Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

This quick-witted woman has shattered another glass ceiling and is taking her rightful place in the traditional boys' club of big-time politics.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Rachel Maddow: Progressive Media's Next Mainstream Star

By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted April 10, 2008.


This quick-witted woman has shattered another glass ceiling and is taking her rightful place in the traditional boys' club of big-time politics.
Advertisement

As the seemingly endless Democratic presidential primary slog enters its second spring, one amazing woman has managed -- by relentless dint of hard work, long experience, sharp intelligence, quick wit, quicker quips and a winning smile -- to shatter the glass ceiling and take her rightful place in the traditional boys' club of big-time politics.

No, not her -- Rachel Maddow!

That's right -- a woman who calls herself "a supplicant who worships in the Temple of Journalism" -- but who others have described as "Amy Goodman with animal noises" -- is now firmly ensconced in the upper echelon of the political punditocracy. With her own rising radio show on Air America, coupled with regular appearances on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann program, where she is often, oddly and excellently paired with Patrick Buchanan, this self-described "35-year-old, liberal, lesbian girl-who-looks-like-a-man" is on the brink of becoming progressive media's next mainstream breakout star. One significant measure of Maddow's new-found favor: the decision by MSNBC, effective next week, to hire her as a regular panelist on its newest nightly campaign program Race for the White House -- and to allow Air America to simulcast the 6 p.m. nightly program as the first hour of its own nightly Rachel Maddow show.

The cable executives are betting a lot on their new program, which also features NBC News' chief White House correspondent David Gregory (who replaces the execrable Tucker Carlson.) Passionate viewer interest in the ongoing presidential race -- as evidenced by increased ratings for programs focused on campaign news -- has led all three 24/7 cable operations to create new shows to cater to the marketplace demand. Race for the White House will be up against stiff competition from CNN's Election Center and Fox News Channel's America's Election HQ, but installing Maddow as a regular gives MSNBC an edge its competitors can't match -- a telegenic and true progressive voice for an election cycle dominated by progressive politics and politicians. The MSNBC simulcast on Air America -- in addition to making an impressive statement about the progressive radio network's growing stature -- also promises to pull in a new progressive audience to MSNBC, which is successfully positioning itself as the hot new alternative to Fox News in the cable firmament.

I sat down early one recent morning to share breakfast with Maddow, who keeps a punishing schedule that begins at 9 a.m., encompasses hours of preparation for her three-hour live Air America program, and often extends far into the endless cable night. A California native dedicated to promoting AIDS prevention and gay rights -- she claims to have been the first openly gay American to receive a Rhodes scholarship -- Maddow is also articulate, winsome, and often self-deprecating, someone who says in the same sentence that she tries "to be authoritative, transparently sourced, and pretty comprehensive" in her work, while remaining "a total dork."

Like most radio talk show hosts, Maddow is forthright about the fact that she is NOT a journalist. "I think of myself as a commentator and a pundit, an analyst but not a reporter and not a journalist," she told me. "You know, I think doing research isn't enough ... (she laughs) to be considered a journalist."

Maddow started in radio less than a decade ago as a sidekick on a commercial show in western New England, when she went to an open on-air audition and was hired on the spot. "As soon as I started talking on the microphone, I was like, 'Oh, right! This is what I'm supposed to be doing,'" she recalled. "I wish I figured this out before I was 26. I realized that I had a knack for it, and that it was really fun." Still, she wasn't convinced that radio was right for her in the long run, so after a year, she took time off, finished a dissertation "and actually did get my doctoral." Four years later, she had a national radio show. What happened?


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: politics, rachel maddow, punditry, air america, mainstream media, msnbc

Filmmaker and journalist Rory O'Connor is now completing AlterNet’s first-ever book, which is on the subject of right-wing radio talkers like O’Reilly, and will be available early in 2008. O'Connor also writes the Media Is A Plural blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
You go girl....
Posted by: EJW on Apr 10, 2008 12:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
,,,nuf said

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yep... Posted by: LeaderofMen
» Deal me out... Posted by: Moore Hognutz
» MH, You've Been Dealt Out Posted by: mcartri
» RE: Deal me out... Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Deal me out??? seriously?? Posted by: batteredup
» RE: Deal me out... Posted by: Lauren
Rachel Maddow: this year's best write-in candidate
Posted by: Rune on Apr 10, 2008 12:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Come on, she's too good to waste on teevee and all the other "official" candidates for the presidency are nowhere good enough. She's smart, tuned in, not sold out, has an excelent sense of humor, and she's finally old enough to meet the constitutional age requirement for the office. What's not to like? Heck, given the alternatives, what do we have to lose?


