it wouldn't hurt as much seeing him there.

Posted by Elizabeth | June 15, 2008 7:08 PM

My choice would have to be Fareed Zakaria, with Chuck Todd as a runner-up. Both are completely authentic and really really smart.

Posted by Bryn Rich | June 15, 2008 7:10 PM

Gwen Ifill absolutely. She has built up quite a career and would continue Russert's tradition of being a well-informed non-ideologue. Seeing her on MTP this morning, she seemed comfortable in that setting.

Posted by cay | June 15, 2008 7:12 PM

I like Matthews, but I would be surprised if he was chosen. I heard rumors that NBC was considering letting Matthews go. Ifil would be good, though I think Chuck Todd is the most likely choice - non-ideological and cerebral, if not as much of a hail-fellow-well-met as Russert. Time will tell.

Posted by Will | June 15, 2008 7:18 PM

Fareed Zakaria is an interesting choice, although he may not be close enough to electoral politics. Todd is interesting for what he knows about politics, but it seems to be all horserace stuff. He's an analyst, not a reporter or an interviewer.

I think they'd be well served to talk Brokaw into hosting the show until after the election while they make up their mind about new directions.

Most important, don't try to emulate Russert. Whoever takes over next should have the opportunity to shape a show that works for him or her.

Posted by THS | June 15, 2008 7:23 PM

NBC's top talent is Bob Costas. He would do a fabulous job on MTP if he was willing to do the work.

Posted by jimbo | June 15, 2008 7:25 PM

I would like to see Chuck Todd have a chance at Meet The Press...I've been very impressed with him and think he'd learn fast and be up to the job; Jim Warren would also be an excellent choice. Please, please, not David Gregory. Chris Matthews is very different on The Chris Matthews Show, much more low-key than on Hardball.

Posted by pauline | June 15, 2008 7:32 PM

I agree, THS, that Brokaw should host until after the elections, with both Todd and Zakaria helping out, a "testing of the waters". Bob Costas is also intriging, jimbo, he is a wonderful interviewer who thinks on his feet.

Posted by Bryn | June 15, 2008 7:34 PM

jeremy paxman - would be good

once asked the Brit home secretary the exact same question 13 times till he actually answered the question

balls of steel

only oroblem - can see a bit jaded and superior

Posted by pter culshaw | June 15, 2008 7:35 PM

I think Gwen Ifill would be an inspired choice if Tom Brokaw could not be talked into it, and I don't think he can. Tom would be my pick, but I would totally tune in to see her every Sunday morning. She's fantastic.

Posted by Todd | June 15, 2008 7:40 PM

I think Gwen Ifill would be an inspired choice if Tom Brokaw could not be talked into it, and I don't think he can. Tom would be my pick, but I would totally tune in to see her every Sunday morning. She's fantastic.

Posted by Todd | June 15, 2008 7:41 PM

Without a doubt, Meet the Press after Russert should be anchored by Brit Hume AND Keith Olbermann. Brit could interview the Liberals and Keith could interview the Conservatives. C'MON NBC, you KNOW that would be a ratings winner right of the bat! Shake it up a little bit.

Posted by Barney | June 15, 2008 7:44 PM

Outside the NBC box choices:

Bob Costas

Anderson Cooper

And my personal favorite...Aaron Brown. He'd be GREAT.

Posted by John in L.A. | June 15, 2008 7:48 PM

Outside the NBC box choices:

Bob Costas

Anderson Cooper

And my personal favorite...Aaron Brown. He'd be GREAT.

Posted by John in L.A. | June 15, 2008 7:49 PM

I would love to see Andrea Mitchell in the role. She is one of the most serious, balanced, thoughtful journalists out there. She has experience and intellect that would serve the audience well.

Posted by Lee | June 15, 2008 7:50 PM

How about John Harwood? I know he's not a 'moderator' but he's got a long history in journalism and he's certainly got the chops to take it on, IMHO.

Posted by Donna | June 15, 2008 7:52 PM

Gwen Ifill stands head and shoulders above that crowd. Just watch her on Washington Weekly. She is smarter, more persistent, and has better manners.

Posted by Hellmut | June 15, 2008 7:55 PM

I think they should choose a duo.

Harold Ford Jr and Chuck Todd would be my choice.

Above all they need to choose someone under 50. Time to turn the page on the leading edge of baby boomers and plan for the future.

Posted by Glacier | June 15, 2008 8:05 PM

I really like the suggestion of Fareed Zakaria. The man is brilliant, is superb at analysis, and could possibly help the "U.S. and A." develop more sensitivity to international issues. I also dig the idea of an aggressive Brit reporter. As far as current NBC talent goes, Matthews doesn't have it, Chuck Todd might (I'd be willing to give him a chance), and Brian Williams could be interesting if he's willing to go after it a bit. Rachel Maddow is also a good option-her and Todd could do a nice job together, too, I bet.

Posted by jeremy | June 15, 2008 8:07 PM

Put me down for Gwen Ifill. A solid choice that they should really consider. No one at NBC is strong enough to fill the role.

(p.s. - The execs at NBC are laughing at your Matthews pick. Never. Going. To. Happen.)

