The UK Telegraph has compiled a list of the top 50 American political pundits. The story is referenced here. The entire list is on the referenced link so I'll only list the top 20 here....



The obvious questions for debate are:

Do you agree with this list?

How would you change the rankings?

Anybody that should be on this list, or shouldn't?



Aquilla

John Stewart is easily #1, Steven Colbert #2, and Al Franken is the best political writer in print, bar none. Even if you hate him or don't agree with him- he is by far the best comedy/entertainment/political commentary-comedy on the planet-no one comes close. I don't know how they missed that- the rest of the list? also rans and lame entertainment.

Um... Karl Rove? I read and semi-enjoy his columns when he (occasionally) writes them, but the key word is occasionally. The guy writes maybe a column a month does maybe two TV/radio appearances a month... how can this guy even be classified a pundit? Pundit denotes a certain level of detachment from the political process, and at this point I think most americans still consider Karl Rove an appendage of the bush machine. He hasn't totally made the STEP-N-OP-O-LUS (cant spel) transition from insider to outsider yet.

Me, I hate when listmakers try to be contrarians... like "ooooh they put Karl Rove as their #1 that's so bad-a.." C'mon, man. It's exactly like making a list The Best Artists of the 20th Century like so:

4. Stanley Kubrick
3. Andy Warhol
2. The Beatles
1. 50 Cent

Next!

I hear you drew-

Though really, 50 cent is pretty prolific- if not artistic- the better number one comparison, to really put the list in perspective- would be to put Paris Hilton at the number one spot- and Quincy Jones as #2 - or Duke Ellington

I would include Charles Krauthammer

I agree- his stuff is well written. Again- I go by the quality, not neccesarily whether I agree with the content. His (Charles Krauthammer ) columns are well written and usually original (hey, everyone has a bad day now and again, right? )

I would say that the "pundit" list also needs to be broken into two parts- "serious" political commentary and "satirical" political commentary- just looking at the list again- With #1 writer of satirical content being Al Franken, and, well, it is hard to pick the serious ones as number ones from the rest of the pack. There are lots of pretty good authors on both sides of the aisle. I would probably make a "sub list" of conservative, centrist, and liberal pundits, and rank them equally by quality of writing.

My favorite columnist of all time is Leonard Pitts, and I believe him to be mostly centrist, and many of his columns are not neccesarily right or left, but good social commentary, with political undertones. I have "Children also have a right to have a Dad" column on my refrigerator for some time now. First written word newspaper piece that has moved me so much in my life.

I find Charles Krauthammer to be positively sententious, the type of guy who gets paid to confidently wager haphazard guesses and offer poorly researched analysis with the certainty of a post-doc defending his or her thesis. If I had my way in life, a phone would be sewed into the palms of Charles Krauthammer's two hands so that everytime he even thinks about manufacturing some piece of campaign fluff or foreign affairs "analysis" he is all but forced to stop, think for a minute, and call an expert. Somehow, today's opinion writers have this idea that they are magically exempt from having to actually gather new information, rather than just aggregate and comment on what comes to them from the huffingtonpost pipelines.

I'd put Fareed Zakaria on the list: I mean, compare anything Krauthammer writes to any one piece of Zakaria's. When I read opinion wirting, I don't care about the viewpoint of the writer -- I actually prefer, on some level, writers (like Karl Rove) who I could not have less in common with ideologically. What I care about is seeing someone who can take facts and news that have slipped through the cracks (or have been interpretted wrong) and bring those to the foreground with a little bit of elbow grease and reportage thrown in. I care about effort put into this stuff, and I bet you 30 dollars right now Charles Krauthammer is drinking a snapple sitting at work with his eyes fogged up from a post-lunch hangover, doing nuthin'. There are a bajillion people who can and do get paid to re-cast the latest gossip about rev. wright as an original thought. But your Nicholas Kristofs, your Fareed Zakarias, heck even that anectdotaholic butthead Thomas Freidman, those guys offer me something unique. Those guys get out of the office and on the ground.

Do you agree with this list?
Yes. Today a pundit is more associated with public relations and passing/making authoritative judgments/comments than being an authority in a given area, an expert. The latter is more commonly referred to as expert or wonk.

It warms my heart to see Hannity, Russert, Beck, Noonan and Klein on the same list. Hell, even Krugman deserves to be on it. I've always thought you become something more than an economist once you enter the political fray. You become a hack. That's what everyone on that list is. Hacks shilling their ideological preferences.