. . . Oh, what a weak field of candidates we have at a time when we another FDR or two! Send in the clowns.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You go, girl
Posted by: vox persona on Apr 10, 2008 12:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've loved watching Rachel Maddow ever since MSNBC first started giving her more and more face time. She is lucid and telegenic and can hold her own with any winger. Her pair-up with Pat Buchanan is classic. She is truly the hardest working lesbian on teeveee, if you don't include Mann Coulter (who is probably more of a transvestite or transgender....have you seen that Adam's Apple? You can't keep from noticing it when you see it).

It shouldn't be too long before Rachel gets her own show on MSNBC, maybe a half-hour slot as a test run, to judge her Q-rating. It would be well deserved. Keep up the good fight, Rachel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wow Posted by: vox persona
» teevee Posted by: Rune
» Rune... Posted by: vox persona
» RE: une... Posted by: nochicagoboys
» Car keys Posted by: Rune
» RE: You go, girl Posted by: djshiva
» RE: You go, girl Posted by: ghost122
Now Comes The Really Hard Part
Posted by: NoPCZone on Apr 10, 2008 1:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She has shown herself worthy of airtime, holds her own with everyone she shares the screen with and has worked hard to get to this point. The really hard part is carrying a show rather than being a feature on a show. I think she can do it if she stays true to herself and doesn't get derailed by the producers.

Next, TV is about money and always has been. All commercial media is about selling ad time and the programming is nothing more than bait to draw eyeballs. What does that mean to us out in TV land? Watch, tell your friends, send e-mails to MSNBC complimenting them on the wisdom of giving her this shot. Send e-mails to the advertisers on the show thanking them for supporting her show. I know it sounds obvious but it works.

If TV sees that bright, intelligent and articulate progressives can sell ad time on TV you might also get to see Laura Flanders, Sam Seder, Thom Hartmann and others get their turn later on. It could be the start of something big- not just because of her success, but for all the progressive voices that can follow.

Congrats Ms Maddow, well deserved.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I must have ESP
Posted by: DreamFast on Apr 10, 2008 3:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The very first time I saw Rachel Maddow in an Air America video clip way back when, then as a one time guest commentator on some cable news show, I thought she was absolutely great.
I thought to myself, she should be on as a regular, and I knew eventually that she would be.

Congratulations Rachel! I love you!! And if I were lesbian I'd be in love with you!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I must have ESP Posted by: herronsmith
» You don't have to be a lesbian Posted by: oregonox
» no doubt... Posted by: hurricane hugo
» RE: I must have ESP Posted by: Doubtom
Rachel: A Star Is Born
Posted by: mrtshw on Apr 10, 2008 3:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rachel is a blessing for us liberals. The fact she and Keith can maintain their sanity among the bevy of insufferable, spoiled, arrested-adolescent rich kids that constitute the on-air talent at MSNBC is an amazing feat.
Benevolent karma will truly envelop our world when she replaces the unwatchable Joe Scarborough during the mornings...or the equally hideous cast of boy sopranos; Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthews, Pat Buchanan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: achel: A Star Is Born Posted by: Evora
» RE: Rachel: A Star Is Born Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: achel: A Star Is Born Posted by: mrtshw
» RE: achel: A Star Is Born Posted by: Gwazdos
» RE: achel: A Star Is Born Posted by: Lauren
Period.
Posted by: jmmartin on Apr 10, 2008 5:01 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, some housekeeping. You write: "...(who replaces the execrable Tucker Carlson.)" Please check your style book. If it says that punctuation marks are placed inside a quotation mark in a sentence fragment, it is incorrect. The proper way to put it is, "...(who replaces the execrable Tucker Carlson)." That said, Tucker Carlson certainly is execrable (not to mention obnoxious), but MSNBC has kept him on as a panelist on another show.

I didn't know, but assumed, that Rachel is gay. Most smart people are either gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Period. Posted by: herronsmith
» RE: Period. Posted by: squidfist
» RE: Period. Posted by: oregonox
» RE: Period. Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Period. Posted by: pfeifer999
» Actually, I have a theory. Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: Period. Posted by: reebus
Rachel Maddow - one of the brightest bulbs on the tree
Posted by: charles000 on Apr 10, 2008 5:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Though I may not completely agree 100% of the time with her various views, I absolutely respect the meticulous nature of her analysis of the facts and detail to which she will support her positions as presented. Even in those areas where I may depart substantially from a particular position she may hold on a given issue. I welcome the chance to have my own view at least challenged with an intelligent argument.

This is so exceedingly rare and refreshing . . . almost like having a powerful light being shown through the usual fog of pseudo journalism (or worse) that seems to be so typical of the mainstream media.