Posted by evie | June 15, 2008 8:11 PM

Anderson Cooper or Jon Stewart.

Posted by Kristin | June 15, 2008 8:13 PM

Aaron Brown. That is outside the box, and it interests me more than any other named so far. I could see that.

Posted by Jackie | June 15, 2008 8:23 PM

I'd love to see Aaron Brown do it. I don't have the hate for Matthews that others seem to but he's too much of a loose cannon for this format. Gregory is colorless. Scarb, God help us. Todd is a fascinating character but not ready for MTP yet. Mitchell has had a charisma bypass. Olberman is a confessed partisan.

No-one's mentioned Dan Abrams. I hope nobody does.

I doubt they can afford to poach Anderson Cooper but, his other faults aside, he's not bad in this kind of format.

I'd like them to road-test a few different people and, maybe, formats.

Posted by John Brownlow | June 15, 2008 8:33 PM

I'd love to see Aaron Brown do it. I don't have the hate for Matthews that others seem to but he's too much of a loose cannon for this format. Gregory is colorless. Scarb, God help us. Todd is a fascinating character but not ready for MTP yet. Mitchell has had a charisma bypass. Olberman is a confessed partisan.

No-one's mentioned Dan Abrams. I hope nobody does.

I doubt they can afford to poach Anderson Cooper but, his other faults aside, he's not bad in this kind of format.

I'd like them to road-test a few different people and, maybe, formats.

Posted by John Brownlow | June 15, 2008 8:33 PM

If Chris Matthews takes over, MTP has lost a viewer. David Gregory or Chuck Todd are fine and Gwen Ifill would be good. Matthews is a joke, a buffoonish talking head without the gravitas, who is probably salivating for the position.

Posted by tim | June 15, 2008 8:34 PM

Two words: Bryant Gumbel

Posted by Jack Canfora | June 15, 2008 8:37 PM

Of those being mentioned in the press, I think Chris Matthews would be strongest. At least compared to total tools like David Greogry, Joe Scarborough and Alan Greenspan's wife Andrea Mitchell.

Outside the box, I think Dan Rather would be a good choice for the next 5 years. Chris Matthews is very uneven, and spent too many years buying into the Bush bullshit (plus he likes to hear himself talk too much) but he is still superior to Gregory (have you watched his show, it's horrible) and Scarborough and Mitchell.

Olbermann would of course be very good, but his liberal bent somehow disqualifies him. Yet Scarborough isn't disqualified for being a Republican? Come on.

But I wish we could find a new Mike Wallace type, a real hard-hitting interviewer who sees through spin and goes right for the truth. Matthews sometimes does that, just not enough.

Posted by Existenz | June 15, 2008 8:39 PM

Two words: Bryant Gumbel

Posted by Jack Canfora | June 15, 2008 8:39 PM

Two words: Bryant Gumbel

Posted by Jack Canfora | June 15, 2008 8:41 PM

Totally not Todd. He's a good guy, but the interview format doesn't play to his strengths at all.

David Gregory, Gwen Ifill or Andrea Mitchell seem much more likely candidates. Aaron Brown would be a great dark horse option, but he's just taken on a new position with PBS.

Posted by Howard B. | June 15, 2008 8:42 PM

Totally not Todd. He's a good guy, but the interview format doesn't play to his strengths at all.

David Gregory, Gwen Ifill or Andrea Mitchell seem much more likely candidates. Aaron Brown would be a great dark horse option, but he's just taken on a new position with PBS.

Posted by Howard B. | June 15, 2008 8:44 PM

One more vote for Todd.

Posted by Steve C | June 15, 2008 8:45 PM

I like Chuck Todd a lot, but I've never actually seen him interview someone. I'd lean towards Andrea Mitchell for her interview experience and gravitas. I would LOVE to see Rachel Maddow in that job, but I guess she hasn't gotten her chops yet.

Posted by asl | June 15, 2008 8:46 PM

Bryant Gumbel would be great - but I doubt NBC would ever do that.
What about Rachel Maddow?
Otherwise, Gwen Ifil seems like a safe choice.
These are the only really smart, charismatic and no-nonsense people I've seen listed in the choices above.

Posted by KD | June 15, 2008 8:47 PM

It will never happen, but Rachel Maddow is supreme.

Posted by Craig Hickman | June 15, 2008 8:50 PM

It will never happen, but Rachel Maddow is supreme.

Posted by Craig Hickman | June 15, 2008 8:50 PM

RACHEL MADDOW

smart, articulate
doesn't mince words

best of the lot

Posted by suzanne | June 15, 2008 8:51 PM

Outside the box: Bill Moyers. Inside: Rachel Maddow.

