She's good:
So there are all these liberals in the country. Probably if you took a smart liberal who performs well on television and made her the host of a TV show, those liberals would watch that show. Just a theory.
« Slate Revisited | Main | War Spending »
Rachel Maddow
01 Aug 2008 12:09 pm
Comments (72)
Yeah, what's MSNBC waiting for? Except for her, that David Gregory show is awful.
Yeah, she's good, but frankly, it doesn't take much to bring out Pat's inner racist. You can tell he is horrified at the thought of a black president. Ha!
I love her! She would do great on tv as long as her show was not set up like Crossfire. Too many of those. She would do better as a Charlie Rose type of format, I think imho. She does great filling in for KO as well.
Dear MSNBC,
We would watch her show.
We would buy products that underwrite her show.
We would comment on her show in the blogosphere.
We would talk about her show @ the watercooler.
Also: There are a lot of us.
What more do you want?
I think they cut something out of that clip, too. I distinctly remember she added 2 more examples of McCain's presumptuousness besides him using "President McCain" in an ad:
+ McCain gives "Weekly Radio Addresses" just like... a President!
+ and something else that slips my mind now, durnit.
Not sure why the would have cut out examples of McCain not being humble, but they're not in the clip as I saw it on air.
But she has nothing but the highest praise for Chris Matthews. What's up with that?
man i love her.
and notice how DLC puke Ford, himself a former target or not-so-subtle racial innuendo, just sat there and watched, willing to cede the argument to Republicans. a perfect example of the kind of liberal figure the media has been inundated with and that should be replaced by people like Maddow.
Simle answers to simple questions: Why doesn't RM have her own show: She's lezzie, left & articulate. SCLM-MSNBC won't go there; Olbermann only survives because he got big enuf ratings quicker than MSNBC could pull the trigger.
For the rec: if my "lezzie" comments seems harsh, it ain't me, it's me imaging the brass at MSNBC - - I dig RM the most!
Simple answers to simple questions: Why doesn't RM have her own show?: She's lezzie, left & articulate. SCLM-MSNBC won't go there; Olbermann only survives because he got big enuf ratings quicker than MSNBC could pull the trigger.
For the rec: if my "lezzie" comments seems harsh, it ain't me, it's me imagining the brass at MSNBC - - I dig RM the most!
Particularly good timing getting in that last word before the break. To me that's the most underrated thing about arguing on TV is if you get the last line in before the moderator has to cut to a break.
Kudos.
Always love it when Rachel Maddow is on Gregory's or Olbermann's show. C'mon MSNBC, promote her already.
I like her too, and I think her show following Keith's would be wonderful. I don't watch Countdown too often because It's just one hour and my life is too crazy to even try to hit such a small sweet spot. Having a two hour target would probably make it more likely that I would actually try to make it. Not sure if that makes sense to anyone else.
That said, why oh why did she have to call Pat a racist? She had that argument won. Why take the low road? Given that we are running with a non-white candidate, I think we need to bury these accusations of racism until October. There are precious few undecided votes to be had and I bet none can be swayed by going around calling people racist.
Love Rachel Maddow. She's one of the few sane voices left on cable.
As for Buchanan: At the risk of denigrating old women (I am one, for the record), he's become a little old bitty -- increasingly shrill and scared-to-death of the boogeyman under his bed. Everytime I see his Sharpei-puss come on the screen now, I switch the channel to "Clean House." If I have to watch dumb people wallowing in their own trash, at least it doesn't have to be on "news" shows.
Love Rachel Maddow. She's one of the few sane voices left on cable.
As for Buchanan: At the risk of denigrating old women (I am one, for the record), he's become a little old bitty -- increasingly shrill and scared-to-death of the boogeyman under his bed. Everytime I see his Sharpei-puss come on the screen now, I switch the channel to "Clean House." If I have to watch dumb people wallowing in their own trash, at least it doesn't have to be on "news" shows.
Love Rachel Maddow. She's one of the few sane voices left on cable.
As for Buchanan: At the risk of denigrating old women (I am one, for the record), he's become a little old bitty -- increasingly shrill and scared-to-death of the boogeyman under his bed. Everytime I see his Sharpei-puss come on the screen now, I switch the channel to "Clean House." If I have to watch dumb people wallowing in their own trash, at least it doesn't have to be on "news" shows.
No, Sebsi, that doesn't make sense. But I'd love to hear you explain it a bit more. I Tivo Countdown and breeze through it in about 30 minutes, skipping over segments that have either a)been beaten to death, or b)are there for filler.
She could use smaller words: hubris and humble in the same sentence are hard to parse.
