Turfgrass, I think you make some good points, actually, however, my point was that many people called in to debate a point of view are not good at it, personality-wise, strong commentary-wise, and yes, sometimes very much are called in because they fit a stereotypical weak liberal mold, yes, in appearance.
I would agree with you about the MSNBC comparison, I do find them to be overtly liberal, although I don't consider Scarborough to be that, and I think Ed Schultz is a pretty fair-minded realistic guy.
Some of those that you mention are far from strong commentators, and will stand up and argue strongly a point against the righty "superstars", that kind of thing, and those instances are the ones that draw the most attention. And Estrich? Wow, she's embarrassing for LIBERALS... the perfectly typecast abrasive liberal woman that everybody dislikes.
I would agree they do have some level-headed folks on there, but their time and influence is in no way considered balanced or fair overall. I'm not sure what "my standards" have to do with this - I think it's nothing but an opinion, that's backed up by history on the channel. I do have a standard of communication and charisma when it comes to selling a point of view - why I think Obama and Clinton were terrific at it, and Bush was an ass.
Something I think would make for a good show on some channel, somewhere, probably non-political in nature, would be a matchup show, pitting some of the top speakers against each other, on important issues. Not sure how it would work, and most would probably avoid it, but it could be pretty interesting.
[Still waiting for Hannity to be waterboarded... off topic, but I just had to keep it alive...] :tongue
