Notes on Pop Culture: Keaton's Memoir, 'The Descendants,' 'Boss' Rules & Meeting 'Morning Joe'

Diane Keaton’s Charming Memoir

Perhaps Diane Keaton’s Then Again, should be called a “mom-ior” instead of a memoir as Keaton decided that instead of simply writing about her life and loves (Allen, Beatty, Pacino among them), she’d write an autobiography in which she parallels her story with that of her housewife mother Dorothy Hall, someone whom Keaton called the most influential person in her life.

After I finished reading the moving and endearing book -- I was especially fond of Keaton’s honesty and self-effacement -- I wrote a column about it and Keaton's attachment to her mom.

One little nugget of trivia which I found cool: Keaton's parents nicknamed her "Di-Annie." Her given surname was Hall. Di-Annie Hall. Yes, Woody Allen based the flighty lead character of his Oscar winning film Annie Hall on Keaton, whom he’d dated, and some of the characters, including Grammy Hall (which is what Keaton called her father’s loan shark of a mother), were loosely based on Keaton’s family members.

After spending several hours languishing in Keaton's world -- and learning that she drives her kids to very early swimming practices while she sits in her car and waits for them -- I've developed a hankering to see Annie Hall again. I’m also curious about Reds, which I’ve never seen, as Keaton said she thoroughly despised her character when the film was shooting and only emotionally opened up to it during the “train station” scene.


Image credit: Fox Searchlight

The Descendants Asks How Well We Know Our Parents

In the same week in which I finished Aimee Bender’s quirky, cool novel The Particular Sadness of Lemon Cake -- where the protagonist discovers she can discern the feelings of the person who made or harvested her food by tasting it – I also laughed and sniffled my way through the new George Clooney film, The Descendants. When I exited the theater, I was surprised to discover similar themes in both the movie and the book I’d just read, hence my column which asked the question of whether we ever really know our parents, or our children for that matter.

In The Descendants, Clooney plays a distant husband with two kids, who learned, after his wife was critically injured and in a coma, that she’d been cheating on him. The film explores what happens when we open our eyes and really see what’s right in front of you and the fallout when you hide parts of yourself from the ones you love.

In the book, the lead character Rose, who is a child when the book begins, is horrified to discover by tasting the food they made that her mother is severely depressed, her father is dissatisfyingly withdrawn and her older brother is plagued with all manner of unhappy problems. This was knowledge Rose really wished she didn't have.

I didn’t wind up happening upon any unique answers to the question of whether you can really know anybody all that well, but I was thoroughly entertained and moved by both.

Boss Rules

Over on the TV blog to which I contribute – CliqueClack TV -- they recently had a poll asking readers to vote for their favorite new fall show. While I really like some of the top vote-getters like Homeland and Once Upon a Time (which I cover for CliqueClack TV), I made the argument that, despite the fact that Boss is on Starz, which artificially limits the number of viewers it has, it is the shining dark freshman show of the fall season.

After comparing Kelsey Grammer’s fictional Chicago Mayor Tom Kane to Tony Soprano, I wrote: "For a news and political junkie like myself, Boss has everything. It’s like The West Wing, only meaner, more sinister, more profane, violent and set in the gritty underbelly of Chicago politics. And if Grammer doesn’t win an Emmy for best actor in a drama, that’ll be a crime.”

Its first season has been stellar. If you have the chance to check it out, do.

Meeting Morning Joe

I’ve written here numerous times about my love of the MSNBC morning chat show Morning Joe. It’s on my TV every weekday morning, entertaining me, challenging me, angering me and informing me. I’m a fan of the fundamental organizing conceit of the show: To have rational, intellectual discussion about the important issues of the day without chopping everything down to soundbites and without demonizing one political side or the other. Both sides get a voice.

Thus when I attended the Massachusetts Conference for Women in Boston this week, where Morning Joe’s hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski gave the keynote address, and learned that they’d be meeting and greeting folks and signing books, I had to get in line.

They were very gracious and Joe Scarborough was incredulous when I told him that my kids watch Morning Joe along with me as they get ready for school and that my fifth grader has actually gone to school and had arguments with his classmates over tax policy. True story.

The photo quality is pretty cruddy – what do you want from a BlackBerry camera? – but the smiles were genuine.

Image credits: Amazon, Fox Searchlight, Amazon.

