As RedState reported many months prior to the announcement, Jen Psaki now has a new MSNBC show in which she attempts to translate her briefing room rants into viable television. To be frank, it’s not going well.

On Sunday evening, she sat in front of the teleprompter and attacked Ron DeSantis over his views on Ukraine. What followed was a performance you’d expect from a Twitter account that ends in a bunch of numbers. The certainty with which Psaki supposes that which she’s so clearly uncertain of is hilarious.

I'm sorry, is she trying to make a point or guiding an airplane to its gate?

— Zaggs (@Zaggs) March 27, 2023

That above response is right. Someone should really give Psaki lessons on how to use her hands while giving a cable news monologue. Do you see Tucker Carlson flailing about like he’s an inflatable tube balloon? Of course, he doesn’t because that’s distracting. A television set is not the same as giving a public speech behind a podium, and even then, excess arm usage is discouraged.

But that’s not what I’m really pointing out in that video, though. What struck me the most is how unprepared she was to deliver her talking points which so obviously make no sense. Apparently, she thinks it’s hypocritical to believe that Putin is a war criminal while also asserting that America’s borders are more important than Ukraine’s borders?

How are those two things in contention? I’ve been somewhere in the middle regarding the war in Ukraine, believing that Russia is at fault and should be pushed back on but also believing that there should be strategic limits to what support we offer (i.e. it’s not our job to help Ukraine retake areas that have been gone since 2014). In holding that view, I can say Putin is a dictator while at the same time saying American interests are preeminent in any foreign policy discussion. That does not make me a hypocrite. It makes me a person capable of nuanced thought. Psaki should try it sometime.

You can watch the rest of the clip if you dare, but I’d shudder to think what the ratings on this dumpster fire are. I’d assume they aren’t very good given MSNBC’s recent history, and there’s no part of Psaki’s presence that makes me think she’s going to be drawing in new viewers.

The former press secretary’s rise to MSNBC host is yet another example of a beltway acolyte on the far left who gets promoted specifically because of what position they held prior and what identity boxes they check. Past performance doesn’t even factor into these decisions. It’s all about notoriety and toeing the line. MSNBC saw Psaki avoiding questions and giving binder-read answers in press briefings and for some reason thought, “you know, we should give that woman a national television show.”

To be sure, conservative outlets aren’t blameless in this either. I’ve seen plenty of unimpressive people end up on Fox News over the years because they held an administration position or check an identity box. But here’s a crazy idea. How about just hiring hosts based on their ability to actually connect with viewers?