Rachel Maddow is beginning to piss me off

[COLGATE4]

Several of us have posted about this before. In the run up to the election, many of us commented on the fact that she tends to be a 'Debbie Downer', a professional worrywart who dedicated the "Talk Me Down" segment of her program to telling us how Obama could lose the election - a negativism that many of us felt we didn't need at the time. But that's fine, and Obama won. Now, however, the "Talk Me Down" segment apparently has a new focus - dedicated to why Obama just isn't turning out like she wanted. Tonight's segment was essentially that Obama, who still hasn't even announced his Cabinet yet, is starting to look like a Third Clinton term! The gripe is that it doesn't appear to Rachel that Obama is going to bring change as rapidly and/or as profoundly as Ms. Maddow seems to believe he owes her.

Rachel Maddow is of course free to express herself however she sees fit. I do find it a little objectionable that, in addition to the constant sniping and belittling that Obama is going to be subjected to by all the talking heads representing the knuckle draggers and mouth breathers, we also have one of our own apparently ready to do the same. I myself find it unnecessary and frankly annoying.:mad:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. What is he not doing that she wanted him to do? nt

[cliffordu]

48. yep. I have been paying very close attention to her. She was wrong about one

thing and she admitted THAT last night -

I don't remember what she was wrong about.....

[democracy1st]

55. here's why she's pissed

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shaun-jacob-halper/why-some-americans-dont-h_b_141830.html

[Divine Discontent]

60. then I'm pissed with her.... eom

[Cali_Democrat]

66. If she's mad about prop 8, she shouldn't take it out on Obama.

He came out against prop 8 and so did Biden.

[krkaufman]

70. the poster is not accurately relating Maddow's segment or motives n/t

[krkaufman]

69. That had nothing to do with the segment in question, nor can it be attributed to her motives

Rachel's simply critiquing Obama from a Left-of-Center position, and is expressing concern that Obama not replicate a Clinton Administration -- especially since he promised a break from both the direction and divisiveness of the past 28 years.

[jsmirman]

74. did that guy really have to take a fucking shot at Prop 2???

Is it really zero sum for chickens not to be tortured every day of their lives and for homosexuals to receive their appropriate rights???

I'm disgusted, just as he is, by the results of Prop 8. But it really pisses me off that he has to drag a wonderful event, like the passage of Prop 2 and hate on that in connection to the Prop 8 atrocity.

[No Elephants]

87. OMG, you mean Obama got elected Tues. and did not fix everything by Wed,. Let's tear him down!

[CreekDog]

2. yes, i know, but it's tv, she has to create drama

and that works.

it annoys me too, but i just focus more on DU during her "talk me down" segments, and i can easily find things that annoy me more on DU than her segment. :shrug: :hide:

[redstateblues]

4. I like Rachel- I hate the "Talk Me Down" segment

[Mojorabbit]

67. I love that segment

I usually need talking down on the subjects she brings up. I am a worry wort too by nature.

[Demi_Babe]

9. I understand why she does it and I accept it...at the end of the day she is our best media friend

[CreekDog]

15. i think she is terrific

but i think the pacing of Keith's show makes that show much more fun and aggressive.

nevertheless, Rachel's show is probably the most thorough and sober analysis on commercial tv.

[Lumpsum]

25. KO is 100 times the journalist she will ever be. nt

[Kahuna]

82. Keith's show has become very very entertaining. He's tongue-in-cheek

with his. I'm sure that he is taking a bit from Colbert and Stewart.

[soleft]

114. Wow, that's like alot!

[leeann1317]

106. If she posted here, people would label her a concern troll.

[1corona4u]

3. Beginning? LOL...she pissed me off LONG ago.

[thewiseguy]

5. She is just another talking head on TV looking out for her own interests.

[Kahuna]

83. Yep. nt

[Supersedeas]

125. GE dollars will continue to contaminate her 'point' of view.

[DB1]

6. Rachel raises issues that benefit us. I love her.

[1corona4u]

7. Yeah, right. Like what?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fran Kubelik]

12. I agree

[DB1]

18. Thanks. How can a Dem bad mouth Rachel? I don't get it.

[1corona4u]

22. Some of us are free thinkers.....and don't follow along like fucking sheep.

Besides, I'm an Independent.

