Ugh, I hadn't heard anyone was advocating the panel format. Awful idea. Just what we need: another hour of roundtable with opinions from people who don't know what they're talking about half the time. I'm fine with only a portion of the show dedicated to that, as is.

I have to strongly disagree with you on David Gregory. I just don't like the guy. He strikes me as overly pompous.

Olbermann, I think, should stay where he is. It's the right format for him. I've seen suggestions that he go on as a nightly anchor too, which I also don't think suits him.

But Chuck Todd. It hadn't occurred to me. I was thinking about this this morning actually, wondering if they'd put Brokaw on, if he'd even take it. I'm not sure how Todd would do in that setting but it'd be interesting. I'd sure miss him as the numbers guy though.

Perhaps they could just run a couple hours of people sitting around praising Tim Russert every Sunday morning.

Chuck Todd, hands down. Fair, likable, smart as hell.

Forget Matthews.

I'd like to see Olbermann take on a different shtick than being the lefty answer to Rush O'Hannity, but I'm not sure he could be low-key enough to let his guests have their say. I could be wrong, though.

I think they should recruit Ray Suarez. He's intelligent, quiet, thoughtful, and can ask probing questions without bogus "Gotcha!" videos.

I didn't know what Lawrence Spivak's politics were; he knew how to ask questions and moderate discussions. That's what MtP needs. It doesn't need someone with a persona that includes an obvious political bias, and doesn't need an empty suit pretty boy (or girl).

They should look beyond their in-house talent, but I don't expect them to do so.

I am wondering why they have not fired Gregory...He is so incompetent. His attitude towards Mclellan was beyond belief. And overall, he is very bad at educating people on the news. Most of the time, his comments are biased, as well as his questions.

I still like Richard Wolffe. I am still not sure about Chuk Todd, because I have not seen him being the interviewer. He has some good comments, and he is competent within his area but I don't know what questions he would come up.

I like KO, but KO is sometimes over the top.

I will be interesting to see what happens.

Olbermann is fun to watch when you agree with him, but his show is more entertainment than serious discussion. Matthews needs a lot of straw men to look smart, and he constantly interrupts. He'd have politicians on the ropes and then give them 20 seconds to catch their breaths while he answers his own question. I know Gregory was the WH reporter, be he just seems like a lightweight to me.

I'm interested in Mitchell. She's earned the mantle of respectability. Chuck Todd is a fascinating choice. He's become the break out star of the primary. (One wonders if this could be another case of an older, more experienced woman being trumped by a younger, newcome man.)

Thinking outside the box, I'm going to suggest Gwen Ifill. She interviews well, has lots of gravitas, and she would be a major change.

Mitchell is excellent .... but uncomfortable, I find, in interviews.

The old panel format was actually pretty good, and not a round-table disussion and showing-off. If Tom Brokaw can't take over between now and the election, they should probably try that. Any one person in that role is going to be overwhelmed, I'd think. If not a panel, then a combo Andrea *and* Chuck Todd -- Gwen Ifel *and* Rachel Maddow - something like that. Right now, if it isn't Brokaw, it needs to be something different, in visuals and interaction.

My pick for eventual single person: Aaron Brown

In April of this year, The New York Observer asked the question, "Who Should Replace Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation?"

According to the Observer, CBS has been shuffling through the dossiers like mad, trying to figure out a post-Schieffer strategy. Here’s what they saw:

http://www.observer.com/2008/who-should-replace-bob-schieffer-face-nation

Rachel Maddow? I know she doesn't have the insider scoop like Russert, but she does do her homework and asks the tough questions. She's a Rhodes Scholar and a PhD. She goes toe to toe with Scarborough and Pat R, I think she might be pretty good.

See her in action. I don't think she will ever let a pol direct the conversation.
Maddow vs. Scarborough

David Gregory is truly a light-weight, and he doesn't know it. I remember someone comparing the Iraq war coverage to that of Vietnam. Remember when we saw the carnage every night? We saw the coffins? We saw the faces of the soldiers? At first Gregory thought the guy was saying that the Iraq coverage was so much better because of the "imbeds." When he realized the guy was saying the opposite, Gregory went nuts! Couldn't believe it, and just said that the guy didn't know what he was talking about.

Same reaction to the "What Happened" book, but less noisy, because the book is more critical of Bush than of the press.

He has no sense of objectivity and hw would be terrible in that job.

How about Rachel Maddow? She is not only smart and objective (every now and then I get really ticked at something she says), but she can also hold her own against the rude ass-holes like Buchanan and Joe Scarborough.

Gwen Ifill or Ray Suarez might be good.

But for those who haven't seen the Rachel Maddow clip which Magaduley posted above, it is worth taking a look at. I had never seen her before but I'm interested based on the clip.