That interview would have went a lot better for Rand Paul if Maddow had have just thrown her notes in the air and accused him of being a bigot, and a covert member of the Klan. That's what they want. And I don't simply mean conservatives--I mean people you disagree with. I know I've won a debate when my adversary says, "What the fuck type of name is Ta-Nuh-hah-see, anyway?" It translates to "I've got nothing." Much scarier is the opponent who takes your argument, with whatever nuances it may or may not possess, and politely disagrees with the argument as it is.

I try to do this in writing, with some success. Much more difficult, for me, is to do it in person. I'm always impressed by broadcast journalists who can, without getting angry, grab the point of contention and drive at it in a manner that is as civil as it is relentless. This is the art of killing softy, of quietly twisting the knife. There are a lot of people in the field who know how to be contentious over small points, and semantics. There are a lot more who know how to do fake-ass on-the-other-handism, or imbibe the weak-sauce of "both sides" and "others say." And then there are some who are partisan, but make a living dropping the bomb every time Rush Limbaugh flubs the basics of subject-verb agreement. 

And then there are a few who just know how to cut. You can't really accuse her of soundbite journalism--she gave Rand Paul twenty minutes.I'm fine with her monologues, and I understand that they're part of the show. But a few years back I watched her  shut down Pat Buchanan with a jab so quick, that I almost missed in the flurry of words. I just think she's at her best when she's in the ring. She doesn't always win, but that only makes the point. No serious committed journalist always comes out on top. The trouble with being serious, is there just aren't enough serious politicians out there. As the word gets out, I worry that opposing politicians will stop coming on the show.