'Occupying' Our Sense of Right & Wrong: Calls for Modifying the U.S. Economic System

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The ugly scene in Oakland this week -- where police broke up an Occupy Oakland protest that resulted in the serious injury of an Iraq War vet -- I fear, is just the beginning. Is this scene – where officials violently cracked down on protesters (some of whom, a minority of the protesters, were inciting the police with their own violence) – going to replicate itself all over the nation in other disgruntled, makeshift tent cities?

As more and more Occupy Wall Street protests spring up -- newly emboldened by recent Congressional Budget Office numbers showing that over the past 30 years the top 1 percent of U.S. wage owners have seen their incomes rise by 275 percent as compared to 40 percent for middle income wage earners – and you consider that a recent with a New York Times/CBS poll found that 74 percent of Americans believe our country is on the wrong track, and you find that there’s an overall unsettled feeling out there, like the way the air feels right before a big storm, electric, with an edge of unpredictable danger and the meteorologists can only speculate about what's going to happen next.

While I was watching the new footage of the Oakland protests, I read Nicholas Kristof’s column in today’s New York Times about the merits of some of the Occupy Wall Street group’s arguments. And damn, was that piece powerful and persuasive. Some excerpts from the writer who billed himself “as passionate a believer in capitalism as anyone:”

“Capitalism is so successful an economic system partly because of an internal discipline that allows for loss and even bankruptcy. It’s the possibility of failure that creates the opportunity for triumph. Yet many of the major banks are too big to fail so they can privatize profits while socializing risk.”

Privatizing the profits while socializing the risk . . . I haven't heard anyone put the current economic situation that succinctly and that well.

Kristof also quoted the CEO of “one of the world’s largest money managers” as suggesting that what we need is to modify the nation’s economy, practice “'inclusive capitalism’ and embrace broad-based job creation while curbing excessive inequality.”

“You cannot be a good house in a rapidly deteriorating neighborhood,” the CEO told Kristof. “The credibility and the fair functioning of the neighborhood matter a great deal. Without that, the integrity of the capitalist system will weaken further.”

Then you listen to conservative Republican Joe Scarborough in the video above from today's Morning Joe, where he’s talking about a guy in his late 20s who worked for a hedge fund a half dozen years ago who complained to Scarborough that he was only making $2-3 million a year and was thinking of leaving his company so he could go to a boutique hedge fund where he’d get an even more lucrative salary. Noting that even CEOs who run their companies into the ground now receive multi-million-dollar golden parachutes, he said, “It is so skewed that it is perverse.”

Why yes, yes it is.

Notes on Politics: More on Bachmann's 'Newsweek' Photo, Scarborough Assesses U.S. Econ Crisis

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

More Backlash on the Loony Newsweek Bachmann Cover Photo

The folks at Newsweek have attempted to make excuses for why they thought it was appropriate to select a photo for its cover that makes a politician look like an escapee from a mental institution while bestowing upon her the moniker the “Queen of Rage.” However, given the many, many photos from which they had to choose, the one they selected is clearly designed to make GOP presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann look unhinged, not to reflect her “intensity” as the Newsweek folks bogusly claimed.

That's why the former journalism instructor in me adored the rebuttal by Tommy Christopher in Mediaite where he took the publication to task and calling “bull&%$#” on the rationale its staff have offered.

“In three years of covering the White House, I have accumulated hundreds of rapid-fire shots of President Obama, for example, and there are lots of them that freeze odd-looking moments (a cough, a blink) that look jarring out of context,” Christopher wrote. “I’m sure all news photographs do. That’s why they take so many shots, so they (or their editors) can select the one that best conveys the truth of the moment.”

“Whatever the intent of the Newsweek cover, it was a specific choice, not some process of elimination,” Christopher continued. “The same is true of the outtakes [that Newsweek put on its web site], all of which have been selected from dozens of nearly-identical, but subtly different, shots.”

Additionally, I was very heartened to learn that the National Organization for Women has weighed in on the matter as well, calling the cover “sexist.” (They typically leave conservative women high and dry.

“The main reason why we would stand up for Michele Bachmann and defend her against these kind) of misogynistic attacks is we want women to run for office,” the president of NOW, Terry O’Neill told The Daily Caller. “Of course my job is to defeat Michele Bachmann and I intend to do so. But good women will not run for office if Newsweek magazine can do this to such a prominent politician and get away with it.”