[DB1]

34. Why bad mouth Rachel when there are so many others.. O' Really. Hannity, Limpballs, etc. ?

[1corona4u]

37. I don't watch, or listen to them...

they are all irrelevant. One thing I don't need in my life, is more people pissing me off. I don't know why anyone watches/listens to things that piss them off. I cast bad Karma on Limpballs a few years ago, and shortly after is when he got caught with the drugs.....so I was thankful that he was exposed....I specifically asked that he "be humbled"....because he was being really hateful towards democrats, and it made me sick.

[tkmorris]

122. You..... cast bad karma?

LOL, I think someone is having delusions of grandeur.

[CowboyHeyHey]

113. Except when it comes to any criticism of Obama, apparently - nt

[specimenfred1984]

8. Here's an idea, you may need to sit down first

Change the channel instead of bashing dems on DU. WOW, what an insight! Oh, and thank you for being such a superior human being and granting her the freedom to express herself.

[1corona4u]

14. Wow, pot meet kettle....

who fucking died and left you boss? You just blasted the poster, with an argument you used for the defense of Rachel. Did you not think it through? LOL....

[AZBlue]

10. How can it look like anyone's term when it's not a term yet?

Is she really that desperate for topics to discuss? Maybe they should move her to a weekly program if she just can't come up with anything.

[No Elephants]

88. Not even a term is right. LOL, it was not even two days.

[ailsagirl]

11. self delete

[beachmom]

16. Stop watching her show then. There is so much more to life than a cable show.

A lot of people write threads complaining about her show. Some, like me, just don't watch it. That is a better solution than complaining.

[Thrill]

20. Yup. I know I stopped listening to her radio show because of it

I would suggest the same for people who don't like her TV show.

[jonnyblitz]

17. how DARE she criticize our lord and savior, Obama.

man, you people are fucking PATHETIC. many of us share her same concerns. if you don't like her then change the fucking channel and just watch Olbermann. I am sure his head firmly planted up Obama's ass pleases most of you.

[Thrill]

28. Its not about kissing his ass. She's just annoying as hell

She stated everyday on her radio show. Obama was going to lose. And he won by a landslide.

There is a reason people like Hannity and O'Reily stay on TV so long. Its because they don't do this type of shit, to their targeted audience. If people wanted to hear negativity about Obama and the Democrats they would watch Hannity.

[Tarheel_Dem]

43. Sounds like you've got your head up Rachel's ass? You rarely miss an

opportunity to go after KO, and ultimately Obama. Why the fuck are you still here?

[bicentennial_baby]

64. HA! I knew this post was you from the subject line alone!

:rofl:

:hi:

;)

[bunkerbuster1]

100. Well, here's the thing--she's not really criticizing him...

She's just inferring stuff from what's been reported, and hashing it out in public. Like we do here.

Rachel's fair game. Moreso is an original post from someone who just showed up to gripe about her.

Just sayin'.

[Hamlette]

19. I agree she has been a huge disappointment

when she was on other shows she gave thoughtful, intelligent insight. Her show seems to be "how can I rain on the dem parade".

Too negative for me. I'm back to Hardball. As much as Tweety pisses me off sometimes, he's been great the last 2 months and he really seems to care about supporting Obama (in fact Joe Scar tore into him for saying he would do what he could to support Obama like that was a bad thing and I agree the press should report the news but Joe of all ppl saying reporters should not support one party???? Like he hasn't been kissing GOP butt for 20 years?

I Tivo the news for when I get off work (late) and I cancelled Rachel after tonight's show. I think her ratings will suffer. Ppl I talk to about it agree. It's one thing to be cautious but I want a bit of optimism too.

[ginnyinWI]

59. I thought it was just me.

I like Rachael some of the time, but she gets to be too much. Not so much the negativity, but the constant snarky tone gets to me. But I thought since she's young enough to be my daughter (I have a daughter a year younger than she) that it was just an age difference. Maybe it is, but I want something a little more straightforward, like Olbermann is when he's not doing the funny bits. He delivers news like news, but with a dry wit and wry sense of humor that is different than Rachael's. Hers is more condescending, his has more irony.

But to each their own. I decided to trim my DVR'd programs today, too. You know what's great about the new administration is that the mainstream news will actually be covering people we like!

After much thought, I've got it down to just four news programs: the local NBC affiliate's half hour, then the CBS Evening News, then PBS Newshour, then Countdown. A nice balanced diet, eh? Countdown is the dessert. :)

[Hamlette]

65. I swore off all news after the 2004 election except Keith of course

its probably time for me to go back to the Newshour. Maybe even try "regular" news.

