30 Responses to Jane Hamsher on Shuster Tuesday

1. neurophius December 8th, 2008 at 8:10 pm «

   Jane!
2. neurophius December 8th, 2008 at 8:14 pm «

   Digg it!
3. egregious December 8th, 2008 at 8:35 pm «

   Thanks neuro
4. newtonusr December 8th, 2008 at 8:36 pm «

   W.O.O.T!
   Dugg!
5. Neil December 8th, 2008 at 9:08 pm «

   I think Shuster’s political instincts are far better than scratch-n-sniff Chris Matthews, infinitely better than Moron O’Donnell, less biased than neocon David Gregory, and more balanced than Maddow (who I love. Shuster’s bias, if he has one, doesn’t show).

   I left Brokow off the list because he did the progressive movement a favor by re-retiring. He was useless.

   Shuster will get his shot. He does news great, he does interviews great and he mediates opposing talking heads (the most difficult) effectively too.
• newtonusr December 8th, 2008 at 9:13 pm «

  Shuster does not suffer fools. I can recall many laugh-out-loud moments during the election when useless spin-wanks would drop by, and leave scalded. McCain flack Ben Porritt had a few classic visits.
  “Not on my air,” Shuster seemed to say.
• BooRadley December 10th, 2008 at 3:13 am «

  Seconded.
• Leen December 9th, 2008 at 6:35 am «

  Shuster often gets to the core of the issue.

  Can not believe that David Gregory is going to be the host of Meet the Press…well I guess I can. Tim Russert (bless his soul) almost always rolled over to the radicals including Cheney. Not sure where Russert acquired that hardball reputation…I just never saw it.

  Recently David Gregory had Andrea Mitchell, someone Goldberg (not Jonah) and one other talking head who is more than willing to repeat unsubstantiated claims about Iran. David Gregory led the lies about Iran team that night. Never challenging the claims repeated and then repeating that Iran IS developing nuclear weapons himself.

  Gregory got the job because he rolls over on these critical issues and does not challenge. What ever folks think about Matthews in the so called progressive blogosphere he is one of the only MSMer’s who will challenge the radicals. with well thought out challenges Well maybe Shuster
6. Neil December 8th, 2008 at 9:11 pm «

   Jane is right and I confess, it took her post to change my mind.
7. CTuttle December 8th, 2008 at 9:47 pm «

   …6 eastern, 3 FDL.

   1PM my time…!
• Mauimom December 9th, 2008 at 12:02 am «

  …6 eastern, 3 FDL.

  1PM my time…!

  Me too. Weird, isn’t it.
8. GregB December 8th, 2008 at 9:50 pm «

   Shuster also has the ability to condense very complex news items and make them very understandable and easy to grasp without dumbing the news down.

   Hamsher does the same although with a tad more bite.

   I must admit, the dynastic succession angle rankles me. I don’t like it with the Bushes and I also don’t like it with the Kennedy’s.

   -G
9. kuvasz December 8th, 2008 at 9:58 pm «

   People like shiney little things to distract them from the real world, a “Kennedy” is such a thing.

   I agree with Jane on the topic, and I wish someone could tell me just when the US Senate became the House of Lords? Oh, that’s right, 1964, when Robert Kennedy decided to shop around for his own Senate seat, again, in New York.
10. GregB December 8th, 2008 at 10:00 pm «

    Powdery substance mailed to the offices of at 6 US governors.

    Keeping America safe, eh George?

