Political Insider

Todd would make an interesting choice, but I think that David Gregory is a better on-screen personality than Todd and has hosted MTP in the past. Whatever happens, I hope that the show continues to produce fantastic discussions, though no host can equal what Russert did.

Chuck Todd definitely has the knowledge, but I think it is unclear if he has the interview skills. That being said, Tim Russert made the jump and the interviewing sills came to him naturally.

If NBC does want to "carry on" the current format, I think Keith Olbermann would be an interesting choice. He's got the intelligence, the passion, and the skills that Russert had and if he could learn to check his politics at the door on Sundays, he might be the man for the job.

I think it will be Andrea Mitchell. She is a long time member of the Washington Bureau, and is respected by the Washington elite. She will probably reture in 2-3 years, and by then, NBC will have groomed someone. I like Todd, but I don't think he is ready yet.

I like Chuck Todd but am not sure of his journalistic credentials. How about Gwen Ifill? She displays many of the qualities that made Russert so successful.

Brokaw.

Interesting... I think Todd would make a fine choice. He doesn't take stands, doesn't show where he sits, has an ability to explain complicated things well to the average viewer, and is congenial. Olbermann is too controversial and would scare away a lot of the right, though he doesn't coddle the left.

What about Mr. hardball???

I think he would be the best choice but I don't think it will ever happen. Negative opinions have been manufactured about him by the right, so he might scare them away, or give them a ready excuse not to show up and answer for their stands on major issues.

Todd doesn't have this drawback. He's not on the left or right. Hell, he's not even on the line. He's probably the best choice to give us the best interviews. Good call...

I think Chuck Todd is a good choice for Meet The Press because he is very politically astute, he's young and he is a hard worker. He has spent many long days on the tube on NBC during the primaries and has a very pleasant persona. I think David gregory is at times ascerbic and has some baggage from the way he handled himself as part of the White House press corps. Yes Chuck Todd is a excellent choice.

David Gregory has been self-promoting for the last two years. You may recall Tony Snow had to ask him at a White House briefing, if the issue was really not about him (Gregory).

Gregory, like Oberman, have an obvious bias against the Administration, which prevents objective journalism. This is what separated Russert from the rest.

Chuck Todd would be the better choice. However, NBC is more likely to name someone who will promote their liberal political agenda.

Jon Stewart. The Daily Show has hit a plateau of late and he is clearly at his best when grilling politicos. As he noted in America The Book, the media and their "was the president successful in convincing the country of his rationale for war?" are providing a tremendous disservice. Stewart would bring ratings.

I agree that Chuck Todd is a good choice. He appears unbiased and is politically astute. Gregory and Olbermann have expressed bias whether or not I agree with them. Olbermann especially is over the top when it comes to his opinions. I would not even call him a journalist, he is entertaining and I often agree with him but he is definitely biased. Gregory does not have the presence that Todd has.

Chuck Todd is absolutely the best possible choice. With Gregory, Matthews, and Olbermann, divos all, it would be all about them. Mitchell has the chops, as do Brokaw and Ifill, but no real expectation of longevity at the job.

Todd's intellectual creds (he is, after all, a full professor in political communication at Johns Hopkins), his meticulous avoidance of bias, and his relative youth make him the perfect successor to take MTP well into the third decade of the 21st century

I like Chuck Todd for it. He is very knowledgeable and he has another trait that Tim Russert had. He treats people with respect even when he's grilling them. I also like Brian Williams, but for Meet the Press I like Chuck Todd better because he's younger. I like the idea of choosing someone who can carry on the tradition for a good long while. Longevity is part of what made Tim so enjoyable. You knew who you were getting every Sunday morning for years and you knew you could trust them. Todd has shown himself to be trustworthy too. I like Andrea Mitchel, but not for this spot. I like her gentleness very much, but it isn't a good match for Meet the Press. She reported well on Hillary Clinton, but you could also tell that she had a soft spot for her. I don't see her going for the hard answers with someone like that. Chuck Todd is a great choice. I hope NBC is listening.