‘This is Gordon Gekko’s America.’

Conservative pundit and former congressman Joe Scarborough wrote a scathing commentary for Politico, decrying how the yawning gap between those on the middle and low ends of the economic scale and those at the very top is plunging a knife through the beating heart that is what's left of the American dream. Putting the current horrendous string of economic bad news into historic context, the Morning Joe co-host said:

“Since 1970, executive pay has increased 430 percent while workers’ wages have crept up at a pace that barely kept up with inflation. The average executive’s pay has jumped over that time period to 158 times that of the average worker’s pay in those companies. It’s no wonder that the top 0.1 percent of income earners get richer by the day while millions of Americans are seeing their situations get worse.”

“This is not John Wayne’s America,” Scarborough lamented. “This is Gordon Gekko’s America. In fact, I’m pretty sure that if the Duke faced one of these CEOs in a John Ford film, he’d kick some ass and force the leech to start treating workers fair. And you can bet that my Republican father would be cheering him on from the front row of the theater.”

And as I read Michael Goldfarb’s GlobalPost piece in Salon today about the sudden, horrifically violent riots in London -- with Goldfarb suggesting that “youth unemployment” is a chief “underlying cause of the rioting,” adding that “as the government’s austerity measures begin to bite here, it’s not likely to get better any time soon” -- I start to worry. Throw in a diminished U.S. credit rating, a stock market with drops powerful enough to give the nation collective motion sickness, and a former Republican congressman, who entered Congress as part of the Contract with America class of lawmakers, calling this a “greed is good” America, and I'm more than a little unnerved.

Centrist Political Group Trying to Promote Civil Bipartisanship, But Will It Work?

Okay, so it’s got a pretty lame name, this new bipartisan group, No Labels, which is calling for D.C. politicians to stop insisting that every issue be seen strictly through a partisan lens and demands that lawmakers put aside their fierce political cynicism in order to seek consensus, all the while trying to be a tad civil to one another, as opposed to demonizing and screaming at one another.

All of these goals sound so eminently reasonable, in the way that Jon Stewart’s Rally for Sanity sounded reasonable. Who WOULDN’T want to seek out the middle ground of issues, where most Americans find themselves, as opposed to the noisy political edges which suck up all the oxygen and media coverage. (It’s a lot more fun for the media to cover nastiness and sniping from either side of the political aisle -- particularly when they hurl insults at one another, throw up roadblocks and offer poison pill amendments to bills -- than it is to cover the moderates in either party ‘cause they're not turning red and calling the people who don't think like them soulless monsters.) The way things operate nowadays, there’s nothing to be gained by staking out a moderate position on anything, not when the parties are currently doing business with a “you’re either with us or against us” mentality.

Which is why something like this “No Labels” group (seriously wish they’d come up with a better, snappier name) -- comprised of people who don’t lambaste a Republican who works with Democrats or who doesn’t tow the party line as a RINO (and the same for a Dem who works with Republicans) -- seems so promising, at least to those of us who aren’t on the political extremes and who don’t see it is as a mortal sin to agree with (or seek out agreement) with someone from another political party.

Here’s an excerpt from this organization’s “declaration:”

“We are not labels – we are people.

We care deeply about our country.

We are frustrated and concerned about the tone of politics.

We are passionate about addressing America’s challenges.

We are Democrats, Republicans and Independents.

Most importantly, we are Americans.

We believe hyper-partisanship is destroying our politics and paralyzing our ability to govern.

We may disagree on issues, but we do so with civility and mutual respect.

We believe in the vital civil center — a place where ideas are judged on their merits.

. . . And yet, we have a crisis of governance – A crisis that compels us to work together to move America forward.

We must put our labels aside, and put the issues and what’s best for the nation first.”

Hmm. What to make of this? Idealistic for sure, Frank Capra/Mr. Smith Goes to Washington idealistic. But will it, can it become a bona fide “movement” with real clout with lawmakers? Can it make a difference?

The Huffington Post reported that No Labels will have its first, splashy launch event on Dec. 13 at Columbia University where several prominent current and former pols will discuss the virtues of political civility and moderation, including Joe Scarborough, the Republican former congressman and current host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe. His co-host, Mika Brzezinski, who leans toward the Democratic side of things, will moderate the panel.