Two thumbs up for Rachel!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Finally - MSNBC has figured it out!
Posted by: georgiaorwell on Apr 10, 2008 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rachel Maddow - you are seriously a shining light! MSNBC will celebrate with higher ratings because I, and others, will be tuned in constantly to your appearances. Of course you deserve your own show. My hat is off to you for keeping that smile on your face and your steel-edged focus when you're faced with the disingenuous spin that Pat B, Tucker C, and all the other neocons throw out. Please, MSNBC, replace Joe Scarborough with Rachel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Truth Will Set Us Free
Posted by: Urstrly on Apr 10, 2008 5:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Research may not be reporting, but it beats distorting the facts to fit your dogma by a mile, Rachel. The more people see of you, the more hope I have for many truths. I'm not such a big fan of man-on-the-street reporting if it's not backed up by some solid context, and you don't see much of that on cable. In fact, news organizations everywhere are cutting their bureaus for talking heads and you speak better than most.

Maybe because your mother's a Canadian?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I love listening to smart people
Posted by: lb on Apr 10, 2008 5:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rachel was one of the main reasons I stuck with AAR through the first year. How wonderful to have an educated, intelligent person on the radio! Everytime I see her on MSNBC, I wait for her to be ridiculed by the anti-intellectuals and booted off the network. But she stands up to them, pushes back and wins! wow. Maybe there is hope for TV.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rachel Maddow
Posted by: JonA on Apr 10, 2008 6:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rachel Maddow is a very intriguing woman. What she does is a far better delivery than most men ever reach. I applaud her.. and will continue to search for her programs.... Maddow is the freshest episode in recent times. Go Baby.........................You have my full backing. A male senior.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I was right
Posted by: sawdust on Apr 10, 2008 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rachel is good for all of us. The comments here would seem to support that. Nothing like a little common sense and sanity to help the world along. I've been cheering for her for a very long time and am feeling personally gratified that everyone else is catching on. She will please many of us, infuriate a few others and force the media moguls to re-think what they THOUGHT they knew about our faces and voices in the news and commentary business.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

not completely on the bandwagon
Posted by: sableskin on Apr 10, 2008 7:25 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think RMaddow is pretty good, relative to alot of what is out there, but I don't necessarily think she's great, and frankly, I cannot imagine wanting her on a tv show. I think her radio program is OK, and she certainly is bright (Oxford?), but I also find her to be a bit snide and patronizing at times. I cannot imagine wanting to see her on a regular basid, and since I don't listen to her show regularly, I can infer that my position is unlikely to change. I realize that most people absolutely ADORE her, but I am just not there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Are we 3? Posted by: Phenix
» RE: Are we 3? Posted by: e rice
» RE: Are we 3? Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Are we 3? Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Are we 3? Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Are we 3? Posted by: e rice
» RE: Are we 3? Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Are we 3? Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» RE: Are we 3? Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» RE: Are we 3? Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» Are we 3? Posted by: Phenix
» RE: Are we 3? Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» RE: Thank you so much Mr./Ms. Jamboree Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» RE: Thank you so much Mr./Ms. Jamboree Posted by: SatanicJamboree
Excellent!
Posted by: Doubting Thomas on Apr 10, 2008 7:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I first found Rachel on Tucker Carlson's show.
I liked him, and his bow-tie, and Rachel. I don't
agree with Tucker most of the time, but I like
his style and the show. Rachel seems to share a
lot of my views, so I quickly took note of who
she was. Not long after that, my local market
picked up Air America and moved her to the
afternoon slot and I was hooked. The Kent Jones
Now segment always cracks me up. Then I saw
her popping up on Keith's show. Great work Rachel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» There can be only one! Posted by: hurricane hugo
» RE: xcellent! Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: xcellent! Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: xcellent! Posted by: Lauren
Rachel makes me want to be a lesbian...
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 10, 2008 8:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and I'm a MAN!

But seriously, folks, she's a fantastic human being. Her smile makes my day -- each and every time.

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam vet, ex-USAF pilot, lifelong registered Republican, ARDENT Obama supporter and the editor of www.PhonyFighterPilot.com, the only website about George W. Bush that presents irrefutable, smoking-gun proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

maddow is ok but
Posted by: collins101 on Apr 10, 2008 8:20 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
she clearly supports Obama and i wish she would just say it. Hillary bashing is so prevalent on MSNBC.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: maddow is ok but Posted by: motamanx
» RE: maddow is ok but Posted by: Lauren
» RE: maddow is ok but Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: on the contrary Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» RE: on the contrary Posted by: Lauren
» RE: maddow is ok but Posted by: jackyD
Fan of Maddow
Posted by: RobNLA on Apr 10, 2008 8:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She's always struck me as a very sharp progressive pundit. Glad to read she's catching on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great. So where are the progressive movement's investigative journalists?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 10, 2008 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh wait. What does an investigative reporter do? Pick a side and then investigate the other side's dirty laundry?

