I'm an attorney. Mad props to Emily, she too was a clerk in Maine. I've thought of 3000 ways to say this...Plotz is a moron, please get rid of him. His analysis is as helpful as a third grader teaching qunatum physics at MIT. I faithfully listen to the podcast and desire his absence.

GOD YES! It would leave him more time to ponder that copy of The Advocate with the pregnant man story.

The problem with Plotz is not even that he has limited analytic ability, it's that he exults in his wrong opinions and ignorance.

I agree.

Much of my displeasure with Plotz stems from his interaction with Bazelon. The two of them cannot get through a show without personal off-topic chatter and incessant giggling.

Get rid of Plotz or get rid of Bazelon. The two of them are toxic together.

Ahh, I think you're being a little unfair. Part of the pleasure of listening to any debate is hearing differing viewpoints from people who still have respect for their fellow debaters. There must be plenty of other podcasts that provide a dry recitation of statistics and analysis, the Gabfest is great because it provides opinions. The team is very well balanced and comfortable with each other which makes for an entertaining half hour.

I still think half the things David says are mad, but it's fun hearing them.

PS, where's the slogan? Did I miss a vote?

Indeed, the trick is "...hearing differing viewpoints from people who still have respect for their fellow debaters".

David Plotz expresses himself as if his unexamined opinion is just as valid as anybody else's deliberate throughts, so he inevitably shows enormous contempt for his fellow debaters' views.

Case in point, there was nothing hard to understand about the publishing of a NYT article on the eleventh of September 2001: anybody older than 30 probably remembers the obligatory trip to the local newspaper to see how the paper got cut, pressed, folder, etc. Consequently, anybody not born in the last decade _knows_ that what we get on a newspaper was printed many hours later.

The point Bazelon and Dickerson were making was that the fact the NYT published a quote from a Weather Underground member (Ayers) on September 11, 2001, was simply a matter of insidious coincidence.

Clinton--proving Samantha Power was absolutely correct in calling her monstrous--chooses to quote the NYT article from a secondary source published _after_ the Twin Towers and Pentagon massacres (making it appear that Ayers, the Obama supporter, found solidarity with Al-Quaida, insinuating Obama's guilt by association, etc.). Anyone with the slightest clue would find the tactic distasteful at best, but Plotz immediately felt the urge to turn the argument upside down and argue Clinton was being unfairly treated. Duh?

Both George Stephanopolous and Juan Williams have done well transitioning fully away from real journalism, surely Plotz can find a job at Fox. I would only ask that Plotz take Hitchens with him

A perfect example. What's the most wrong about him is not that he is wrong, but that he is perversely stubborn in his wrongness.

As a long time listener, I say keep him. I'm happy with the balance/combination the 3 of them have and the occasional substitute people that come on. If you don't like what they do, don't listen to them. I listen to the Gabfest for one angle on things and, for example, listen to Diane Rehm's Friday News Roundup (NPR but also available as a podcast) for another angle on things. The Gabfest gets to topics that D. R. and company don't get to (court cases, social issues, whatever...) but are also more light hearted/humorous in a lot of ways and that is the angle I've come to expect from them and enjoy.

It's not a problem of tone. I enjoy a bit of banter, etc. But Plotz is just so wrong, so often, and so insistently... I think they could do better (but the chemistry of the three is great... usually).

If I recall correctly, Plotz called the 2006 midterms almost perfectly. Predicting every Senate race correctly and only botching one house race. I think he's a very smart guy who could very easily get up there and trot out the same bi-polar banality that passes for political discourse in the corporate media, but he chooses not to.

I also think he is obsessed with novelty and expressing opinions no one else does- trying to be the biggest contrarian at a mag whose claim to fame is contrarianism (real word? not sure)- this can prove to be both a gift and a curse.