Posted by bougie | June 15, 2008 8:52 PM

RACHEL MADDOW

smart, articulate
doesn't mince words
keeps her cool
best of the lot

Posted by suzanne | June 15, 2008 8:52 PM

RACHEL MADDOW

smart, articulate
doesn't mince words
keeps her cool

best of the lot

Posted by suzanne | June 15, 2008 8:53 PM

Moderating MTP is a truly special job. The person has to bring a fresh perspective and has to have a big league intellect. NBC has a great bench, but no obvious successor. Matthews talks more than his guests. Keith makes speeches. Possibly David Gregory, as someone who can grow into the role. He has fire and seems non-partisan. Andrea Mitchell is a solid reporter but she seems tentative when questioning high ranking politicians. I cannot see her going toe to toe with a Cheney, Gingrich or Clinton. People mentioning Anderson Cooper must be kidding, right? Jeffrey Toobin has the intellect, but he is outside the family. Toobin has gravitas, can be pointed when necessary and brings deep research and introspection.

Posted by Ed Berlin | June 15, 2008 8:58 PM

RACHEL MADDOW

smart, articulate
doesn't mince words
keeps her cool

best of the lot

Posted by suzanne | June 15, 2008 9:00 PM

I have not read all comments but think that Keith Olbermann has possibilities. He is difficult but more talented than the others mentioned.

Posted by Gierbo | June 15, 2008 9:02 PM

I have not read all comments but think that Keith Olbermann has possibilities. He is difficult but more talented than the others mentioned.

Posted by Gierbo | June 15, 2008 9:03 PM

Another dark horse candidate: Aaron Brown. What say you all?

Posted by Dylan | June 15, 2008 9:06 PM

Ooooh, Melissa...

I could start watching Sunday morning news again.

If I had a TV...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 15, 2008 9:07 PM

Prior to PBS Gwenn Ifill covered the White House for both NBC and The New York Times. It could be an opportunity for NBC - The News Hour is having difficulty finding sponsorship and may fold.

Posted by ed | June 15, 2008 9:11 PM

I have not read all comments but think that Keith Olbermann has possibilities. He is difficult but more talented than the others mentioned.

Posted by Gierbo | June 15, 2008 9:15 PM

Chris Matthews is really, really, really enjoyably unhinged and bizarre on Hardball; he's the laughing and human face hiding behind most masks of quote-unquote 'objective', 'professional' journalism. But that very quality would likely be muted in a MTP type show, so you're left with a Matthews w/o his real strength (his enthusiasm and strangeness).

David Gregory is an absolute cipher for whatever the current conventional wisdom is--he's an ESPN2 announcer at heart and would be in over his cerebrum as host of the Today Show. Maybe Gregory could be the next host of Entertainment Tonight and end each broadcast with a song and dance routine.

Andrea Mitchell has elevated herself to precisely the level her talent suggests she is capable at. No higher, no lower.

Gwen Ifill is the most logical choice, and Chuck Todd would be the most interesting.

John Harwood is just another version of David Gregory, more interested in his vanilla, easy-to-like persona than any sort of analysis.

If nothing else, Rachel Maddow should take over the Tim Russert Show slot with her own show.

Some left field possibilities that I'm not sure would necessarily work but are fun to consider:

Maureen Dowd. Strange TV presence, willing to go to uncomfortable places, fills the Irish/Catholic niche.

Someone from Politico, to merge MS/NBC with the insurgent brand: John Harris & Jim Vandehei maybe, or Roger Simon, or Mike Allen. An update as to what "the press" is these days.

Posted by Tony | June 15, 2008 9:18 PM

NBC should ask Brokaw to host through the election and than seek a more permanent host.

Posted by Kate | June 15, 2008 9:22 PM

I have not read all comments but think that Keith Olbermann has possibilities. He is difficult but more talented than the others mentioned.

Posted by Gierbo | June 15, 2008 9:27 PM

It's got to be someone that's considered tough but fair...and consistent.

That definitely leaves Chris Matthews out. Good grief, not him please. He's a celebrity, not a journalist.

Not Tom Brokaw either. He's an anchorman, not a journalist.

As much as I like watching Keith Olbermann, I think this is not his cup of tea. He's too opinionated for MTP.

Someone suggested Bob Costas. What a great suggestion. I wonder if he'd do it?

Rachel Maddow is very sharp but perhaps a little green for a program of MTP's stature. Also, being on Air America means, like Olbermann, she's too left-of-center for MTP.

Chuck Todd seems like a logical choice.

It's got to be someone like Russert, someone with a passion for getting at the truth and being unafraid to get past BS and stonewalling. It'd got to be someone that loves the job and would work as hard as Russert did. That's what made him ideal for MTP and made the show must see TV on Sunday morings!

Posted by Jeff | June 15, 2008 9:28 PM

It's got to be someone that's considered tough but fair...and consistent.

That definitely leaves Chris Matthews out. Good grief, not him please. He's a celebrity, not a journalist.

Not Tom Brokaw either. He's an anchorman, not a journalist.

As much as I like watching Keith Olbermann, I think this is not his cup of tea. He's too opinionated for MTP.

Someone suggested Bob Costas. What a great suggestion. I wonder if he'd do it?

Rachel Maddow is very sharp but perhaps a little green for a program of MTP's stature. Also, being on Air America means, like Olbermann, she's too left-of-center for MTP.

Chuck Todd seems like a logical choice.

It's got to be someone like Russert, someone with a passion for getting at the truth and being unafraid to get past BS and stonewalling. It'd got to be someone that loves the job and would work as hard as Russert did. That's what made him ideal for MTP and made the show must see TV on Sunday morings!