And I agree with what you say about Rachel. She was a serious intellectual guest but on her own show she is just a clown. bummer

[RamboLiberal]

21. Gee remember when we were whistling in the wilderness

No liberal/progressive shows on TV or radio. So we get KO and Rachel now and some on DU choose to get pissed over a segment.

Keep going and we'll be back in the wilderness again.

[melody]

23. Do we really want a sycophantic media? Hasn't that been one of the problems of the last 8 years?

The difference is Obama is an adult who will be open to disagreement and making changes. We need to encourage healthy, critical press coverage not discourage it. If at some point she turns into a Fox News Lite then I would agree with you but if it's just healthy criticism, what's the problem?

[pennylayne]

27. She's on the Colbert Report right now

lets see what she has to say.

[Metric System]

24. Change takes time. Begala said tonight on CNN that he hopes Obama doesn't make any 100 day plans and

so far he hasn't. Gergen agreed that it may take at least 1 year and maybe even the first term to get things turned around.

[Christian30]

26. I like Rachel a lot, but...

I agree that tonight's Talk Me Down was a stretch. The difficulty in a one-hour news show is to keep it interesting and that seems to always mean drama. This is what separates us, for both good and ill, from the right-wing. We eat our own. Had McCain won they would have immediately begun attacking the Congress and Senate. But we can't seem to help ourselves.

[krkaufman]

72. Yes, but "eat our own" could also be applied to this thread ...

... where many are attacking one of the few left-of-center voices in television, and certainly the furthest left.

I'm glad Rachel's staking out a position critiquing Obama from the left, since it will provide baseline evidence that Obama is NOT a far-left politician. And I have no problem with the criticism, so long as it has a basis... like Rachel's concern over bringing-in a DLC player as Chief-of-Staff.

[TheDonkey]

29. I don't mind genuine concern but I don't like how she tries pushing actual slime against Obama

In the show after the election she was downright giddy that her predictions were so incorrect about the election. Is that really something to be giggling about? That you were purposefully lying about Obama's numbers just to create faux drama?

I find that sort of thing disturbing. She's liberal but obviously not a big Obama fan.

[1corona4u]

33. I think you just hit on what I started to think last week...

she's not just liberal, she's very progressive. That may seem well known, but I didn't even know who she was until about 2 months ago, or maybe a bit longer. But anyway, I think she's way more progressive than most of the democrats, and she only hoped for Obama to win, so that this country keeps going more and more to the left, so eventually, people will be more accepting of the progressive agenda. If you notice, the people who really like her are more progressive than your run of the mill democrats. At least that's how I see it anyway.

[cartach]

50. When you say progressive

you seem to mean far left. I suggest that there are quite a few democrats e.g., your "run of the mill" type who would argue the point that being far left is not very progressive at all,it's just one extreme position. I stand corrected if you don't equate the two.

[sniffa]

30. Welcome to DU

[cooolandrew]

31. To be fair it's mostly going to be our team running the show so we should come to expect it yeah.>

Don't be hard on them they can't just report missing kittens and puppies really.

[DeepBlueC]

32. OP disappears after one post...

and we have successfully found a way to fight amongst ourselves. Glad the election didn't screw that up for us!

:banghead:

[WorseBeforeBetter]

58. LOL... that seems to happen quite a bit lately.

It's rather amusing to watch.

[applegrove]

35. Maybe the Debbie Downer in her sees things others don't see so much.

Happy people are notoriously delusional (clinically depressed people notoriously not delusional). Made her a great pundit when Bush was in office and so perceptive then...is going to grate on you when you put all your love and hope on one man. I hope you are right and her fears are not realized re: Obama. But we need the variety in our perceptions.

[eridani]

76. Good point. The relentless terminal perkiness demanded by our culture leads to missing things

Sourball employees are far more likely to come up with original and deep solutions to problems compared to the more superficial terminally perky. The latter rate themselves more highly than their coworkers and bosses do. The self-evaluations of sourballs tend to agree more closely with peer evaluations. Note that they do NOT put themselves down--they are merely accurate.

[applegrove]

123. I've read that. So here is to sourballs and their perceptiveness. We need it!

[Mampula]

36. Obama hasn't even started and he's receiving attacks

We should definitely calm down and wait till he actually takes over before judging him.

[Kahuna]

84. Welcome to DU!!

:hi:

[cameozalaznick]

38. Rachel obviously hasn't gotten the memo...

Dear Rahcel:

You are now a water carrier for the left. No matter what Obama does, your job is to spin it. And good. Your role is to now cheerlead for the left the way that Faux cheerleads for the right. We need you in that position or else the universe will flop over on its side and that just wouldn't be pretty. So get with the program, girl!

[Tarheel_Dem]

44. Thank you Mr. Nader, and please remind us what percentage of the vote you got?....

:eyes:

[cameozalaznick]

118. Huh?

[RepublicanElephant]

39. whenever i think i'm getting upset with rachel...

...i think of all the gop crapheads on tv 24/7.

then i'm glad again to see her on.

[kevinds13]

40. Honestly

Can she just get rid of that awful "Talk Me Down" segment? Its so fucking annoying. Everything else on her show is golden, but that kinda shit is why Dem's are a joke sometimes...we find problems with ourselves when those problems don't even exist.

[Jennicut]

41. Rachel is far left to many of us. She is more Dennis Kucinich and less Barack Obama

which is fine. But people need to understand that she is very very liberal and will pounce on Obama for anything he does that she does not like. Many on the left were dissatisfied with Clinton as the was too "centrist" for them. Whatever, everyone has their views. Obama is plenty liberal for me, just right really. Plus, one cannot govern to much from the extreme. We saw what Shrub did, it was a disaster letting neocons rule. Obama is to the slight left of Bubba and that is fine with me but Rachel does not bother me either. Some of us are so sensitive.

[democracy1st]

49. it's ok to be in the center but don't sell us nafta and the 1996 telecommunications act

and then run off with papa bush rather than visiting progressive radio ever so often

[Awsi Dooger]

42. Rachel Maddow serves one purpose; makes me appreciate Keith Olbermann

I was beyond annoyed at his one-sided slant in the primaries. But he's sharp as hell and his show has a great pace to it, particularly after jettisoning the yes-man types like Dana Milbank when he imploded.

I honestly can't believe Rachel Maddow has educational background in politics. She violates every rule, namely absurd overreaction to recency combined with ineptitude at applying variables to outcomes. In Nevada terms, that's a bookmaker's dream, someone who has no chance to get it right in long term prognostication.

Rachel needs to be off stage on political punditry programs, clamped in a wheelchair. Feed her occasionally. If a right winger launches a simpleton blanket attack and other guests can't deflect and reverse it, call time out and wheel Rachel out there for a few minutes. She'll handle that marvelously. Then wheel her back and leave in the corner overnight.

[silex]

45. I understand..

And just as she's free to express herself others on DU who complain about her are free to post their vents.

[Crunchy Frog]

46. You do realize that you don't have to watch her show, don't you?

:shrug:

[cartach]

53. Don't have to watch

anything that bothers you. However is'nt that the main problem, that most of the electorate goes about with their heads up their butts ignoring what's happening around them. I don't agree that someone should get on Tweety's PR bandwagon just because he's gone all gushy about Obama instead of sitting back and keeping a critical eye on things, but I also think Maddow should be taken to task if she flits around like a fart in a mitt expecting things to happen yesterday and is overly critical. And of course the only way to accomplish that is know what these people are saying and sometimes, like George Bush is fond of saying, it's hard work.

[DainBramaged]

47. Since 'analog' power buttons disappeared from TVs a decade or more ago

just push the button that says ON/OFF and you (and those of us on DU who cherish RM) will be better off. I just clicked the 'HIDE THREAD' switch on this thread so I don't have to read shit like this anymore.

[sfam]

51. If Maddow pisses you off, I'm guessing you aren't watching much TV...

Pretty much most everyone is worse that Maddow, so if she's pissing you off, I'm guessing this is pretty much the last show you watch...

[MarjorieG]

52. Reasons to worry about the vote. Puts up concerns people have with disclaimer.

While Rachel was questioning the Clinton signs, also asked if not more style, experience, in helping Obama's substance done. Frankly, any results and progress a change. She asks what progressive or lefty labelled might be thinking, and talks them down.

Obama/Biden had so many endorsements, large crowds after the economic crisis, GOP would rather have an Obama team taking care of what they care about-the money. McCain is not a leader, and Sarah unprepared and dangerous.

Rachel right to worry about the vote. I don't like the secret voting process we can't audit, with the decisions made by the political powers and private companies. Too many factors to steal the presidency but I feel a few percentage points were shaved, or lost, and a few states did what they always do, like Georgia and Alaska.

[Marsala]

54. Rachel is probably right; Obama will govern much like how Clinton might have...

...if he had had stronger Democratic majorities than in 1993 and if the political climate was more open to progressive policies, which finally is now. I personally don't mind this at all, but much of DU is bound to feel betrayed by Obama.

[Tektonik]

56. No one is perfect

[smiley_glad_hands]

57. Yeah lets just blast the one of two liberals on cable.

Don't watch the show if you don't like her. While I don't necessarily like the "talk me down" segment I still watch her show to get her opinion as I have more in common with her than say hannity.

[ginnyinWI]

61. There is always the Fast Forward button if you can pre-record. nt

[Blue-Jay]

62. Everyone PANIC!

Oh Noes!

[loudsue]

63. Holy shit. This thread is so fucking demoralizing. Rachel is GREAT.

Rachel Maddow may not be God. She may not even be the best and the brightest person in this 1/2 of the universe. But ya know what? She & Keith Olbermann are excellent news anchors, and have begun to turn the ENTIRE news reporting culture around in this country, (at least, the ratings are sure as hell going their way) by not having people shouting at each other and talking over each other until they sound like a bunch of squawking chickens.

Rachel is articulate. She is extremely bright. She is way coherent. And she actually looks at a lot of issues in a way that supports the progressive point of view. She is easy to look at and listen to for a GREAT many of us.

I don't know what makes some people on DU just decide that every single progressive person has to fit some mold that is supposed to have 100% approval of everyone before they're an ok person. There are lots of personalities in this world, and I think Rachel and Keith have good personalities and are good at what they do. If you don't like 'em, then turn to CNN or Fox or your local channel. Go watch CSPAN.

[Captiosus]

71. Yeah, ok. "Great" is not a word I find in my vocabulary for the RMS.

She's great if you like someone who constantly looks at the world like the sky is falling and has two fucking national media venues to spout pessimistic bullshit. She wraps the pessimism in snark, sarcasm and condescension. Three things which turn viewers off.

As Awsi Dooger said above, for someone with a Ph.D. in Political Science, she sure doesn't show her educational pedigree. KO has been far more analytical regarding political issues than she has been on her show. Her show is NOT entertaining, has RARELY talked about issues at any length except when she's in one of her "Talk Me Down" segments where she goes into fear-mongering mode, has an unentertaining midway point (Ms. Information) and a very sophomoric ending.

I gave her several chances, but her piss poor treatment of Howard Dean just before the election was the final straw and I haven't watched her since. She takes the time to point out that Republicans don't come on her show and who can blame them? With the way she treats fellow Democrats, it's only a matter of time before they ALSO decline to appear on her show.

I'm not drinking the "Everyone should support her because she's a liberal" because I could say the same fucking thing about Sean Hannity in conservative circles: "Everyone should support Hannity because he's conservative." The big difference is, they actually do all support him because he's a conservative. See how well that's worked out for them? Is that what you want? A liberal version of Hannity to be made fun of by everyone at CNN and Fox just as CNN and MSNBC make fun of Hannity? Because that's what you're close to getting.

Funny, isn't it, how every time Wolf Blitzer or Lou Dobbs or David Gregory or Tweety ran a piece on the "Bradley Effect" these forums were lit up like a fuckin' Christmas tree with complaints about it but when Rachel ran four straight days of fear-mongering about the "Bradley Effect" those of us who made the same complaints were told to STFU simply because it was Rachel.

Great is not a word I find in my vocabulary to describe the Rachel Maddow Show.

[dreamnightwind]

103. bradley effect or not i love rachel's show

"Funny, isn't it, how every time Wolf Blitzer or Lou Dobbs or David Gregory or Tweety ran a piece on the "Bradley Effect" these forums were lit up like a fuckin' Christmas tree with complaints about it but when Rachel ran four straight days of fear-mongering about the "Bradley Effect" those of us who made the same complaints were told to STFU simply because it was Rachel."

Good point there, that bothered me too. I kept shouting at her "you're contributing to a possible alibi for election fraud", because exit poll disparity could be blamed on the Bradley Effect.

Mostly, though, I love her show! She is often insightful, bringing up important points and she comes at issues from good angles that are unique to her thought process but relevant and important, at least that's how it seems to me. I often prefer her show to Keith's, and I love Countdown.

Very surprising to see so much negativity directed her way on DU. She's probably the first true "liberal" voice I've ever seen with a regular show on a major network. I'm so used to the corporate media suppressing voices of the left that I consider her show a gift.

Now, if they'd like to give her show to Katrina Vanden Heuvel, no problem. Better yet, let both of 'em have a show!

[progressivebydesign]

68. Yeah Rachel, far be it from Obama to take cues from a wildly successful Democratic administration.

I'm enjoying the sport of the day -- watching the lovefest turn into ramant bitching because Obama is choosing his cabinet based upon what he feels is important. I guess Obama was right.. people see what they want to see in him. And people like Rachel thought he was going to be another Kucinich, but he's not. He's left of center, but he understands that America is mostly center, and will govern from there. The surest way to a one term gig is to become an ideologue.

[Kahuna]

86. The truth is, I fully expect Obama to be Clinton 2.0, because he has

the same governing philosophy. If Rachel had been really paying attention she wouldn't be so shocked. But of course she doesn't want Obama to be Clinton 2.0. She would prefer her fantasy Nader-like progressive which would be sure to return the repukes back to power in short order. :puke:

[1corona4u]

92. Exactly.

[last_texas_dem]

73. Just don't watch her then

Seriously, I don't mean that statement to be flippant at all. We all have different preferences in the talking heads that we like to watch or listen to. Re: the MSNBC folks, I think I prefer Rachel more than many on here, but many DUers like Olbermann a good deal more than I do.

I feel like many of the things that you're saying about Rachel that bother you really have to do with her style more than anything, and it's not likely to change. I feel like the concerns that she's voicing are shared by many liberals to varying degrees, and there's no problem with addressing them towards her predominately liberal and relatively small (in the big scheme of things, the viewership of *all* political news shows is relatively small) audience.

In other words, her voicing concerns that she has are not, in my view, likely to cause any ill effects for Obama. I wouldn't be surprised if it actually helps elected officials if it seems that their base isn't 100% in line with every move they make; it helps shore up their "independent" and "bipartisan" credentials which, as bullshitty as such credentials often are, they generally help pols much more than they hurt them.

I also identify with Rachel's approach because I am a pessimist at heart, too, and like to listen to and watch a very intelligent person who reasons through the same concerns that I have in my head.

[rschmitt]

75. I turned the channel tonight

I don't have a problem with Rachel criticizing Obama. That's her right as a journalist, even with her obvious tilt in one direction.
The part that bugs me is the constant whining, the paranoia about votes being stolen (some exists, but not to the extent, as she put it, "Why can't we live in a country where we don't have to worry about this?"), the recitation of Republican talking points from the day (as if those are relevant anymore), and the whining, whining, whining.
Memo to Rachel: We won. Deal with it. Stand tall.
I really liked her work as an analyst, but her show -- especially after Tuesday -- does little more than to remind me of how sad and self-tragic our party was for too long.

[JanusAscending]

77. I realize that you are new, and welcome to DU,....BUT

it is NOT "paranoia about votes being stolen" Try going to the election reform forum some time, and read up on what is ACTUALLY going on in this country. Then come back and tell us that this is a "recitation of Republican talking points" OK?????

[rschmitt]

78. Reread the post

I wrote that some exists, but not nearly to the melodramatic extent in this cycle that Rachel cited.

As we speak, there are clear issues in Georgia, possibly some in Alaska. That's it. That's not too bad for two states out of 50. And it's nowhere near the major issues of Florida and Ohio from recent elections.

Also, when you reread the post, you will see that I did not join the concepts of the votes and the talking points. They are separate issues. You linked them, not me. Rachel rattled off a long list of Republican talking points, including Boehner's banal references to Rahm today, and it all just felt very ... tired. Who cares what the Republicans think or say anymore? Let it go. Move on. Stop acting so petulant and afraid. (Talking to her here, not you.)

Finally, what does the infantile five-question-mark punctuation do to bolster your point, when you failed to respond accurately to a two-paragraph post?

But hey, thanks for the welcome, anyway!

[JanusAscending]

126. "Infantile" ?

Whatever, you little piss ant! I'm a 70 yr. young infant, if that's the case. HOW DARE YOU!!! Can I rescind my welcome, if that's what you think of me??:rofl: :spray: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

79. She doesn't like the Clintons

I stopped listening to her AAR show years ago because of it. She blames them for more than she blames Bush.

So she doesn't want anything Clintonian near the Obama administration. Even good smart guys like Robert Reich. (Who I think has appeared on her TV show.)

She has actually mellowed a bit and, with the advent of MSNBC's liberal bias (yay) I don't resent her POV as much as I did when AAR and the internet was just about all we had.

She can say what she likes. It's okay.

[Olney Blue]

80. Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet!

[Kahuna]

81. Rachel is doing her same schtick that she's been doing on her radio..

show all along. She's been very predictable to me. I knew the minute Obama won, she'd start trying to dictate his agenda the same way she did when the Dems won congress in 2006. Somehow she believes she is the progressive spokesperson. I don't know where whe got that. When I call her superior, this is what I'm referring to. She thinks that she alone has the smarts to dig all of America out of its mess that she herself helped to dig us into when she in her all-knowing superior way voted for Nader.

[cboy4]

85. I love Rachel

:loveya:

[No Elephants]

89. Seems to me that Dems tend toi build up our fellow Dems too much and/or have unrealistic

expectations of them. And, then we get disappointed and bash when the idols they have created or imagined turn out to be human.

Rachael is a gay Dem trying to make a living and a careeer on a hetero Pub network. She is not perfect. Alert the media. I'd rather bash O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, et al. If you don't approve of Rachael, listen to or watch something you enjoy more.

[Orsino]

90. Day four of the failed Obama Administration: it's over.

:rofl:

[bushisanidiot]

91. Your name is COLGATE.. as in "Coal-gate"? Isn't that what freeptards were pushing in the final

days of McFart's miserable campaign?

Funny thing, the freeptards really hate Rachael too, so I guess you've got good company.

[mod mom]

93. It was Progressives who were out in force working to get Obama elected. I'm glad Rachel is raising

the issues that we support. She is by far my favorite on television!

[eilen]

97. I really like Rachel and Keith

I think there is a bit of a transition period after an election and I think we should have progressive voices challenging the administration. I understand her issues with the Clinton Administration and to tell you the truth, I was a little pissed off at him too. He created some very positive things for our country but he also signed on for some really shitty stuff too. It is good to keep vigilant.

[sufrommich]

94. She is a commentator,not a cheerleader. A lot of people seem

to want the left wing version of Limbaugh/Hannity when it comes to liberal commentators,this after years of mocking their simplistic braying,too many want the same for "our side". She is who she is,she doesn't owe anybody a reason to feel good.

[THUNDER HANDS]

95. so what you're saying is, you're upset she's not a liberal Sean Hannity

I, for one, like that about her.

[Lisa0825]

96. If all the people who are mad at Rachel Maddow would just stop watching the show,

the board wouldn't be so littered with posts complaining about her. :eyes:

[Mass]

98. Well, as much as we know that it cannot change as much as we would like,

there is nothing wrong expressing the worries we have. Some of us do not like Emmanuel as CoS for good reasons. Read the excellent piece by Ezra Klein explaining why. It is not because we have a Democratic administration coming that we have to lose our right of tell what we think. So, kudos to Rachel Maddow for telling what she thinks and not becoming the next Sean Hannity.

We are not Obama's fans and he has not asked us to forget our right to express ourself. On the contrary, he has asked us to do so.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

99. Rachel does this on her talk show as well. She's a purist. If Obama isn't 100% liberal, she'll be

the first to tear him down. She did it after she interviewed Obama, telling Olbermann that Obama didn't outright reject conservatism and she is therefore "concerned."

She is really getting on my nerves with her negativity. I've been listening to Rachel now every since Air America's inception. She is a brilliant woman and I admire her intelligence as a political scientist myself. But I really do tire of her overly pessimistic outlook.

[TTUBatfan2008]

101. This is why the right has had such a stranglehold...

on politics in this country. Their commentators NEVER attack Bush on TV and they SURE AS HELL did not do it when he was first elected and once again when he was re-elected. They supported him. Liberals, meanwhile, are willing to eat their own right off the bat without even giving him a chance.

[bunkerbuster1]

102. Hey, COLGATE4 - post and run much?

[Butch350]

104. Turning into a media Whore...

...who wants to keep her show growing strong by minimally appealing to the right, the Scar-Burro types?????

[leeann1317]

105. It's like she's manufacturing worries. I love her, but she needs to dial the worry down by half.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

107. What's wrong with a third Clinton term?

I think the first two Clinton terms, on the whole, worked out pretty well for this country.

[zulchzulu]

108. Unfortunately a McCain presidunce-ee would have been better for Rachel

Rachel has been wrong MANY TIMES throughout the primary/election season, so her twist that it's a "third Clinton term" is based on not much evidence.

She's filling in time and air. If it was just admiration for Obama, the show would go away.

[Forkboy]

109. A lot of saps took the bait on this hit and run job.

Sad.

[Imagevision]

110. Get real! Bush spent 8 years catering to big biz - Obama will take 8 years turning it around

Bush did precisely what he was hired to do, they wanted to get rid of the middle class since 1985 and along comes George raising his hand, "I'll do it - I'll do it" - to make a long story brief. Hillary would also be constantly reminding us of the damage caused by the "previous administration" and again, -> it's going to take a long time.

Rachael Maddow and other pundits have nothing else to sell since the election is over so the next best thing is to stay on Obama no matter what he does. Maddow as she says, reads from a teleprompter, what she fails to mention is that she does not create the material. Rachael I love her but she is still a professional media reader.

Bush, 8 years to make big biz wealtier (Drug Comapanies - Defense - Health Ins. - Oil companies and even Tobacco)

Obama 8 years to make some changes which obviously are enevitable, I question progress made in eight years an
I'm optimistic. In todays headlines are the Iraqi's demanding for Obama to set a date to leave Iraq ASAP.

[MarjorieG]

111. Policy wonk, she'll be bridge to liberals who care about labels more than progress.

She'll say what is and what isn't, through a reality check of what is possible and how to sell it.

[Imagevision]

112. Get real! Bush spent 8 years catering to big biz - Obama will take 8 years turning it around

Bush did precisely what he was hired to do, they wanted to get rid of the middle class since 1985 and along comes George raising his hand, "I'll do it - I'll do it" - to make a long story brief. Hillary would also be constantly reminding us of the damage caused by the "previous administration" and again, -> it's going to take a long time.

Rachael Maddow and other pundits have nothing else to sell since the election is over so the next best thing is to stay on Obama no matter what he does. Maddow as she says, reads from a teleprompter, what she fails to mention is that she does not create the material. Rachael I love her but she is still a professional media reader.

Bush, 8 years to make big biz wealtier (Drug Comapanies - Defense - Health Ins. - Oil companies and even Tobacco)

Obama 8 years to make some changes which obviously are enevitable, I question progress made in eight years an
I'm optimistic. In todays headlines are the Iraqi's demanding for Obama to set a date to leave Iraq ASAP.

[Beacool]

115. So, what's wrong with a Clinton third term?

We should be so lucky to have the economy we had under Bill Clinton.

She should be more worried about how her fellow Democrats threw her under the bus in 3 states.

[lunatica]

116. She did something I liked last night

She decided to do the lame duck watch on Bush because her not so bad worrying personality knows that he'll try doing things now when no one is watching that he couldn't normally do. So even if she does irritate a bit with the worrying I think it's a great way to direct her worries.

It behooves us to watch Bush right now. His is a scorched earth policy.

[Javaman]

117. Ahhh yes, another hit and run poster. I love these...

closet repukes out to further operation choas.

what the fuck ever.

if you don't like it, start your own show. LOL

[Lady-Damai]

119. Just stop watching her. I did! n/t

[AtomicKitten]

120. Rachel is provocative and I like it.

I don't agree with her on a few things, but what I agree with her on (which is mostly everything), she is head and shoulders above the rest of the talking head herd.

I whole-heartedly support the MSNBC 5:00 to 7:00 PM progressive block of Olbermann and Maddow.

[Phx_Dem]

121. Sadly, I have to agree.

She's so damn pessimistic. She's wearing a little thin on me as well. I don't mind a little criticism, but that's pretty much all she does. The man got elected exactly 2.5 days ago. Can't she give it a little time before the pissing and moaning begins.

Chris Matthews, OTOH, is almost as excited about Obama's new administration as I am, and I'm feeling too happy and optimistic to listen to Rachel sing the blues already!

I've had enough Debbie Downer. :thumbsdown:

[Festivito]

124. It would take a lot more that that to turn me against Rachel.

I think Rove was not able to pull some of his last minute tricks because we were watching. Had he been able, the election might have looked similar to 2000 and 2004.

If you don't like her. Don't watch her.

If you think Obama needs to be treated as perfect, nope, not going to work. I doubt you can come up with enough fellow operatives, er, ah, I mean posters that agree with you.

[Cleita]

127. Another dump on Rachel thread.

Since she has a show, I now watch two hours of MSNBC instead of one. If you critics drive her off the air, I don't think I will watch whatever replaces her because he/she will probably be another right wing hack who pulls facts out of their ass instead of doing their research, which Rachel does. You of course are free to turn to Bill O'Reilly or whoever you like on any time. btw I'm concerned about the Clinton retreads surfacing with Obama too, but I could've told you that, which is why he was my third choice in the race. However, he will be my President and I will do what I need to do to support him and part of that will be to question his choices. It's from love you see.