That said, why oh why did she have to call Pat a racist? She had that argument won. Why take the low road? Given that we are running with a non-white candidate, I think we need to bury these accusations of racism until October. There are precious few undecided votes to be had and I bet none can be swayed by going around calling people racist.Because if someone is being a racist swine on national TV and you don't call them out for being a racist swine then you help to make it alright for others to be racist swine as well.
"let's play nice" really isn't a useful strategy when playing against folks like Buchanan.
That said, why oh why did she have to call Pat a racist?
Buchanan's been pretty openly racist for years now. Remember his speech to the Republican Party Convention in 1992? Scroll all the way to the bottom to see his tale of the National Guard rescuing helpless old people from the marauding black hordes of rioters.
Is she supposed to politely not mention what Buchanan's been openly saying for a couple of decades now?
Probably if you took a smart liberal who performs well on television and made her the host of a TV show, those liberals would watch that show.
I seem to recall RM being on some other network, one that's explicitly "liberal" and which is a consistent failure. So, there's that.
What's interesting is that MattY's new employer is pushing for a solution.
On David Gregory's insufferably bad show, I believe the only reason Smerconish is on every night is so Gregory can say the name "Smerc" every 2 minutes. He clearly enjoys saying "Smerc" WAY too much!
Video of the full segment including the examples mentioned by riffle is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnaKlgo9y1E
Damn, I finally risked my boss walking over and played the clip. Wow. She crushed him. And she's 100% right. Does anyone know if PB ever got to respond to her last statement when they came back from the break? Ouch.
Well done by 'Smerc,' by the way. I never get home from work in time to see any of Gregory's show. Is Smerconish always pretty fair? I know he had some serious issues with McCain a couple months ago...
Boy, Harold Ford was really mixing it up on behalf of his party's nominee, eh? Agree with you, BA.
I love her! She would do great on tv as long as her show was not set up like Crossfire. Too many of those. She would do better as a Charlie Rose type of format, I think imho.
Disagree. Charlie Rose-style chin-stroking ponderousness would squander Maddow's skills. Her strength is she can mix it up Crossfire-style, but intelligently and rationally. No red-faced, vein-popping shrillness.
I actually think Hannity on the other side has that same skill. He's a terrifying right-wing hack who doesn't engage in good faith, but he smiles a lot and often comes across as a reasonable person. No O'Reilly temper. No Novak reptilianism. No Malkin/Coulter petty sarcasm.
Of course Rachel Maddow can't have her own show. In case you didn't notice, she's a woman, but yet is not a bobblehead newsmodel.
It's against the law of 24/7 cablenews for a woman to be on the air more than 15 minutes a time unless she goes blonde, gets some plastic surgery, and loses a couple million brain cells.
I watched her for a couple weeks when she was subbing for KO on Countdown; usually I hate replacement hosts, but she won me over. Smart, in control, well prepared. I would wholeheartedly support and watch her in place of Chris Matthews, who is a mOrAn.
msnbc is scared to put her on. they are afraid of hurting nbc's corporate image. left wing not sexual orientation.
Bart,
I agree about the skills that have made Hannity successful. But anyone who knows any facts has to realize that he is THE most dishonest person on television. Fortunately for him, most of the people that watch his show get their facts FROM HIM. I always try to catch the first segment of his show, but I usually end up losing my shit. Its very hard to watch.
Oh yes Stacy, wickedly and shamelessly dishonest. But nonetheless (and unfortunately) an effective talking head/surrogate for his side.
Probably if you took a smart liberal who performs well on television and made her the host of a TV show, those liberals would watch that show.
Probably, but my guess from a marketing perspective is that liberals are not the most desirable audience for advertisers, being rather critical, if fairly high-end, consumers overall. Liberals are the customers who are more likely to examine and complain about a company's labor practices, sourcing, CEO pay, environmental impact, and overall quality of the products/services in question. Those are large potential headaches when there are much less critical and more readily influenced consumers out there, and those same easily-led types can be goaded into attacking companies for even marketing to the hated liberals (or being more than mildly gay-friendly, but that's another analysis). Better to go after the low-hanging fruit.
You know, I realize that KO's hatred for O'Reilly has as much to do with ego as anything. But in all honesty, Hannity is at least 10x worst than O'Reilly. While BillO might be an idiot, and he might be a bully, he has actually been pretty fair to Barack Obama. I actually think that he really respects Obama on a personal level.
Am I crazy?
I think she's being groomed, along with a couple of other liberals (see Robinson, Eugene and even Ford, Harold) over at MSNBC. She's the designated replacement host for Countdown and is on at least one of Countdown, Hardball, and Gregory's show every day. By contrast, at the start of the primary season she was just part of the late night commentary b-team.