Posted by Jeff | June 15, 2008 9:28 PM

"Meet the Press" has stature?

Like that line from Chinatown about old buildings and whores. It's on because it makes more money than a report about the sales of barrows and gelts or local religious harangues.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 15, 2008 9:35 PM

Jeremy Paxman would be amazing, but that's not gonna happen. Neither is Maddow.

It seems the likely candidates are Gregory, Mitchell, and Matthews, and given that, hopefully its Gregory.

Posted by JoshA | June 15, 2008 9:36 PM

Nobody has mentioned Bill Moyers?

Yes, he's semi-retired, but wow, wouldn't he really shake up Washington?

Posted by JM | June 15, 2008 10:01 PM

Matthews is an egomaniac who's a terrible interviewer. He answers his own questions and never lets anyone finish or, sometimes, even begin to answer his question.

The problem with the MSNBC people is that they are all perceived to be idealogues. Oberman has the most potential as far as chops. I saw him move into live airline crash coverage and he was literate enough give the same scarce info without sounding repetitious. It will be interesting to watch them all over the next weeks to see if they moderate or seem more evenhanded.

The best candidates are out of house. And yes, Gwen Ifill would be an excellent choice.

Posted by Mike K | June 15, 2008 10:05 PM

French chick! Even if I watch with the mute button on it beats my not being able to turn it on when the insufferable pumpkin head hosted.

Actually I would vote for Rachel Maddow too. Let's shake it up a little bit.

Posted by Sir Charles | June 15, 2008 10:07 PM

Chuck Todd gets my vote.

He has become extremely popular in a very short space of time and that's because he has that special something. Like Tim, he doesn't look the part, and yet he just is someone you instantly like and respect. I know he can do it if they give him the chance.

I can handle anyone EXCEPT David Gregory. Ugh. What an unlikeable person he is.

Posted by snarkyspice | June 15, 2008 10:08 PM

If it comes down to Gregory vs. Mitchell, it's Battlestar Pockface. HDTV says no!

Posted by perez | June 15, 2008 10:21 PM

Hillary Clinton! She's the best candidate and she's winning the Meet the Press battle!

I'd honestly like someone new, from outside the NBC roster.

Posted by Edward G. Rendell | June 15, 2008 10:37 PM

Just don't let David Gregory anywhere near that studio. His "Race for the White House" is only a Wolf Blitzer fan could appreciate.

--

Posted by DannyC | June 15, 2008 10:37 PM

I really like Gwen Ifil.

But remember, Russert was an unknown when he took over. I wouldn't necessarily look at the big names.

I think it's also a good bet to assume that bureau chief and MTP moderator are going to be two separate jobs from here on out. I'm frankly amazed that he was able to do both so well. I think Todd or Mitchell will get the bureau chief position.

Matthews being Matthews is a problem because he just loves the game for the play, rather than the substance. Greggory is good for what he does, I wish he'd go back to being White House correspondent.

Mitchell I could see as moderator, but every time I see her, I can't help but think of Mr. Greenspan hitting that. Really not an image I like, and not one I'd like to see on Sunday mornings.

Posted by Sully | June 15, 2008 10:48 PM

Brokaw for the interim. Moyers, Maddow and Fareed with Chuck Todd as Moderator.

Posted by Caroline | June 15, 2008 10:54 PM

Another vote for Ifill- she has the gravitas and perception of fairness that Matthews, Olbermann and Maddow lack, and more importantly, she asks interesting questions that have always helped her stand out from the panel. She is both serious and passionate.

Moyers would be incredible, but I can't imagine him taking a role where he wouldn't have control over what he could ask.

I would also like them to use this opportunity to liven up the panel with some fresh voices- both the journalists and the political consultants should reflect the decade we are in.

Posted by L. Roy | June 15, 2008 11:09 PM

Fareed would be an inspired choice, yo.

I disagree with the cynicism about a lot of these people. Iffil is brilliant. Todd has taught himself a whole lot of stuff about the primaries that even the HRC campaign failed to figure out. Fareed Z. knows the world and can talk to us about it in a way that brings us up to his level. All three of these people have the openness and tenacity the job requires.

And lay off Matthews, you guys. He's a football coach. Not an opera singer. He's supposed to be all in it for the play. Or he's more like a dog with a mole.

One more thing: what a presence Tim Russert was. I don't think this has all been sentiment, or a slow news weekend filling up with bathos, as some have said in other places. He was a smart, openhearted person, who knew who he was and was interested in who the people he talked to were.

I admired him and will miss him.

My girl and I were watching MTP during dinner today and it struck us how you can watch certain of these faces directly for years, and spend a lot more time _looking right at them_ than you do at the faces of your own family. TV is such an intimate medium in its sick way.

Posted by Toby | June 15, 2008 11:12 PM

Fareed would be an inspired choice, yo.

I disagree with the cynicism about a lot of these people. Iffil is brilliant. Todd has taught himself a whole lot of stuff about the primaries that even the HRC campaign failed to figure out. Fareed Z. knows the world and can talk to us about it in a way that brings us up to his level. All three of these people have the openness and tenacity the job requires.

