Last week I reported on Lawrence O'Donnell's new MSNBC show "The Last Word," and I guessed what sort of an identity he would cultivate as the host of his own program. Having finally had the opportunity to watch it, I know exactly what his identity is going to be.
He's going to be MSNBC's resident bore.
Listen, I'm not one of those conservative pundits attacking liberals for being boring and wonkish, and now I'm accusing Lawrence O'Donnell of being just that, so you can take my appraisal to the bank. I had MSNBC on during the 10 PM Eastern Time hour, and O'Donnell was just . . . not . . . interesting. Bear in mind that I was watching him while on my PC. I don't normally have the TV on while online, but when I have Keith Olbermann, or maybe Chris Matthews, on while online, I sometimes find myself paying more attention to their ramblings than whatever blog I'm writing, whatever Facebook post I'm looking at, or whatever Flickr photos I'm uploading. O'Donnell doesn't distract me like that. For from being animated like Olbermann, Matthews or the wonderful Ed Schultz - or even being bitingly witty like Rachel Maddow - he's incredibly dull, a sleeping pill in a two-piece suit. Whatever appeal he had as a fill-in host has been lost as a host of his own show. Maybe, given time, O'Donnell will find his voice. But it's worth remembering that MSNBC shows that don't catch on right away (Phil Donahue, anyone?) don't get much of a chance to catch on at all.
Maybe it's that Boston intellectual thing O'Donnell has going with him. Matthews is also a Washington insider like O'Donnell, but he's a Philadelphia street kid who knows how to play hardball, hence the name of his show. O'Donnell is more cerebral, perhaps too so for television. Maybe that's why "Mister Sterling," the NBC congressional drama he produced, only lasted half a season - as a spring replacement series.
Meanwhile today is the first Monday of October, and for the first time since "Chicago" - not the revival that's been running since 1996, the original production - opened on Broadway, John Paul Stevens is not on the Supreme Court. Sadly, neither is his replacement, Justice Elena Kagan - at least not as much as someone else would be. See, Kagan has to recuse herself from nearly half of the cases coming up before the Court this term because she was instrumental in several cases reaching the Court as Solicitor General. And all that jazz. It now looks like several cases might be deadlocked in tie votes, letting lower court rulings stand.
Let me know how much of an impact Justice Kagan will have on the Court's direction. I'll be taking a nap. Most likely with the television on.
Say, on MSNBC, at around ten or so.
No comments:
Post a Comment