That said, why oh why did she have to call Pat a racist? She had that argument won. Why take the low road? Given that we are running with a non-white candidate, I think we need to bury these accusations of racism until October. There are precious few undecided votes to be had and I bet none can be swayed by going around calling people racist.Because if someone is being a racist swine on national TV and you don't call them out for being a racist swine then you help to make it alright for others to be racist swine as well.
"let's play nice" really isn't a useful strategy when playing against folks like Buchanan.
Except for her, that David Gregory show is awful.
David Gregory would be great as the host of Meet the Press - he used to get up in Bush's grill pretty nicely when he was on the White House beat - but he's horribly ill-suited for the cable nooz yak fests.
Ooh, look at me, I'm David Gregory, and I'm out of control! I've got a panel! I might undo my top button! I'm a free-wheeling crazy man.
Harold Ford is not a liberal.
He was not "being a racist swine". I think we all know that he is, but I don't know that you can take a simple accusation of "he is pretentious", stand it all by itself, and prove that he is being racist.
She had him by the balls already. Liberals, and particularly Obama supporters, have a reputation of screaming racism whether it's warranted or not. I think she didn't need to use that card this time. As I said, I would be happy for us not to use that card at all until October. I'm probably all alone on that one, though.
No, but he's not a conservative, and that's unusual for people who get to express opinions about politics on TV.
Also, Rachel needs to start wearing a blouse of some sort under the suit jacket.
Rachel's great, but maybe she's best where she is now. If she had her own show, who would replace her on Countdown and Little Davey Gregory's show? Other than Eugene Robinson and her, there aren't any good liberal/left commentators in regular rotation on MSNBC.
That really was awesome. She rocks!
Btw it's pretty offensive to state that accurately calling out Pat Buchanan's racism is "taking the low road." Under what circumstances are we allowed to call out racists?
He was not "being a racist swine". I think we all know that he is, but I don't know that you can take a simple accusation of "he is pretentious", stand it all by itself, and prove that he is being racist.
She had him by the balls already. Liberals, and particularly Obama supporters, have a reputation of screaming racism whether it's warranted or not. I think she didn't need to use that card this time. As I said, I would be happy for us not to use that card at all until October. I'm probably all alone on that one, though.
Greg, after we win this election and we are assured my daughters don't have to grow up in a country where abortion is illegal, you can do whatever you like. thank you.
I'm just guessing because I have absolutely NO inside information, but Rachel may have a contract with Air American that she can't get out of. And she's the only AA host with any name recognition at all since Al Franken started his Senate campaign.
And for what it's worth, Harold Ford is MSNBC's version of Alan Colmes. He sits in the liberal chair when they need a filler. Just remember, he's the only person in America who thought McCain's "green screen" speech was good.
And anyone who thinks David Gregory is a newsman should be forced to watch his performance with "MC Rove" on a continuous loop for hours. I can't look at his face without seeing that dance in my head. Ick!
Radaronline reports that she rates as one of the "nicest TV pundits":
Maddow, a Rhodes Scholar, has been a frequent stand-in for Keith Olbermann on Countdown of late—a change that's been met with open arms. "She's a lot more pleasant to work with than Keith, I'll tell you that much," says a current Olbermann staffer. Network brass seem to be taking note—she soon may have her own show. "She's funny, smart, hard-working, entertaining, and has no ego," continues the staffer. "How rare a combination is that?" Even a female producer at CNN, where Maddow made frequent appearances before signing an exclusive contract with MSNBC, is impressed. "Rachel's really, I just love her," she says. "Maybe if something has come of Hillary Clinton's run, it's that a woman in a male-dominated industry can be taken a little bit more fucking seriously."
'Presumptuous' and 'pretentious' are different words, Sebsi. And I think Maddow characterises Buchanan's predisposition pretty well.
On point: she needs more control over the format of any show than MSNBC is likely to give her.
Probably, but my guess from a marketing perspective is that liberals are not the most desirable audience for advertisers, being rather critical, if fairly high-end, consumers overall.
Latts, I see where you're coming from, but I've done a decent amount of consulting in the ad world, and I really don't think that describes how media planning works these days.
Mainly advertisers are looking to hit certain demographic targets, and anything after that is just minimizing risk. Meaning, they don't want to deal with letter-writing campaigns, and they don't want to be associated with something that's considered offensive, but any more subtle concerns about liberals' psyches are going to overwhelmed by the basic age and income targets they're able to hit by advertising on a particular program.