And lay off Matthews, you guys. He's a football coach. Not an opera singer. He's supposed to be all in it for the play. Or he's more like a dog with a mole.

One more thing: what a presence Tim Russert was. I don't think this has all been sentiment, or a slow news weekend filling up with bathos, as some have said in other places. He was a smart, openhearted person, who knew who he was and was interested in who the people he talked to were.

I admired him and will miss him.

My girl and I were watching MTP during dinner today and it struck us how you can watch certain of these faces directly for years, and spend a lot more time _looking right at them_ than you do at the faces of your own family. TV is such an intimate medium in its sick way.

Posted by Toby | June 15, 2008 11:14 PM

Someone young, smart, able to learn on the job -

Nora O'Donnel!

I mean it. Give her five years and see what she can do. My guess is

no-nonsense, attention to detail, and women driving ratings through the roof.

Posted by Mike Saatkamp | June 15, 2008 11:23 PM

Nora O'Donnell is a smart person, and she causes me to stare hypnotically at my TV screen in some completely innocent way, but I've never seen her act as objectionable and annoying to guests as you need to on MTP.

Matthews is frequently found saying some really dumb things on TV, but he has no problem sticking it to people like you should on MTP. Matthews laughing off Zell Miller challenging him to a duel was classic. With that obnoxious laugh, no less. Perhaps if he weren't on cable he'd behave better. Sometimes late at night I bet he's thinking: "Let's just see if even one person is watching my show right now."

David Gergory does a great Tom Brokaw imitation but that's not the MTP persona. You have to bicker with people at times and get dirty, more than Gregory did in the White House press corps. Give it to Matthews (sadly).

Posted by Colatina | June 15, 2008 11:34 PM

I think NBC will probably give the gig to David Gregory, who seems to be a rising star there, unless his mishandling of the MSNBC show has slowed his ascent. I hope he does not get it through because he represents what I didn't like about Russert: the too-cute "gotcha" mentality posing as real interrogatory.

I would recommend that NBC ask Brokaw to helm the show thru the election and inauguaration, and then consider going in a different direction with one of the following:

Andrew Sullivan - thoughtful, informed, fluent in policy and politics, good on television; he would bring an edge and a fresh air to the program.

Jon Meacham - good on television, fluent in politics, would bring a thoughtful tone to sunday morning q&a.

Jon Stewart - he'll cut to the chase, ask tough questions, and not put up with the bullshit that passes for spin.

At the very least, NBC should ask all three to join Brokaw as occasional co-hosts.

And while I hate the idea, I also think NB may try to lure Couric back to take over after a Brokaw interregnum.

Posted by laindependent | June 15, 2008 11:35 PM

Two words -- Rachel Maddow

Posted by Roy | June 15, 2008 11:37 PM

*Three* words -- Ana Marie Cox

Posted by Coz | June 15, 2008 11:49 PM

Gwen Ifill is a nice thought, but she would have to be less obvious in -- what often seems to be exhibited during "Washington Week" -- her favoring of politicians on the left. I also like Steve Scully (C-SPAN) as a dark horse entry.

I miss Tim. :o(

Posted by g08ama! | June 16, 2008 12:23 AM

I strongly doubt that John Stewart would even remotely consider it if offered, and even further doubt that they would consider him, let alone offer it. Yet, doesn't it just about say all you need to know about the mainstream news media that someone on Comedy Central gets so much respect relative to them?

Posted by b-psycho | June 16, 2008 12:42 AM

I can't believe all these seconds for Gwen Ifill! Watching her program during Bush war years was infuriating, close to unbearable. She might have done wonders there but instead she went completely establishment. Did we really need to give Gloria Borger etc another forum?

Posted by annie | June 16, 2008 1:22 AM

gwen ifill. or, what about david gergen?

Posted by patty | June 16, 2008 1:36 AM

gwen ifill. or, what about david gergen?

Posted by patty | June 16, 2008 1:36 AM

Hold on, everyone. First, does anyone need "Meet the Press" anymore? It duplicates countless other shows. Like its doppelgangers, nothing substantial is ever revealed except for the occasional gaffe.

If there were enough of the Kinsley Gaffes, when someone accidentally tells the truth, it might be worth it.

But all TV gabfests are performed by 100% polished professionals. You get interviewers who settle for all talking points and most lies. You get interviewees who can sandbag for 10-20 minutes straight without uttering a single thought possessing a shelf life longer than 24 hours.

The only way MTP can distinguish itself is with a Hitchens, Paxman or Stewart, brains who hunger for truth and refuse to coddle the BSers. It would distinguish itself, yes -- and lose market share to the current supply of post-Orwellian happy-talkers in the same time slot.

In case you haven't been watching closely for the past 40 years, Americans get all squirmy and bored with that "verifiable facts" and "consistency of principle" foofooraw. A TV show designed to reveal the inner workings of politics and government is not possible on commercial TV. So pull the plug on MTP already. In four weeks, no one will notice.

Posted by dswift | June 16, 2008 1:37 AM

What about CNN's Ed Henry? He's young, but already a D.C. lifer and inveterate political junkie who knows both ends of Pennsylvania Ave. and has a good grasp of history.

