I have watched his show for a while, and it seems that he toned down his incisive analysis of the problems of the Bush administration after Mary Matalin complained to MSNBC about his coverage of the CIA Leak case. Right afterwards, he began focussing almost entirely on the 2008 election, and obsessing about Hillary's campaign tactics, comments about Obama, surrogates' comments about Obama, laugh, voice, debate slip-ups, etc. I'm not sure if he's doing so to procure higher ratings like Olbermann??

And for every item that makes me cringe I often value five new pieces of information or insight from him and his guests.

He is one of several points of view I ingest daily with the NYT, WaPo, WSJ, Newshour, Charlie Rose and Daily Show.

I know it's not right, but I do. It's for very specific moments in Hardball history, including the way he helped Elizabeth Edwards deliver Ann Coulter a polite, but righteous, public comeuppance for Coulter's disgraceful comments about the Edwards' dead son. Then there was the priceless moment after Larry Craig's “Clinton's a very, very naughty boy” thing—will I ever forget the expression on Tweety's face? So I don't want him gone; I just want him repeatedly smacked down till he doesn't know anymore how to do his junkyard hound dog turn. .

The Seely piece, which is hilarious, is just one more step to building a better Chris Matthews.

by Damozel | At Media Matters, Eric Boehlert discusses the calling out of Chris Matthews by the liberal blogosphere, giving credit where it is due to: Rachel Maddow of Air America, Josh Marshall of TPM, Jamison Foser of Media Matters; Jane Hamsher of F…