Sarah Palin. Mike Huckabee. Newt Gingrich.  Fox News Channel's “The O'Reilly Factor”  Sarah Palin, former vice presidential candidate, now a Fox analyst.  Librado Romero, via The New York Times  Harold Ford, left, on MSNBC with Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough.  Today, that is a list of paid Fox News political analysts. Two years from now, it could be a list of Republican presidential candidates.  A former Fox analyst, Angela McGlowan, entered a House race in Mississippi last week. Over at MSNBC, Harold E. Ford Jr. was on the payroll until a few weeks ago, when he told his boss that he was seriously contemplating a run for the Senate from New York. TV names are also constantly being run through the candidate rumor mill. There is a “Draft Larry Kudlow” movement. There is also talk of a political bid by Lou Dobbs, who left CNN last fall.  “It does seem amazing how many are being either discussed as candidates, rumored as candidates, or are actually doing it,” said Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC.  Television and politics have always been intertwined, but never to this degree, TV executives and journalism professionals say. It would seem that the so-called revolving door for political operatives has been extended to the politicians themselves, at a time when cable news is more politically charged than ever.  To viewers, it seems to be an endless televised political campaign, with former, and possibly future, politicians biding their time giving sound-bite versions of stump speeches. (Mr. Huckabee’s recap of President Obama’s State of the Union: “rudderless confusion.” Ms. Palin’s perception of Mr. Obama’s counterterrorism strategy: “lackadaisical.”)  The benefit for the part-time, but highly paid, pundits is clear: it increases their visibility. “It makes sense for candidates to seek out positions in niche cable, because it is a direct pipeline to voters,” said Jonathan Wald, a former senior vice president at CNBC and an adjunct professor at Columbia’s journalism school. “It’s an automatic affinity group.”  The benefit to the viewers is less clear. Some experts say the arrangements can cloud the objectivity of the news organizations.  “As long as they are still newsmakers, there is a strong potential for conflict,” said Andy Schotz, the chairman of the ethics committee for the Society of Professional Journalists. At the very least, it can amount to an advantage for the analysts, and create a perception of favoritism.  “It’s a little awkward,” said David Bohrman, the Washington bureau chief for CNN. The networks that employ the analysts “probably ought to realize that they’re being taken advantage of a little bit,” because some of the people are “posturing for election advantage,” he said.  None of the analysts in CNN’s stable are likely to run for office in 2010 or 2012, and the same is generally true for the broadcast networks. But MSNBC until recently had Mr. Ford on the payroll, and Fox News has a veritable bullpen of potential conservative candidates.  TV executives say they sign political heavyweights (and, less often, legal experts and historians) to contracts to make them easier to book and keep them off rivals’ programs. “It’s a competitive issue,” Mr. Griffin said.  Well-known analysts like Ms. Palin can also lead to higher viewership for the channels, something that Fox, a unit of the News Corporation, surely expected when it hired her last month. “Many of these niche channels long ago cast aside the usual journalistic disinterest,” Mr. Wald said. “They have a specific point of view, thus making it comfortable to both cover and employ these politicians.”  Asked to recall people who have crossed back and forth between television and campaigning in previous years, executives say only one big name comes to mind, Pat Buchanan, who was a co-host of CNN’s “Crossfire” between his failed Republican presidential bids in the 1990s. But prospective candidates have long recognized the value of media attention. Ronald Reagan recorded radio commentaries and wrote newspaper columns in the years between his California governorship and the 1980 presidential race.  Television anchors have flirted with Congressional bids in recent election cycles, almost immediately prompting questions about conflicts of interest.  When Mr. Kudlow was said to be considering a run for Senate in Connecticut last year, the liberal media watchdog group Media Matters fired off a letter to CNBC demanding clarity about his on- and off-air roles. “As a private citizen, Mr. Kudlow has a right to explore a run for public office, but using his platform as a CNBC host to further his political ambitions jeopardizes the integrity of your network,” the letter stated.  Mr. Kudlow soon declared on television that he would not run. Also last year, Chris Matthews chose to stay at MSNBC rather than run for the Senate from Pennsylvania, but not before similar complaints were filed.  “If you’re seriously examining a run for office,” Mr. Griffin said, “you can’t host a show or be a general analyst.”  Mr. Matthews seemed to be examining the Senate seat seriously, but Mr. Griffin later clarified that he was referring to people who take an official step toward running, by forming an exploratory committee, for instance.
With some analysts having held elected office and others eying Washington, questions have been raised about their TV commentary turning into campaigning.