Posted by brscrib | June 16, 2008 2:04 AM

Through all the years of my watching MTP, I could never really tell if Tim was a Dem or a Repub. I wonder if this is why he was so effective? I wonder if the shoes require someone bigger or at least older than the battles we've seen since 2000 or so. Perhaps they also require someone who would actually scare an above average politician as such a specimen awaited the first question.

While Rachel Maddow may not rise above the partisan fray, I think she would put the fear of Jesus into pretty much everyone who would even consider pulling the wool over our eyes. So would Keith.

I've pretty much forgotten about PBS but Gwen seems above the fray. Would she tolerate the bold fib or at least make it painfully clear to the guest that their carefully tended stupidity is about to be memorialized?

Posted by Reginald Avery Wilkins, Ph.D. | June 16, 2008 2:14 AM

it would be a mistake to put Chris Matthews in that role, but it would be absolutely, grievously wrong to give it to god-damn Joe Scarborough. he has none of Russert's ability to remain objective, and no desire to learn any such thing. he is a willfully ignorant person who basically thinks that learning new things is bad, that living in cities is somehow morally wrong, and who's slew of incoherent beliefs do not properly constitute a 'system' of beliefs. they are just random paranoias strung together.

Posted by onceler | June 16, 2008 2:21 AM

I see Gregory as the most likely replacement. Nobody had their sights set on it more, and Gregory has guest-hosted more than anyone else. And he has that terrible, throw-away show that Maddow is the default star of anyways. they should put Gregory in at MTP, give Maddow her own show at 6PM, leave Matthews where he is, and dump Scarborough altogether.

Posted by onceler | June 16, 2008 2:26 AM

My plan would be a little more radical. Have Brokaw, Mitchell and Gregory fill in for the rest of this year as well as all of '09. At that time, NBC should choose Maria Shriver for the job - both as moderator and also as head of the Wasgington office. Her gutied as first lady would be over and I know that she is itching to get back into journalism.(The rumours out here also are that Arnold is going to run against Barbara Boxer for her 2010 senate seat.
Maria knows DC in and out. She was a former Washingon correspond. She also would bring that same energy that Tim had as well a like ability to get/force, or whatever the term - the gravitas, to get the big shots to appeat.

Posted by Neal | June 16, 2008 3:32 AM

My plan would be a little more radical. Have Brokaw, Mitchell and Gregory fill in for the rest of this year as well as all of '09. At that time, NBC should choose Maria Shriver for the job - both as moderator and also as head of the Wasgington office. Her gutied as first lady would be over and I know that she is itching to get back into journalism.(The rumours out here also are that Arnold is going to run against Barbara Boxer for her 2010 senate seat.
Maria knows DC in and out. She was a former Washingon correspond. She also would bring that same energy that Tim had as well a like ability to get/force, or whatever the term - the gravitas, to get the big shots to appeat.

Posted by Neal | June 16, 2008 3:32 AM

I second this earlier post:

"Andrea Mitchell is definitely the smartest of the bunch, and also has the right sort of high-level Washington insider cache that seems to fit the Meet the Press mold."

I wholeheartedly agree. Not only is she an insider and smart, she calls B.S. and isn't enamored by her fame or the fame of anyone she interviews. She seems extremely comfortable in her skin.

As a longshot, I would also like to suggest Rachel Maddow. Yes, she is partisan but she is extremely smart and fair and cuts through all of the extraneous stuff to get to the substance of most subjects.

I like Chris Matthews but I don't think he has the temperament. Also I would rather not see Brokaw, who has always struck me as more of a courtier than hard-bitten journalist; he always seems like he is trying to be invited to dinner parties and add to his Christmas card list.

Chuck Todd is a very bright meat and potatoes political analyst, but he doesn't have enough finesse.

Love Keith, but he is great where he is and we need his special comments every now and then.

Andrea and Rachel get my votes.

Posted by maria | June 16, 2008 3:36 AM

Has anyone seen Andrea Micthell host HARDBALL? She is simply horrible. Awkward, awkward, awkward. The worst of all possible in-house choices. I think Brokow will do a interim job through the election. I love the idea of Aaron Brown but if you want to to get someone respected and with connections, shoot for the moon and try to land Charlie Rose.

Posted by NOLA1 | June 16, 2008 3:43 AM

John Harwood

Posted by Ed G | June 16, 2008 7:30 AM

1. Tom Brokaw (interim)
2. John Harwood
3. David Gregory (and let Rachel Maddow take over the Race for the WH show)

Posted by Sambash | June 16, 2008 8:37 AM

Two words: Garrick Utley

Posted by Jack Canfora | June 16, 2008 8:39 AM

ANYONE BUT GREGORY. Have you seen his "Race to the White House" show? Awful. He doesn't have a quarter of the journalistic savvy displayed by Mitchel or Brokaw. Come out of retirement Tom, the country needs you...to stop journalism-lite Gregory from taking over Meet the Press.