Given how old (I mean, really old -- like median ages in the 60s) most cable news audiences are, most advertisers would gladly trade a bit of commercial scepticism for more viewers in the core 25-54 bracket.
I'm sure there are still idealogical limits to what would advertisers would support, but in 2008, thank God, mainstream liberalism ala Maddow and Olbermann seems to be fine.
He was not "being a racist swine". I think we all know that he is, but I don't know that you can take a simple accusation of "he is pretentious", stand it all by itself, and prove that he is being racist.
I think you have it exactly wrong. What RM said perhaps hinted at racism but wisely stopped way short of any direct accusation. When you accuse Obama of a certain personality flaw when you clearly are not willing to accuse McCain of the same flaw despite exhibiting far more egregious behavior, then that says more about you than about the individuals you are criticizing. Is that an accusation of racism? Perhaps. But most importantly, it is a measured and very precise way of criticizing the types of statements Buchanan is making about Obama in that segment.
She did not scream racism. She said something along the lines of "you're not being fairminded here. I am not going to speculate on the reasons for that but the facts tell a pretty clear story that you are just flatly wrong in your analysis." I cannot imagine how she could have made the point any clearer.
Brent, I completely agree with you about how sly she was, which i like. Sadly, racism is such a charged word in this country that you can't whisper it without screaming it. I think everyone knew what she meant. And sadly people have overused the charge so much that now anyone looks bad just by using it. It's like when people call each other a nazi on the internet. sometimes, even when the other guy really is a nazi, you still end up looking bad. i think we are nearly to that point with racism and it's not really helping us. of course that's just my opinion and i'm not a trained political strategy. for all i know maybe it's exactly the right approach. but i doubt it.
"And anyone who thinks David Gregory is a newsman should be forced to watch his performance with "MC Rove" on a continuous loop for hours."
I couldn't agree more, Rachel Fan. Gregory is a total tool.
Now that I've watched this, her statement was only "good" in the MattY/ThinkProgress sense.
In the more preferred intellectually honest sense, she simply implied a ham-fisted, sleazy charge, and whether PB said anything in response isn't known since the tape cuts off. Why be "sly" when if she wants to say something she can just come right out with it? Why didn't she provide supporting evidence, if she has any? What, if anything, did PB say in response?
MattY is going to fit right in with ThinkProgress, in the same way that in the SovietUnion many "liberals" would have had good careers as minor functionaries.
It is the whole trashing ordeal. First of all to say someone is "presumptuous" is ONLY someones opinion.
What is going on in the state of the media is a trashing frenzy based on opinion. but Matt is eating it up.
This is how they ruin people for nothing, it how democracy is over thrown with insipid insinuation.
I don't care that Rachel is good in Matt's hyper loving kind of way, this act of human carnage they do has become the TV time nightmare in America, and it is utterly goulash in its inception. This type of blood fest is kind of damage that can tear our nation asunder and in typical fashion Matthew has no clue.
The fix is in, it's who can yell the loudest and not be interrupted - it how presidential campaigns on both sides are turned into trash, and democracy turn into a joke.
We are fighting against Corporate American, and they choose the blood formats, and they have the advantage of making lies without consequences or final words. They play at their rules and we have Matt at his favorite WWF smack down cheer it on.
I think everyone knew what she meant.
I guess my point, to try and be clear, is that "everyone knew what she meant" not just because of what she said but because she made it abundantly clear that what Pat Buchanan was saying indicated that he held Obama to a standard that he did not hold McCain to. The reasons for that may be clear but not because Rachel Maddow said so but because the facts speak for themselves. The conclusions of Maddow's argument may seem inescapable but that's not her fault. Its Pat's.
I agree that "racism" has become a charged and essentially useless term in our discourse. But what interests me is that whether or not the term can be fairly applied to Pat Buchanan, the bad faith and contradictory nature of his argument was laid bare by his own words. The viewer can draw their own conclusion as to why he feels it necessary to make such an argument and nothing Maddow said prevents them from interpreting his motives however they like.
I like her too.
But...if she had her own show I think it would curtail her openness to criticize like she does now. Most hosts try to 'toe the moderate line' and refuse to call out guests asinine comments.
Look at Gregory, he's as vanilla as they come and wouldn't dare call bullshit if it meant losing a guest or losing the sheen of impartiality.