I see a lot of similarities between Russert circa 1991 and Chuck Todd. But Russert made the shoes so big to fill--Todd might be too young/green for the job.

Then again Russert did always say that he's the custodian of an American Institution--so it might be time for a new generation to re-define the show's relevance.

My gut pick would be Gwen ifil. Russert was such a heavy hitter at NBC. His departure creates a lot of org changes -- so I would imagine some of his responsibilities will go to people who are next in line based on seniority--and other responsibilities will be based on other factors--like what is best for Meet the Press on Sunday.

I could see an NBC outsider in this role.

Gwen Ifill is competent but pretty dull.

You know, I have to say that five straight days of non-stop tributes to Tim Russert, along with the requisite cheesy "funeral music", on MSNBC has sort of worn down my last nerve.

I've even turned off the TV!

I mean, Tim Russert was a good TV host - but, my God, - his friends and colleagues are acting like Christ himself just died!

That being said, maybe Tom Brokow will sit in Tim's place on MTP til the election, so as to ease the transition to a real mortal who will be tapped to take his place permanently. I certainly wouldn't want to be the host who replaces him directly as any comparison between Russert and the replacement will not be favorable. Brokow can probably handle the transition phase.

I like Chuck Todd, too, and wouldn't be put-off if he got the "seat of the Russert" permanently.
-

I agree that Chuck Todd is really the only one who would deliver enthusiam and beilieve it or not a reverence for the job. I think he would approach the job with respect for the citizens of this country. I also believe the would respect the legacy of Mr. Russert, who thankfully is being recognized as a great man.

While I think Chuck Todd could be a good choice, we don't anything about his interviewing skills. There is no doubt about his political knowledge or his devotion to preparation. Matthews is not particular good at interviewing since he never lets his guest answer a question nor does he listen to their answers - he is constantly interrupting to hear his own voice.

How about John Harwood of CNBC and the New York Times. He would likely have to give up his NYT job, but I would guess that he would be willing to do that. He is a frequent panelist on the show so is very familiar with its operation. He does well on the panel and I'm sure he has good interviewing skills as he is a top notch reporter.

I think Chuck Todd is great at what he does, but he hasn't had the opportunity to display tough interviewing skills..if he has them. Andrea Mitchell is a consummate pro, knows her stuff and could step into the job immediately. She's not the warmest personality, however. My choice - Rachel Maddow. She is extremely knowledgeable, articulate, tough and can be quite funny. And given her age, she could be there for the long haul.

If Rachel Maddow is out of the question, then Chuck Todd is my second choice. I like Chuck and like his resume, I just think of the possibilities Rachel has more candlepower, is quicker on her feet and better able to prepare. I know her resume and all, but she clearly can be objective and prepared with original insight I don't much see from the other potential hosts (Gregory, Matthews, Olbermann). She's just smarter, and that is what we need to preserve the MTP value. We don't need yet another hour of improv commentary. MTP goes deeper than that.

Only Rachel Maddow spends hours preparing and reaearch for her shows just like Russert did. Only RM asks deep penetrating questions. Because she would choose not to become a Washington insider she would make MTP exciting and informative. But the big guys would never go for her and others would feel resentful. Gwen is safe but timid. Gregory is shallow. Olbermann might have a hard time not being partisan. Matthews is a terrible interviewer.
Brokaw is too old and conventional. MTP would be a bore if they kept him. Chuck seems to have potential but he may be more of an analyzer than a great interviewer. Mitchell has possibilites but just doesn't seem the right choice. So what is my answer? Someone other than this group. I would go for someone unexpected like Ray Suarez from the News Hours who used to host of TOTN on NPR.
NPR.

I would prefer Chuck Todd. David is too partisan, And A NDREA IS TOO IMPRESSED WITH HERSELF. GWEN MADE A MESS OF HER TIME AT THE DEM DEBATES. Chuck is a supreme breathe of fresh air