Among the other scheduled launch party participants Huffington Post named included: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, Independent (formerly Democratic) Senator Joe Lieberman, former Republican Rep. Tom Davis, Republican Rep. Chris Shays, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former Republican Gov. Christie Todd Whitman.

Think something like this has a shot of altering the dialogue in D.C., of promoting bipartisanship and actually getting stuff done or is it, to quote another Capra film, just “sentimental hogwash?”

Image credit: No Labels.

'Mad Men' Reviews, 'Morning Joe' Cast as 'Mad Men,' Plus Hamm's Early Acting Gigs

Mad Men season three premiere reviews are starting to roll in -- for those lucky folks who got advanced media screeners -- and the reviews appear to be really good, as good as I expected they'd be. Which only means my expectations for Sunday night's episode are now, oh, I don't know . . . sky high?

From the New York Times, Alessandra Stanley: "Even more than in the first two years, this new season, which begins on Sunday on AMC, stresses the less amusing side of that innocence, leading viewers to look back, aghast at, and enthralled by, a world so familiar and so primitive. Characters on Mad Men struggle in shame and secrecy with the very things that today are openly, incessantly boasted and blogged about: humble roots, broken homes, homosexuality, unwed motherhood, caring for senile parents."

Boston Globe, Matthew Gilbert: "Sunday's hour is, like many episodes of Mad Men, quiet on the surface. There are pauses in conversation, and almost no soundtrack music fills the silences and emotional vacancies. And yet the subject matter of this show shouts at you the more you think about it, the more the characters don't say what you know they are feeling. In even the smallest details -- watch how a stick pin travels through the episode -- Mad Men remains TV at its most artful. Like Don Draper, it's beautiful, stealthy, trouble, and, above all, addictive."

Entertainment Weekly, Ken Tucker (who gave the episode an A-): "The third-season premiere of Mad Men is chock-full of revelations about familiar characters and fresh details about newly introduced ones, as well as the sort of specifics and symbolism that creator Matthew Weiner layers into every episode like a top Top Chef. As with so much about Mad Men, some of it is overheated but never half-baked, and the opening hour rises like a nearly flawless souffle of sex and salesmanship." (I'm in love with that phrase, "flawless souffle of sex and salesmanship." Wish I'd come up with it.)

Los Angeles Times, Robert Lloyd: "That nothing much seems to be happening -- and happening slowly at that, to the frustration of some viewers -- means that small moments play large; it's television as Japanese tea ceremony. Characters are built gradually through action, not declaration, and that action might stray far from what is eventually revealed as the main point. There are those who find this all precious beyond belief -- with an average of only 1.8 million viewers an episode last season, this is a series that would not survive at all on broadcast television -- but I find it quite beautiful more often than not."

Meanwhile, people are having a bit of fun with all of this Mad Men mania leading up to the season three premiere, in particular, the folks at Mediaite who took the crew from MSNBC's Morning Joe and assigned them roles on Mad Men, casting the show's namesake, Joe Scarborough as Don Draper, Mika Brzezinski as Joan Holloway and Willie Geist as the slimy Pete Campbell. Of Scarborough, writers Rachel Sklar and Glynnis MacNicol observed:

"Scarborough, a former Congressman, is certainly no stranger to selling, nor does he lack for Draper-esque confidence. We've noticed he's traded in his zipper sweatshirts for dark suits of late, but that's not all it is -- of any character on Morning Joe, he's the one we can most easily see sitting in a darkened bar with a glass of something amber at his side. Besides, couldn't his book [The Last Best Hope: Restoring Conservatism and America's Promise] on the GOP just as easily have been called Meditations on an Emergency?"

Over on BuzzFeed, they must've taken a little visit to IMDB to look up Jon Hamm's acting roles and listed his top six acting gigs, including the time he was Lorelai Gilmore's most boring date ever on the Gilmore Girls and when he was a firefighter on Providence before the days of Denis Leary as an alcoholic firefighter with a death wish.

Image credit: Frank Ockenfels/AMC.

Suburban Mom's Political Fix: Is It Sexist to Question Sotomayor's Judicial Temperament?

That was the question raised on MSNBC's Morning Joe this AM: Whether South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham would've asked a male Supreme Court nominee about his reputed tough demeanor in the courtroom and then inquire if the nominee had "a temperament problem."

