and pursuant to that, ends up seeming anti.

Every single fucking day for months. Followed up by zero journalism.

For me, though, it's mostly because she has passed her expiration date. People age at different rates, but she is showing her age in how she struggles to form sentences, loses track of what the teleprompter is telling her, and mumbles and fumbles through interviews.

She's worse than Chris Matthews, and he's getting pretty bad at the same problem. Listening to those two stumble their way through an hour show can be tiresome, TBS.

...bring up Hillary's emails when the topic at hand was completely unrelated. She did this repeatedly. It got to a point where I wasn't sure she was capable of talking about anything else. I have no use for Greenspan's "liberal" spouse.

Maybe she is, but so are other people who are more pleasant to listen to.

Mitchell was a “but her emails” nightmare throughout the 2016 campaign to the point where she did not appear impartial on any level. I can’t even listen to her - she can barely get a sentence out of her mouth that’s coherent.

I can hardly watch her. She just seems like it's time to retire. Not thrilled she'll be a debate moderator

She stumbles and stammers over words—she has trouble finding the words she wants to say. This happens as we age. Lord knows it's happened to me too. That's why I'd turn down NBC if they asked me to replace her.

Time for her to retire from live TV.

campaign she constantly on-air talked about: "But what about her emails?"

Queen of both sidesism. Normalized Trump villified Clinton. 'Nobody likes either candidate they are both the same.'

But she is classified as one by the corporate media. This would be the same corporate media who classify Susan Collins a "moderate".

HINT:.....kind of like .....John N Mitchel......... .....Attorney for Richard Nixon.....................

.......................hard to believe but some youngsters may not know that name.....

"Mitchell" is a common name, so I never thought it was anything more than coincidence. Thanks for the clue.

.

There is nothing "liberal" there.

Her breathless reporting on HRC's emails was ridiculous. I like to tweet at her every so often asking where the next installment is.

...how Hillary "lost" because voters just didn't like her. After awhile it just came to seem so personal. I wanted to shake the woman and ask: "For gods' sake, what did Hillary do to you--spit in your coffee?"

Andrea's entitled to her own opinion, but she's not entitled to her own facts. Bothsiderism is not the same as even-handed reporting of facts.

Other than that, Andrea Mitchell is the doyenne of female tv reporters and a role model for a generation of young women trying to get into the business. The reason she's so old now is because she was a pioneer and survived. So there's that.

Obsessed about (emails) particular right wing talking points (email) even though they have (emails) been thoroughly debunked (email).

I can't think of a particular example at the moment but give me a minute and I will.

Alan Greenspan, Ayn Rand fan extraordinaire

The optics are always especially bad when a Democrat with the last name of Clinton, does, says or just breaths.

Her use of optics is always to paint them as negative when any Democrat says or does something the slightest bit outspoken.

She never talks about the negative optics for Republicans when they do or say something awful.

Ditto for Chris Matthews, Brian Williams, Chuck Todd, maybe a few others....I'm all like "meh" to all of them. Don't really like them but don't understand why people get so worked up against them, either.

But I’m not one who thinks we should refuse to hear them. I am often disappointed at how often they have the same crazy RWers on, I think for effect, but her no more than most.

She’s married to Greenspan but hey, I don’t begrudge anyone loving who they love.

She’s not much my cuppa, true, but she’s worked to get there and I’m not askeered of what she says or will ask at the debate.

but moistly because of her biased anti Democratic Party reporting

But then I don't have cable so I only hear their drivel second-hand here at DU and elsewhere. She's another enabler and normalizer of Republican criminality every bit as much as Chuck Todd. They would consider themselves different from the straight-up propaganda slingers at FOX, but in my mind they're not really different at all. Not to single her out as any worse than the rest of the field, but it is what it is.