Posted by Mark | June 16, 2008 9:15 AM

ANYONE BUT GREGORY. Have you seen his "Race to the White House" show? Awful. He doesn't have a quarter of the journalistic savvy displayed by Mitchel or Brokaw. Come out of retirement Tom, the country needs you...to stop journalism-lite Gregory from taking over Meet the Press.

Posted by Mark | June 16, 2008 9:17 AM

ANYONE BUT GREGORY. Have you seen his "Race to the White House" show? Awful. He doesn't have a quarter of the journalistic savvy of Mitchel or Brokaw.

Posted by Mark | June 16, 2008 9:17 AM

Dan Harris from ABC is the only person I would care to see.

Posted by Jack K. | June 16, 2008 9:48 AM

What about Mika Brzezinski of Morning Joe?

Wow, she is something!

Posted by Don | June 16, 2008 9:53 AM

I'd like to give a shout-out, with those above, for Aaron Brown. He's serious and seriously smart, an outsider who knows as much about the political process as anybody. He's beholden to none of the network or political insiders. I think he's by far the very best choice available.

Of the PBS nominees, I've seen nothing remotely tough about Gwen Ifill or Ray Suarez. There's not indication that either of them is tenacious enough to force a difficult answer to a challenging question. That was actually one of Russert's greatest flaws as an interviewer: He was more concerned with asking tough questions than he was with forcing a tough answer. I don't know how many times I pulled my hair out when Russert would nail a guest with an old quote, but completely fail to hammer a revealing response from them.

Posted by redjellydonut | June 16, 2008 10:11 AM

Why hasnt anyone mentioned Ted Koppel? I think bringing him out of virtual retirement is the best path.

Posted by Ron | June 16, 2008 10:12 AM

I've seen some truly laughable ideas on these threads around the internets (Couric, Maddow, Todd, Matthews), but by far the one that is the most laughable (that seems to be sincere, anyway) is Mika. MIKA?!!! The woman is not qualified to be Joe's sidekick.

Interestingly, the one name I haven't seen anywhere is Mark Halperin. He'd be horrendous as well, of course, but given some of the names out there, it's strange that Halperin's hasn't popped up even once in the places I've looked. A good sign.

btw -- Jon Meacham is an interesting choice someone here mentioned. He's right-leaning, but not so much as to be impossible. And he is a thoughtful guy with a great deal of knowledge of the history of politics.

Posted by evie | June 16, 2008 10:30 AM

I would love to see Rachel Maddow take this job. She asks hard questions, and takes crap from no one.

Posted by Greg T | June 16, 2008 10:33 AM

Scott Simon?

Posted by Larry | June 16, 2008 11:11 AM

Scott Simon? Literate, sensitive, smart.

Although I would sure miss him on Saturday mornings.

Posted by Larry | June 16, 2008 11:14 AM

Best choices mentioned, in my opinion:
Aaron Brown -- Ted Koppel -- Garrick Utley

A new one, out of the box perhaps, but the one person (besides Tim) that I always pause the fast-forward to listen to:

Howard Fineman.
I've never seen him do an interview but no reason to think he couldn't.

If in-house (more or less):
Gwen Ifel w/ someone ... Chuck Todd?
David Gregory w/ someone ... Rachel Maddow

Posted by Elizabeth | June 16, 2008 11:22 AM

Here's what I'd do: make Andrea Mitchell the Washington Bureau Chief. Bring Brokaw in for 6 months to do Meet The Press OR have guest hosts for a while. In the meantime, get Chuck Todd more experience doing actual interviews and groom him for the permanent position. I love Chris Matthews - but not for this. He just doesn't listen enough, and he's too opinionated.

Posted by Julia | June 16, 2008 11:48 AM

My vote: Mika. Heads and shoulders above all others. Matthews has seen better days; Andrea is pathetic; Chuck is boring; Joe's too much of a poll; Gregory is all right but has no idea how to ask a question; Gwen doesn't ask penetrating questions either; Obermann only can talk to people who agree with him; Brokaw is too close to too many people on the inside. So I'd go with Mika in a heart beat.

But from my sources I'd put money on Andrea who apparently is related to some big money guy who is putting the pressure on. If she gets it, get ready for the shows demise.

Posted by Llyonnoc | June 16, 2008 1:06 PM

My vote, personal and professional, is for my friend and former colleague Gwen Ifil.
Not that this is a plebiscite, but I think Russert's death has been so poignant because of the reality it has exposed: there's no one left in commercial broadcast news that we trust and respect in the way we trusted Murrow-Cronkite--Brinkley--Jennings.
The last redout of non-blow dried broadcast journalists, people who aren't just playing the title role of a so called news show (even a show I really like, like "Countdown" )is public broadcasting.

My alternate: Michelle Norris from NPR!

Posted by Leon Wynter | June 16, 2008 1:29 PM

My vote, personal and professional, is for my friend and former colleague Gwen Ifil.
Not that this is a plebiscite, but I think Russert's death has been so poignant because of the reality it has exposed: there's no one left in commercial broadcast news that we trust and respect in the way we trusted Murrow-Cronkite--Brinkley--Jennings.
The last redout of non-blow dried broadcast journalists, people who aren't just playing the title role of a so called news show (even a show I really like, like "Countdown" )is public broadcasting.