What's more important is identifying how many hacks are conservative and liberal. With everything being equal opposites higher numbers take the advantage and that's the kind of influence that matters. Giving the list a once over it looks like there are more conservative leaning pundits than liberal leaning pundits.

Obviously you disagree (politically) with the award winning Mr. Krauthammer. Good for you, but lets remember “opinions” are expressed by both sides of the political spectrum and I believe his are as fair as any – on the conservative side.

Who should he “check with” – Bill Maher??? Is this man or any other liberal above more knowledgeable than Charles Krauthammer? I doubt it.


PS
Why the double post?

Lesley makes a good point on definitions- is pundit a positive or negative connotation?

George Will?

George Stephanopolous?

Randi Rhodes?

The current lsits spans a variety of categories. If I had to be inclusive of all, I'd add a couple of dozen to the list.

I guess that is the problem with the list in the first place- it is probably just trying to be provocative and sell advertising, not really to be an accurate or really well thought out piece. Pundit? Negative or Positive in connotation, definition? Entertainer, political analyst, journalist, interviewer of politicians?

Kinda wide to wide ranging to really debate with any objective banter.

Lesly (librul kitteh)

Not so fast there.

You can't say that Dee Dee Myers was equal in being Clinton's press secretary, or Donna Brazile as an expert political strategist is equal to a talk show host or a weekly column. Add James Carville, and instead of pundits, you have:

Teh Librul Politikul strat-uh-gists

versus

Teh Publikin Politikul tawk sho' hosts.

Further, there's even pundits that won't claim a side, or sides that won't claim a pundit.

Perhaps to be a successful political pundit, you have to either be a Democrat spokesperson, or a Republican talk show.

So yeah, considering how Progressive talk show is doing in the ratings, I'd say this is very accurate. Libs kick butt on TV, Pubs kick butt on the radio.

I feel comfortable saying many weekly columnists are equal to Brazile, and that isn't a compliment by any means. Nowadays entertainer, political analyst, journalist and interviewer of politicians, to borrow from CR, are interchangeable. There are few clear, defined lines between bias and analysis. I'm not making a shocking statement. Celebrity coverage and opinion columns carry the day. The more journos/entertainers on your side, whether they're on radio, television or print, the easier it is for your ideas to be repeated through the media.

These are the ones I really like

Tim Russert
Chuck Todd
Andrew Sullivan
David Gergen (I haven’t seen him much lately, but he’s a real heavy weight)
Peggy Noonan (I’ve gained a lot of respect for her over the past few years.)
Eugene Robinson
Mark Shields
Paul Krugman
Rachel Maddow
Joe Klein

Those I would add

Bob Herbert
Craig Crawford
Howard Fineman
John Harwood
Michelle Caruso-Cabrerra
Erin Burnette
Charles Cook
Doris Kearns Goodwin
Tom Brokaw
Amy Soddard
Margaret Carlson

A top fifty list? That's a go-to thing for bored journalists. It's like 101 ways to make your lover orgasm, or the person-on-the-street interview. The writer is bored and so is the reader.

But hey, you have to make a living, huh?

I figure that list is as good as any, which is saying that this pile of do is as good as any.

It is interesting that one clown appeals to some people and another clown appeals to other people, but in the end they are all clowns.

Being an expert on politics is like being an expert on pudding. For one, it's meaningless. For another, who cares.

But some people have made good money being experts on pudding. It's a niche market. Some people do care, which I suppose would make for a good psychological study should anyone need a thesis subject to get the degree so they can pundit away on something that's impossible to understand. As acts go, it's not a bad one. But it is an act.

What's funny about this is that comedians are included. We've really blurred the lines between entertainment and serious analysis, and all I can say is that we are getting what we deserve. I'm pretty sure this all started in 1980, but the more I read about ancient history, maybe 3,000 BC was closer to the starting line. Well, give a little leeway for lost history, make it 10,000 BC, when some critter with a big brain figured out that farting and tap dancing could bring in food.

My take on it is that being called a pundit is not a good thing. The title instills in me an immediate distrust because these people are being paid good money for doing nothing of any worth or substance. They have stopped learning, which means they have stopped being interesting.

Might as well call it the top fifty fools in show business today. Jon Stewart comes the closest to realizing what a sham it all is. Bill O'Reilly has it too -- it's all about the money, honey. He's just not funny about it, nor does he bring an element of pathos into the act. Stewart does.