Ed Schultz is the anti-Limbaugh, a progessive, liberal everyman who represents the average working class American.

Unlike Rushbo who speaks for the cracked-out minorty, Schultz speaks for the majority.

Thom Hartmann would be a great TV host, if he were more comfortable with that format.

Neither Hartmann nor Schultz are affiliated with AAR anymore, though both usually show up on stations that “air” AAR hosts.

Anyone know what’s going on with Randi Rhoades? As much as her spitfire torques a lot of people off, her passion is missed.

i don’t watch msnbc much anyway

Ed Schultz is almost always polite with polite guests that disagree with him. He usually takes the time to understand where they’re coming from and tries to address the points of disagreement without being disagreeable.

He regularly brings on right wingers to talk with him and with guests like right winger Richard Viguerie he usually gives them a pretty free format (he rarely interrupts, and is never disagreeable). He’s trying to understand where they’re coming from and also inform his audience of where that person (and those they represent) is (are) coming from.

He doesn’t put up with jerks, though, and he can counter-argue on the fly even in hostile right wing environments like Fox News.

Schultz is passionate, entertaining, and informed. While the “entertaining” part has been key to his success, another part of it is that he speaks to a larger demographic than the average lefty, or at least the caricature of a lefty.

Schultz is genuinely talking to the average Jane and average Joe. He’s more “Joe the Plumber” than Samuel “Joe the unqualified plumber” Wurzelbacher ever was.

Considering that GE/MSNBC has three hours of a Republican politician talking, a third hour counterbalancing that would “fair,” and even better: profitable.

While entrepreneurial Ed Schultz is asking people to pay for his podcasts, he also has an old MP3 archive of some of his best stuff:
http://WeGotEd.com/archive

There are several MP3 interviews with Barack Obama and one of Al Gore. He’s also got the MP3′s of his “Town Hall Meetings,” including the one he did from Alaska back in September.

I disagree with Big Eddie on a few things, but unlike right-wing radio Oxycontin blowhards he invites opposing views which challenge his own.

Would that be a key difference between Big Ed and the entire spectrum of right wing radio hosts? I think so. Big Ed often cuts off callers who echo his own views, but holds those who do not agree during commercial breaks to make sure they can speak their piece.

Which is more admirable in your view, screening callers to prevent debate, or inviting people who do not agree with the host to air their opposing views and challenge his, and giving them all the time they need to make their point?