Co-hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough asked author and former Clinton spokeswoman Dee Dee Myers -- she wrote Why Women Should Rule the World -- about whether a double-standard was at work with Sotomayor's questioning. After noting that of the 111 Supreme Court judges ever to hold office, only two have been female, Myers discussed the importance of getting more women to serve on the highest court in the land:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Below you'll find the video of Graham's confirmation hearing questioning so you can make your own call on the matter. Citing the comments of anonymous lawyers who called Sotomayor "a terror on the bench," "abuses lawyers" and is "a bit of a bully," Graham said, "I never liked appearing before a judge that I thought was a bully . . . Do you think you have a temperament problem?"



Is this a case of holding strong, tough women -- who insist that those around them exhibit the same level of excellence as they do -- to a different standard than we do to men? The classic "she's a b*&%$" while he's a striving, high-powered executive with smarts?

UPDATE: Salon's Broadsheet blog puts an interesting twist on the "temperament" question, pointing out two examples -- questions about John McCain and John Bolton's temperaments -- which say that simply raising the issue of a hot temper doesn't necessarily make the questioning sexist.

The web site Feministing quoted a former Yale Law School dean who looked into rumors about Sotomayor being "overly aggressive" on the Court of Appeals and said he didn't find any substantial difference between her questioning of attorneys and male judges' inquiries.

Suburban Mom's Political Fix: All Media Smackdown Edition, NYT/Daily Show, Stewart/Scarborough, Letterman/Palin

NYT Gets Slammed on Daily Show

Did the New York Times staffers who agreed to participate in a recent Daily Show segment about the future of the dying newspaper industry realize that the Daily Show is all about SATIRE? Did they not expect wacky questions? Sharp hey-dude-you're-so-toast darts to be thrown their way?

It doesn't appear as though those thoughts crossed their minds when they decided to partake in the piece. Judge for yourself by watching the segment below, a scathing portrait of out-of-touch editors, though Executive Editor Bill Keller's comment about how the Huffington Post can't and doesn't have bureaus in far-flung and dangerous locales because it doesn't have the money to do so was interesting, but only to a limited degree because you know what, the NYT shouldn't be bragging about having more money than anyone else right now, particularly when they're threatening to shutter the Boston Globe (which already eliminated a lot of its foreign bureaus because of costs) because of red ink. That last joke, about what's black and white and red all over: Killer. (Link to the video here):

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
End Times
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Newt Gingrich Unedited Interview

Stewart and Scarborough Go Mano-a-Mano . . . Through Their TV Shows

I've been monitoring this (manufactured?) controversy between the Daily Show's Jon Stewart and Morning Joe's Joe Scarborough. (For the record, I'm a fan of both guys and their shows.) In a nutshell, Morning Joe recently decided to team up with Starbucks as a sponsor, seeing as though the anchors, Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski are conspicuous consumers of Starbucks products during their news casts. This made them big, fat, irresistible targets for spoofing. Cue: Stewart. This resulted in the anchors going back and forth was various and sundry sniping.

Yesterday, in discussing Stewart, Scarborough called him an angry man and suggested he had a Napoleon complex. Stewart responded last night by calling Scarborough "watered down and stupid" and then did a skit which I'd venture to say was funnier in the writers' room than in its execution. Stewart brought out all manner of faux-branded coffee products -- like a box of "Taster's Choice" tissues -- had mascara running down his face while he pretended to cry, fled the stage, asking for his Napoleon hat and coat as he climbed on top of a small horse. When he was "talked back" into returning to the stage, he did so shouting, "Rage on! Rage on!" (Link to the video here.)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Jon's Napoleonic Complex
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Newt Gingrich Unedited Interview

Did Letterman Go Too Far?

That's the question du jour regarding Letterman's jokes about Sarah Palin's recent appearance at a New York Yankees game, where she brought her 14-year-old daughter along with her. Letterman made jokes about a Palin daughter, including about A-Rod knocking up a Palin daughter during the game, and about keeping a Palin daughter away from disgraced former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. Why do I keep saying, "a Palin daughter?" Because the 14-year-old daughter was the one in New York at the game with her mom but, apparently, Letterman thought it was the 18-year-old daughter who recently had a baby, the one who was on the cover of People Magazine with her infant. Last night, Letterman explicitly said that he wasn't talking about the 14-year-old. He said he was talking about the 18-year-old. But that's not exactly how it came across when he told the jokes.

