I have to agree with Lisa that the panel is more valuable when the participants are more partisan... although I rarely watch an entire episode of "This Week" even though I admire van den Heuvel, too, because my absolute favorite show overlaps with it: The McLaughlin Group.

Yes, that show with four journalists/pundits and one moderator (McLaughlin) often shouting at each other.

Granted, it is an acquired taste, but one well worth acquiring. The shouting is because they're all trying to get in what they want to say... sort of like an animated political discussion around a holiday dinner table in some families. However... they consistently wrestle an issue to the ground more thoroughly than on any other panel. And McLaughlin elicits their opinions before offering his own, while he keeps the group on task.

The result is that even with Pat Buchanan and Tony Blankley as regulars on the conservative side, the group's collective wisdom outstrips any of the other shows on network TV or cable. In my humble opinion.

For example, last November, they did a show predicting the overall outcomes, as well as the individual ones in the Senate. And, as a group, they were 100% right: predicting that the Democrats would take the House, the Senate and the governorships. Was there any other panel on TV that did as well? Perhaps a few individuals, but no other groups.

I am often puzzled that none of the big blogs ever discuss the McLaughlin Group, but have figured it's either because they are on PBS (like the NewsHour) or because the participants really do look like real people instead of TV types (except for Lawrence O'Donnell), or because it doesn't feature any "guests." Go figure...

They have recently added more online access, so you can watch the video for yourself: http://www.mclaughlin.com/

For the record, besides McLaughlin himself, there are only a few of the regulars I even like. Still, overall the show works. Perhaps if it were featured more online as an example of what journalism/punditry should/could be like, the rest of the beltway might learn something. (Now that we know they are reading blogs...)

I have a similar problem with Chris Wallace's show... mostly because of the dismissiveness of Brit Hume and Bill Kristol's presumption that he really is his father's heir. I really have to bite my tongue and restrain my gag reflex.

But I do watch it, and also saw Wallace's interview with Sharon Eubanks. It was so refreshing to see a woman push back like that, especially on that program where most of the panel comes across as either the bully or the bullied. It's the sort of thing you might expect of van den Heuvel or Eleanor Clift, but not of many other women with regular gigs as talking heads. (Probably Joan Walsh, too, but w/out cable, I rarely see her.)

[I loved FNS the week that Clinton was on!]

Anyway, I hope you'll reconsider McLaughlin's group. Just picture them all wrestling the issue to the ground, and trying to subdue it. I had a hard time with the shouting at first, too, but without cable, there weren't many other choices. Now, it is my one must-see every Sunday. And every so often, I'll hear Buchanan say something sensible. Like the war is a mistake. And Tony Blankley will agree with Eleanor Clift about something before he proceeds to disagree with her about something else. Ultimately, I really appreciate the way McLaughlin pulls it all together with his exit questions and summaries. None of the other hosts do it as well. The only one who almost consistently irritates me is Mort Zuckerman. I even emailed to complain about him one week. Coincidentally, he wasn't on the following week.

The week they did their election predictions was really something when I thought about it the following Tuesday/Wednesday.

Can any of us ever say we've learned anything (worthwhile) by watch Chris Matthews' show? Not likely, unless you include the new boundaries of what passes for cynicism among the pundits, which is what this thread is all about, after all. I couldn't believe it, either, when I saw that Sunday morning. It was hard to say who was more offensive. A really close call.