No, that's what political operatives do. An investigative journalist is a true rarity on the American Media Scene these days, and they are not appreciated by any of the major political parties. Really, only a few come to mind - Seymour Hersh, Jeremey Scahill's been doing a good job, Greg Palast broke some important stories over the past few years, and so on. Rare indeed.

An investigative journalist has an obligation to address all aspects of an issue, and that's what political people don't like or understand. It's not about cheerleading for one side or the other.

The point here is that Rachel Maddow is NOT a journalist, and NONE of the people you see on television are journalists. They are pundits or opinion-tossers or spin doctors, who have an agenda and a message that is very deliberate and thought-out-beforehand. They are not the kind of people who would be willing to follow an investigation anywhere, no matter what it led to. Their opinion may be refreshing and different from the stream of B.S. put out by other media pundits (Michael O'Hanlon, William Kristol, Karl Rove, Max Boot, Bob Novak, etc. etc. etc.) - but they still aren't real journalists. People seem to have forgotten what the word means.

To explain, let's say we want to discuss the leading candidates ties to lobbyists and finance. If we look down the list, we find that all the candidates took hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from employees of leading Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs. We also find that none of the candidates have directly addressed the failure of regulation and the fraud involved in the current scandal. Is there a connection? Of course there is. Would reporting on that connection for just one candidate and ignoring the others be dishonest? Yes, it would - but the corporate press does that all the time when they want to smear a particular candidate.

However, we'd also have to take a look at other issues like: where does the candidate's money come from? The fact that Obama is the leader in small-money donations means that he is the one with the broad popular support, while the others are relying heavily on a smaller number of big-money donors. That means, assuming this is still a democracy, that he's the one most likely to win.

The public deserves to have access to this kind of information, all presented clearly with backing information, regardless of who it helps or hurts. That's the JOB of an investigative journalist, not serving some political agenda or other. Of course, the investigative journalist expects the public to take action based on what they read (yes, that means you!).

However, what's the juiciest investigative target for the aspiring journalist in America today? None other than the press itself - the networks of overlapping ownership, the close coordination between the biggest PR firms and the biggest media outlets (which is used to sell garbage to the public), the role that shareholders with external interests play in shaping and controlling the corporate news stream - etc. That's a big juicy can of worms for the aspiring investigative reporter. The only problem is this: who would print it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Working for the foreign/overseas press Posted by: hurricane hugo
Maddow is brilliant!
Posted by: kww355 on Apr 10, 2008 8:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If she doesn't merit her own show, no one does. She's got a great sense of humor, is quite telegenic and holds her own with facts and intelligence.

I'm a huge fan. MSNBC had better not let her get away-give her her own show, already!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Maddow is brilliant! Posted by: paulocurry
» RE: Maddow is brilliant! Posted by: Lauren
Rachel Maddow = Keith Olbermann?
Posted by: tulugaq on Apr 10, 2008 9:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Saw Rachel sit in for Keith one night last week -- although she was clearly nervous (and acknowledged it in one interview), she was also clearly herself, and MUCH better than other subs for Keith, who seem to have tried to be him.

Given the fact that Countdown had a tryout on NBC recently, I can't help but wonder if he isn't being groomed for a network anchor spot. And who would be the perfect new host of Countdown?

A girl can dream...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But why the make up
Posted by: Bizby on Apr 10, 2008 10:01 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has anyone else noticed a bit of make up on Rachel these days? I assume some big wig thought she needed it now that she's making the move to the TV. Too bad. I think she's quite attractive without it, and I'm male and straight. Still, a small price to pay to have such talent joining the fray from the left.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ...and cleavage! Posted by: tulugaq
» RE: ...and cleavage! Posted by: Lauren
» RE: But why the make up Posted by: kww355
» RE: But why the make up Posted by: willymack
» Hey Willymack Posted by: kww355
Thebigkate
Posted by: Thebigkate on Apr 10, 2008 10:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is so refreshing to me about Rachel Maddow is that she so obviously has not been drinking the Kool Aid!!! Her voice is clearly her own!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

salty99
Posted by: salty99 on Apr 10, 2008 10:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes Rushbo, people have heard of Rachel Maddow. Deal with it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Long Time Listener;
Posted by: Andie927 on Apr 10, 2008 10:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Way back, when she had a Morning Slot on Air America,(good reason to get up early) she was Great then, (more weird sounds, and sound bites); still Great now!
We go out of our way NOT to miss her!

