You.(Ok, somebody had to say that. But seriously, there are many political bloggers I read who'd make fine columnists--finer, indeed, than a lot of the current ones. I'm a little worried about their being neutered by being hired by NYT--I still cringe when I see all the "Mr."s in Nate Silver's pieces--but the papers themselves would greatly benefit.)
Digby'd be great, but honestly there are too many pundits as it is. Maybe a class on logic, posted weekly, would be a better idea. If we had less punditry it's possible thinking for ourselves would come back in style.
James Fallows, though he probably wouldn't want to do a weekly gig.
Digby or Dahalia Lithwick.
I second Scott's comments. Fallows=My Hero.Any thoughts on the ideal NYT op-ed board line up? All time greatest, you picks.
Matt Steinglass. He's like a high-OPS 26-year-old turning 27 in June
It would be a pretty radical move at his age, but I'd be for E. Klein. Though it might be better to keep someone with an arts connection...
I'd love to see Andrew Sullivan with the NYT, although his politics are obviously somewhat different from Rich's.Maybe Matthew Yglesias. His biggest problem as a blogger is his titanic struggle with the typo; NYT would resolve this. Ezra K. is a good idea. I agree with Kylopod that our humble host would also do a fine job.
I suppose I'd rather not see any of my favorite analysts- and they're almost all bloggers- sucked into the NYT. I look at Ross Douthat (on the other side, sure, but still) and see him having to reposition himself quite a bit to be the Times' Token Conservative. I suppose they NYT doesn't need a Token Lefty as much, but I still think Rich's role was to nail down the left end of the debate, and most of my favorite people aren't those kinds of bomb-throwers.Either way, a weekly column with a set amount of inches is pretty limiting nowadays. I'd rather see the long-form, continuing stuff that blogs provide.
Though I liked that he generally articulated a more leftish (for mainstream punditry) perspective, frankly I was never that crazy about Rich's columns. I read them fairly frequently, but never cared much for his style for reasons I can't quite pin down.Most useful about his columns, to me, were his links--he really did an excellent job linking to stories that I may not have seen, and fitting them into an overall framework which might have been interesting or, more often, was totally irrelevant from my perspective.For me Rich basically provided a decent news roundup with a partisan, leftish spin. That's useful but it's actually pretty easy to do, so in a sense my answer would be "any number of people," so long as they are intelligent, up on current events, and to the left of Barack Obama. I don't think Rich brought anything particularly unique to the table.
Someone liberal who focuses on issues non-economic (so as not to overlap with Krugman). That rules out Ezra Klein, I think. Dahlia Lithwick would be really good. Civil rights, anyone? Or a foreign policy writer who can tell Friedman to be quiet. I guess Yglesias would fit that role.
Jamelle Bouie. Eminently reasonable, whip-smart.
Marcy Wheeler (http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com)Ok, that's not going to happen.Rachel Maddow.Digby and Katha Pollitt have already been mentioned. Ta-Nehisi Coates would be a good fit.
Another vote for Katha Pollitt.
-- Steve M. of nomoremisdterniceblog. -- Kevin Drum-- Steve Benen, to comment on GOP craziness.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
At The Washington Post
At The American Prospect