Back to normal at MSNBC, which is to say, dysfunctional

While some are asking what "The Daily Show" will do now that we have entered the post-Bush era, the folks over at NBC News have already got their game plan mapped out: They're going to keep kneecapping each other.

This morning, Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews had their first post-election exchange on "Morning Joe," and it kinda reminded me of some of the tension-filled ones that became such popular web clips during the campaign. That, combined with a new insider quote comparing Rachel Maddow to Ashleigh Banfield -- no, really -- suggests that NBC will be supplying some of the drama in a No-Drama Administration.

Clip's below.

Things got off to a bad start as Scarborough rolled over Matthews' first attempt to answer a question. When Joe asked what Rep. Rahm Emanuel's motives might be in not immediately accepting the job offer of chief of staff, Chris blurted out, "I don't question motive ... it's the worst thing you can do in journalism." I'm not sure even Chris buys that -- I would think reporting nonexistent WMD in Iraq might be a bigger sin -- but Joe let it go, kind of, until Matthews followed that up with an even bigger whopper that reminded me of Dan Rather's "just tell me where" declaration during his post-9/11 appearance on David Letterman's show.

CHRIS: I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work.

JOE: (incredulous) Your job as a journalist is to make this presidency work.

CHRIS: And to make this work successfully. This country needs a successful presidency more than anything right now. ...

MIKA: Uhhh, well, I'm a little confused what the job is here, because we all want to make things work, but I'm not sure it's our job ...

CHRIS: How can you not root for the success of a new president?

MIKA: Um, you know what? I just think it's going to be important to ask questions. (CHRIS smiles, suggesting he might be pulling everyone's leg here, but you never know)

JOE: As Americans, Chris Matthews, we're all rooting for the success of Barack Obama. America's at a perilous time. But you just talked about being a journalist and your job as a journalist is not to question motives and then two seconds later you said your job was to make this presidency a success.

CHRIS: Yeah.

JOE: I think that's curious. ... We just don't think it's our job to make this any more than it was our job than to ensure the Iraq War has a successful launch.

Yow. The clip cuts off before Chuck's Todd's priceless reaction that said: Leave me out of this!

Of course, Chuck Todd is going to be in the middle of an internal s---storm right away himself. Already, the bored Washington press corps is playing that parlor game of who will succeed Tim Russert as host of "Meet the Press." (Tom Brokaw said he would take Russert's job only through the election.) Chuck Todd has already been the source of one unflattering comment by an NBC insider who told a reporter -- anonymously, of course -- that he didn't "break through the glass" enough for his liking.

The reality is that you gotta think a little outside the box to name Chuck Todd the guy in charge of "Meet the Press." I think it would be a pretty bold move by NBC and the right one, if Beltway chat shows are to have a future. Chuck Todd would be the first moderator of such a program from my post-boom generation. His style is generationally different from the solid old warhorses currently running Sunday morning newsmaker shows. He may be perceived as not bare-knuckles enough, the way George Stephanopoulos was at first. As I say, I think it'd be the right move, but there always seems to be somebody inside NBC who's unhappy with any move the news division makes.

And then there's Rachel Maddow. Now, before I quote this, let me just say consider the source: a little-known journalist writing for PageSix Magazine, owned by the corporate sister of the Fox News Channel. It's a gossipy little piece that mostly retreads the famous on-air blowups during DNC week at MSNBC. But deep inside it there's this:

Some compare the network's love of Maddow to the flurry of excitement over Ashleigh Banfield, who was given the ax in '04 after bashing the network's coverage of the war in Iraq. "They constantly try to create another media darling," says an insider. (via TVNewser)

Nice. Not misogynist at all. Because as we all know, Rachel Maddow and Ashleigh Banfield are exactly alike. They both have had shows on MSNBC. And they both have vajayjays.

Look, Banfield seems smart enough, but on-air stardom was forced upon her and she had little support from MSNBC in tailoring a show to her talents. Maddow, on the other hand, started as a guest on Tucker Carlson's show, became a reliable talking head for Keith Olbermann, increased her air time at MSNBC gradually, added David Gregory's panel show to her list -- meanwhile she was holding down a national daily radio program, always good prep for a nightly TV show -- filled in for Olbermann (as KO has attested, no substitute ever worked as hard to get it right) and then, and only then, did she get the job. Her show is getting impressive cable numbers in the 25-54 demo, and no wonder: It fits her talents (geeky, plays well with guests), she has a great lead-in and lead-out and she's very, very watchable.

Which is why she is a rising star on cable ... and whoever gave that quote to the competition isn't.