    -G
11. neurophius December 8th, 2008 at 10:02 pm «

    I’m back…
12. marshen December 8th, 2008 at 10:18 pm «

    I think MSNBC should acquire a fishing license for coming to the lake so often to get the skinny on the issues our end cares about.
• newtonusr December 8th, 2008 at 10:27 pm «

  I think Shuster is going to begin the process tomorrow.
13. dosido December 8th, 2008 at 10:32 pm «

    Jane is making the rounds…she was interviewed on Rachel Maddow’s radio show today too!
• wigwam December 8th, 2008 at 11:10 pm «

  It’s so right that Jane get the press coverage she and America so richly deserves.
14. PetePierce December 8th, 2008 at 11:54 pm «

    On Tuesday morning, at last, Governor Siegelman’s oral argument will take place in an Eleventh Circuit courtroom in Atlanta. 2/3 of the panel he drew will give him a fair shake. I wouldn’t trust Edmondson at all. Tjoflat is a good judge to have on his panel considering the recent events that make the government and Alice Martin look pathetic. There have been a crescendo of events that highly favor Siegelman’s chances of getting a reversal.

    From the Fulton Daily Report article:

    “Attorneys for Siegelman and Scrushy have argued that the bribery convictions should be overturned because prosecutors did not prove there was an agreement that Scrushy would get something of value in exchange for the donation. The attorneys also argued that U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller never told jurors that prosecutors had to prove there was such an agreement.

    Federal prosecutors contend there was ample evidence of a “quid pro quo” agreement.

    Defense attorneys also claim there was juror misconduct. A series of e-mails during the trial suggested that two jurors had outside influence, the attorneys claim. Fuller denied a request for a new trial, ruling that the allegations were unsubstantiated.

    Prosecutors said there was no proof that the e-mails actually were sent by jurors.

    Leach said he expects the judges will be interested in the jury misconduct and “quid pro quo” issues. He said the judges may also ask about an issue raised by Scrushy challenging whether the method of selecting prospective jurors in the federal courts’ Middle District of Alabama discriminates against blacks.

    Among the hundreds of pages of briefs the judges will consider is one filed by a bipartisan group of 54 state attorneys general asking that Siegelman’s conviction be reversed. One of those signing that brief was former Indiana Attorney General Jeff Modisett, a Democrat.”
15. punaise December 9th, 2008 at 12:23 am «

    right on, right on
16. KayInMaine December 9th, 2008 at 3:32 am «

    I don’t agree with Jane about Caroline, but I think Jane is a wonderful representation of real liberals & progressives. We are so lucky to have her here and on MSNBC!
17. SanderO December 9th, 2008 at 3:47 am «

    Hillary had no experience for the job when she and Bill move to Chappaqua to get her some bona fides. W had no experience, Palin is a slacker and put in the VP slot. This experience thing is not taken seriously.

    Thom Hartman would make an excellent legislator and no one mentions him for elective office.

    Caroline is fine, not my first choice, but smart enough to fill the shows of Al D’Amato…. or Buckley… remember him?

    Jerry Nadler would be good for NY and good for the Senate.
• MrWhy December 9th, 2008 at 5:49 am «

  Hillary had years of campaigning experience, W had been governor of Texas. Palin had experience as a mayor and governor. What experience in CK’s cv compares? I’m not saying that CK isn’t intelligent enough, but until now, she hasn’t indicated any real interest in being a public politician. That was largely Jane’s point.
18. cbl December 9th, 2008 at 6:19 am «

    Thanks egregious !
• BooRadley December 10th, 2008 at 3:14 am «

  Seconded strongly.
19. Leen December 9th, 2008 at 6:21 am «

    Jane watching your comfort level in front of the camera evolve is a delight. From some of your first appearances on Washington Journal to the last time I saw you on Rachel Maddow your comfort level has increased your intellect, reason and wisdom has always pierced through the television screen.

    Keep it up and thank you
20. Blue December 9th, 2008 at 7:54 am «

    Shuster’s editorial flunkies need a little work though – who is Jame Hamsher (see the end of quote).
• Leen December 9th, 2008 at 8:28 am «

  They have not caught up yet. At the Libby trial I mentioned to Chris Matthews that he needed to jump on here at FDL and read Emptywheel and Jane so that he was really up to snuff on Plame outing.
21. Leen December 10th, 2008 at 7:12 am «

    Jane was clear, calm and on point. Thanks Jane you rip