I've been a fan since Air America was first put under the national microscope. what I first noticed is how NICE she is, she really is a goofball and I love her little John Candy laugh.
the next thing you had to notice is what everybody is suddenly noticing - she is SCARY smart. Fans of her radio show know that RM doesn't need to agree with somebody to love their company and have a wonderful conversation with them.
well, now she's becoming quite the journeyman of a format where wonderful conversation isn't exactly encouraged. I think she has almost single-handedly made MSNBC a more watchable and interesting network.
sometimes she is completely out-flanked by people talking a bunch of nonsense. she doesn't just SIT there! she gets her say! she's having a ball and it shows.
thank god for Rachel Maddow - can you imagine this election cycle without her? I can't.
Rachel needs to do the lead hour before Olbermann.
MSNBC needs to hire the Jack the Curmudgeon away from CNN to do the following hour!
While I do not always agree with Cafferty, at least he makes logical arguments.
She's wonderful: insightful, witty, and yet respectful of people even when she's disagreeing. (Though you don't see it in this clip, she and Buchanan often seem to rather enjoy one another.) She never shouts or rants, and she never seems to be merely putting on an act, or feigning outrage. Speaking effectively in the bizarrely constricted Hollywood Squares format we saw in this clip is difficult for even experienced on-air commentators, but Rachel makes it look easy. Her analysis is commonly at least as good as that of people like, say, Gergen or Borger, but she has an affable charm that they lack.
I am so ready for her to have her own show!
Maddow and Greenwald on television.
Those are two shows I would watch.
Maddow and Greenwald on television. Those are two shows I would watch.
Definitely! Especially Mr. Greenwald. Did you know he's an NYT bestselling author?
I like her much better when she's on panel. Frankly, I have found her on-radio patter accurate and informed,although somewhat cutesy and self-absorbed - but she is a missile on TV, and seems to be only getting better.
I'd pay actual money to watch her disassemble a smarmy liar like Hannity.
Cuttle - I would agree about Gergen.
Borger is a catastrophe. How someone could has covered politics for so long and be so utterly, consistently, aggressively and histrionically clueless is a genuine mystery of the punditocracy.
Bring back Jack Germond!
I've only watched her a couple times on video clips from Olbermann and now this. But she seems really articulate and sharp.
Liberals do not have equal standing in the polity with Republicans. We need to be less polite and forgiving in demanding equal time.
The cable news is dominated by the right wing, as so many have documented. We need to keep the heat up on the media as we did in 2004 with Sinclair, etc.
This ain't tea and crumpets.
The people saying MSNBC won't hire her because she's a "lezzie" haven't been paying attention. Ellen has her own show. Attitudes on homosexuality have changed a lot, especially in the younger generation.
The people saying MSNBC won't hire her because she's a "lezzie" haven't been paying attention. Ellen has her own show. Attitudes on homosexuality have changed a lot, especially in the younger generation.
I have a thing for her - she is quite pleasant and a less-hateful-but-more-thoughtful liberal. I gave Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly equal opportunities (switching back-and-forth). Keith is good looking but didn't quite excite me with provocation. O'Reilly does. Eventually I ended up shuttling between Jon Stewart's rebroadcast and PBS' Noah.
Take David Gregory out and bring Rachel Maddow in.
It's pleasant to see someone doing news and commentary who isn't rooted in the blood feuds of the 60's, and there's no doubt that she wears her obvious smartest-person-in-the-room mantle very lightly--she's an American Emma Thompson.
But it still seems that all the decisions come down to a man with yellow skin and liver spots, a wet Monte Cristo barely alive in his mouth, wondering if she'd laugh at his stories.
That said, why oh why did she have to call Pat a racist?
Could you be a little more clear? I've listened to the clip twice now and I didn't hear her call anyone "racist." What, precisely, are you referring to?
I think everyone will be disappointed if she gets a host chair. She is then a full-fledged face of the network, and will have to moderate her views and do a fair amount of pretense at impartiality. It's better if she stays in her own element, where she is fantistic, no doubt.
One idea: Air America launches an online TV network sort of like Bloggingheads; Maddow is the lead anchor/reporter/host.
sex shop
Iam 65 five years 'PUERTORICAN" young woman...I never seen any person as inteligent , bright and honest as Rachel Maddow. Hope pretty soon she will be recognized as what she really is; the best and only political analyst so very smart., (please forgive my "bad" spelling).
May God bless her...and give her the right words to answered whenever she is "questioned".
She is young, beautifull, honest and inteligent.
What else does she needs?
Hope to go to New York soon just to meet her.
Bless All,
Ruth
Comments closed August 15, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Another point is that Maddow had already corrected the quote just moments before on the program, Buchanan just went blithely ahead and quoted it again in the incorrect milbank version.
Also, Smerconish actually adds a little assist there, too, correcting the record.
Rachel Maddow is great!
Posted by riffle | August 1, 2008 12:23 PM