Palin got ticked. Told him off indirectly by spouting off to journalists and issuing a statement, which resulted in Letterman issuing a caustic clarification last night which, I guess in a comedian's world, constitutes an apology of some sort. During Morning Joe this morning and later on The View, the question was raised by Brzezinski and by Elisabeth Hasselbeck as to whether Letterman would've gone after Palin's teenaged kids if she were a Democrat instead of a very conservative Republican. Barbara Walters added during The View's discussion that politicians' children should be off the table as far as lampooning goes, unlike panelist Joy Behar who said that because the Palins "traipsed" her pregnant daughter out in public, the family deserves what it gets. (See The View debate here.)



UPDATE: While listening to various folks discuss the Letterman/Palin situation this afternoon, I heard a local radio commentator make an interesting analogy: Invoking the suspension of MSNBC's David Shuster in 2008 after he suggested that twentysomething Chelsea Clinton was being "pimped out" by her mother as she went out on the campaign trail talking up Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy, the commentator asked why Shuster was suspended for making a comment about an adult and used the words "I apologize," while some folks are brushing off Letterman's comments about a 14-year-old daughter of a Republican vice presidential nominee.

Suburban Mom's Political Fix: 'Tis Gettin' Ugly in Cable TV Newsland, NBC vs Stewart

Let me first say this: I'm a big fan of Morning Joe. Love the camaraderie between Joe and Mika. Love the in-depth political conversations in which they engage that sometimes sound like discussions you might overhear in a bar at 12:20 in the morning. I'm a bigggg fan.

Last week, I laughed my fanny off at Jon Stewart's lambasting of CNBC -- Rick Santelli in particular -- for what Stewart saw as aggressive market cheerleading, urging people to buy stocks from companies that, not too long after the buy recommendations were made, collapsed.

When I heard Joe Scarborough yesterday morning talking about Stewart with CNBC's Jim Cramer (Joe felt Stewart was unfairly targeting his CNBC colleagues and cherry-picking prognostications just to make them look foolish), I knew it would get ugly. Cramer, who also appeared on the Today Show that morning, wasn't pleased with Stewart either.

Which, of course, only prodded Stewart to attack anew, and brilliantly, I might add, particularly the part at the end of the segment below (link here) where he had Dora the Explorer weighed in on the war between cable network personalities while Dora's pet monkey Boots offered to throw feces at Joe and Cramer.

Tangential question: Why is Jon Stewart doing the job that the news media should be doing?

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Basic Cable Personality Clash Skirmish '09

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Economic Crisis

The Baby, the TV Anchor and the Senator

When I first saw a still image of MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski, co-host of the AM political chat show Morning Joe, interviewing Virginia Senator Jim Webb about the stimulus package while holding a baby on her lap (the executive producer's infant NOT hers), I thought:

"That's what I looked like when I interviewed people on the phone for articles from my home office when my kids were babies, only the interviewees couldn't see that I was holding a baby. And I made liberal use of the 'mute' button."

However it's extremely unusual -- outside of lifestyle shows, like The View -- to see a news/commentary anchorperson hold an infant on the air, especially while interviewing someone like a U.S. senator. Luckily, the baby never cried. Brzezinski and the other MSNBC panelists asked intelligent questions. The senator didn't appear bothered, distracted or off message. So as long as the baby didn't fuss, I didn't necessarily see the problem with the baby being there, even though it was an odd sight. (For the record, none of my babies would've EVER sat so quietly for as long as that baby did.)

Meanwhile a slew of commenters over on the Huffington Post are eviscerating Brzeznski for being unprofessional and for insulting the senator by having the baby on her lap, despite the fact that Morning Joe has always been a very loose and informal program. Just look at how its namesake, Joe Scarborough, is dressed; he isn't wearing a tie or a jacket and you can see he's wearing a white T beneath his shirt. The program often reminds me of being at a bar and having a couple of drinks with really smart friends and robustly talking politics at length, with a little bit of Red Sox baseball tossed in for good measure. Only Morning Joe takes place in the morning, around cups of coffee and in front of national television cameras.

See for yourself. What do you think of this interview? Weird? Unprofessional? Much ado about nothing?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy