"Up" with Chris Hayes was by far the best TV political talk show -- "long form" TV journalism that he can't really do on "All In." The norm was intelligent discussions, including discussions with R points of view like former Bain partner Ed Conrad.
The only equal or better coverage is every day on Kagro in the Morning, with David Waldman and Greg Dworkin. (Listen to it!)
Steve Kornacki, Hayes' "Up" successor, while not as cerebral as Chris, has generally been very good, and rose to excellence with his Chris Christie scoops. His Dawn Zimmer interview was stunning -- one of the most riveting segments I've ever seen on TV.
But lately, "Up," has been infected with Beltway frivolousness. A couple of weeks ago, it was Luke Russert. Luke Russert! Today, guest host Jonathan Capehart led a rancid discussion about Hillary's wealth and speaking fees, including questions quoting Maureen Dowd's execrable (even for her) column today about that (mentioned in today's Pundit roundup).
This is Gore 2000 media crap, straight from the Somerby Howler catalogue. It's piling on for one of the worst and senseless attacks of liberals -- that having or making money is inconsistent with progressive policies -- bullshit that you'd think would be disproven after Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and JFK.
Somehow, it's wrong to advocate policies that would tax your wealth more, but there's nothing wrong with the Romneys and Bush's pushing policies that will tax them less and make them richer.
Capehart even quotes Dowd: "Hillary doesn’t see the disconnect between expressing grave concern about mounting student loan debt while scarfing six-figure sums from at least eight colleges, and counting."
There is no disconnect, jerk, other than what you create with coverage like this. At least the Clintons are doing something for the money, not having your lawyers and accountants find quasi-legal ways to grow your IRA from 30K a year to $100 million like Romney.
MSNBC is not and should not be a liberal Fox, or even a liberal network that simply pushes liberal themes. But the contrasting views they present should be policy and substantive views, not recycled garbage from the 1990's.