My alternate: Michelle Norris from NPR!

Posted by Leon Wynter | June 16, 2008 1:42 PM

An interim choice probably makes the most sense. Brokaw would be perfect, and he could bring in other NBC regulars and other members of the press to help him with the questioning. These could also be mini-auditions for them.

Other heavyweights that make sense are Koppel and Aaron Brown. I was always a fan of Jeff Greenfield.

David Gergen would be a very interesting choice, though he seems much better as a commentator.

Gwen Ifil deserves consideration, as does John Harwood. None of the NBC regulars seem to fit at this point.

Costas would be much better with a nightly Larry King type show. If I ran MSNBC I would push hard for that. He doesn't have the political chops for MTP.

Posted by Gerardo | June 16, 2008 2:27 PM

Who should MTP choose as anchorman?

When news shows need to bump up their ratings, there's one man they always turn to:

Charlie Manson.

Admit it, you'd watch.

Posted by Another Chris | June 16, 2008 8:29 PM

Gwen Ifil.

She has integrity, intelligence and grit.
She as respected by Russert. She already hosts
a roundtable discussion each week on PBS which
is somewhat formal.

Hosting Meet the Press would
allow her to show her full range of talent.

Go outside MSNBC please!

Posted by cleo | June 16, 2008 9:16 PM

I've been hoping for Andrea Mitchell but hadn't considered Chuck Todd, who would be great. He's personable, knows his stuff and maintains objectivity. I'm all for it. Just please don't let it be David Gregory. Nothing against him personally, but I wince everytime he attempts to lead election night panel discussions. He seems to swing between cutting people off at inopportune moments and letting Pat Buchanan speak at length.

Posted by KC | June 16, 2008 9:28 PM

Think Hitchens would be great. And why should someone be sober on a Sunday morning gas fest anyway? Be a lot more fun if everyone had a brown paper bag in his back pocket.

How about the cipher, Colin Powell?

Posted by Lee Travers | June 16, 2008 9:30 PM

Think Hitchens would be great. And why should someone be sober on a Sunday morning gas fest anyway? Be a lot more fun if everyone had a brown paper bag in his back pocket.

How about the cipher, Colin Powell?

Posted by Lee Travers | June 16, 2008 9:31 PM

Think Hitchens would be great. And why should someone be sober on a Sunday morning gas fest anyway? Be a lot more fun if everyone had a brown paper bag in his back pocket.

How about the cipher, Colin Powell?

Posted by Lee Travers | June 16, 2008 9:32 PM

It has to be Gwen Ifill. She has the chops, the respect, and the objectivity. None of the others mentioned, with the exception of Chuck Todd, are as classy or professional. Also, Ifill has shown that she is not afraid to ask the tough questions in a decent and courteous way: Recall what she said to Russert after the Imus racial slur, and recall also that she had the decency to let him know that if she accepted his invitation to the show where Imus was discussed she'd be criticizing him "in his own house". Recall also that after Tim Russert's sad and untimely death, she talked about how she respected him for inviting her anyway. Like Russert, she manages to be a journalist with a commitment to the truth and to decency and integrity. How rare is that? She makes all of the men on the lists above look like children. None of the boys please; give me Ifill.

Posted by Lynn | June 17, 2008 3:42 PM

Of course Brokaw would be great, but Ifill would bring something entirely different and usher in a new era for the show. That's what is needed because no one can follow Russert without taking the show on in a different way.

Posted by Lynn | June 17, 2008 3:46 PM

Two words: Steve Scully
He's the guy on C-Span and does a great job
as an interviewer. Nobody can replace
Tim Russert, he was in a class by himself.
But Scully is a dark horse pick, but wasn't
Russert last time?

Posted by Mark | June 18, 2008 2:41 PM

I've seen him on C-SPAN. Kinda out of the box
pick because he's not at NBC, but he is in the Russert-mold. If Brian Lamb is the master,
Steve has shown he's a great student.
NBC should go after him, you're right.
I also think Gwen Ifill would be good.

Posted by MPSalter | June 18, 2008 10:32 PM

I've seen him on C-SPAN. Kinda out of the box
pick because he's not at NBC, but he is in the Russert-mold. If Brian Lamb is the master,
Steve has shown he's a great student.
NBC should go after him, you're right.
I also think Gwen Ifill would be good.

Posted by MPSalter | June 18, 2008 10:32 PM

I've seen him on C-SPAN. Kinda out of the box
pick because he's not at NBC, but he is in the Russert-mold. If Brian Lamb is the master,
Steve has shown he's a great student.
NBC should go after him, you're right.
I also think Gwen Ifill would be good.

Posted by MPSalter | June 18, 2008 10:32 PM

Take MTP off the air, best idea yet.

Posted by Andy | June 19, 2008 3:30 AM

That C-Span guy...I HAVE seen him.
He is normally on the weekends I think, but
he does those book interviews.
I also think NBC should consider Matt Lauer,
he would be perfect.
PLEASE...no David Gregory. He would be the worst
pick ever by NBC. Never watch him when he's on.
Nobody can replace Russert.

Posted by Jennifer | June 23, 2008 5:11 PM