She has commented on her radio show, she has to wear make-up for TV. Not her chose.

I wish, that we had the ability to get cable! We'd love to see her!

I believe, her reporting on BOTH Dem. candidates, has been very balanced, and she has intentionally NOT picked sides, I wish more radio & TV pundits had done the same!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

She is not a journalist.
Posted by: wisewebwoman on Apr 10, 2008 10:30 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And that is a shame, she is more a graduate of the Keith Olbermann school of spin.
I yearn for the days of honest investigative journalism, not the current bias that passes itself off as detached reportage.
It is not.
Rachel is attractive, articulate and very much on the pro-Obama team.
But I can see from most of the comments here that everyone is falling over themselves to praise her.
Goodbye news. Again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You're missing the point... Posted by: kww355
» RE: She is not a journalist. Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: She is not a journalist. Posted by: nochicagoboys
» Neither is Jon Stewart, but so what? Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Some thoughts
Posted by: willymack on Apr 10, 2008 11:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the beginning of this article, it was noted that Rachel Maddow is a lesbian. So what? Who cares? That's her business, and hers alone. It was also noted that she isn't a journalist. Maybe not, but you've got to admit, she's a damn quick study, and would put most credentialed journalists to shame. Her beauty was also mentioned. Ok; you'd have to put a sack over her head to hide that. Here's what I see in her face. Keen intelligence, humor, a razor sharp wit (don't cross Rachel!), and affection, probably for Kieth. She flashes a brilliant smile at Kieth whenever he talks to her, and sometimes looks as if she's having a hard time keeping a straight face. Maybe he makes funny faces at her when he's off-camera. Rachel exibhits a commanding presence before the camera because of all the above, and is a welcome change from the usual bill of faire on the "regular" news programs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"...girl-who-looks-like-a-man" - HUH???
Posted by: Marshalldoc on Apr 10, 2008 11:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, but as a happily straight male, I opine that Rachel looks anything but 'like-a-man' (even if it's her own quote regarding herself).

I know an attractive woman when I see one (her clearly demonstrated uber-intelligence aside), and I'll never confuse Rachel with Dick Cheney or John Carpenter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What Rachel Represents
Posted by: cacique88 on Apr 10, 2008 11:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For those who are Obama baiting Rachel, several points are worth covering here. On a number of occasions, Rachel has been critical of Obama and has taken issue with aspects of his campaign that she considers off track. What most people do not grasp is that the Republican lite campaign that Hillary has waged against Obama has resulted in her lost of any consideration by the progressive movement.

Hillary's brand of self serving feminism has nothing in common with the many women who marched for their rights, faced down brutal police attacks to support freedom of choice legislation in past decades. She has even less in common with a new generation of women who see right through her appeals to victimhood while engaging in divisive tactics.

Rachel represents the feelings of true progressives and has earned her place as a feminist with integrity and guts to spare. In rachel, we now have a voice like no other in recent memory.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What Rachel Represents Posted by: canadagirl
» RE: What Rachel Represents Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: What Rachel Represents Posted by: Lauren
» RE: What Rachel Represents Posted by: thinkingsooner
» RE: What Rachel Represents Posted by: djshiva
» RE: What Rachel Represents Posted by: sallythewally
Great choice, MSNBC!
Posted by: Beepath on Apr 10, 2008 12:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I first heard Rachel on Air America, I was trying to focus on what she was saying but was distracted by that awful sound effect of a screeching cat that I believe she still uses, really annoying. She sounded like she was over-amped on caffeine, but still, I stayed tuned. Then, I saw her on one of her first shows and couldn't believe how much better she sounds and is certainly telegenic.

That she could be considered better than silly Tucker, mischievous Matthews (wonder if he's a natural blonde) and handsome Olbermann is not challenging when you think about it....any man, really. The bar just isn't that high. And yes, I noticed that she had eyeliner and mascara on and she looked nice. Oh please, I'm sure the men wear make-up also.

Now, if MSNBC would have enough sense to give her an anchor......

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

canadagirl
Posted by: canadagirl on Apr 10, 2008 12:38 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Welcome Rachel, another Canadian with a sense of humor...great. I watch you on MSNBC and commend you on your insight. I'm just a woman with a political 'fetish', especially American politic's...much more interesting and 'dirty. I think it's fascinating that Crooks especially, have an endearing populous out there willing to 'grab onto a Cabinet Job or something. Maybe Hillary's foreign affairs minister...you know.the guy down the hall that cut my hair for 6 months. So good luck girl...see you tonite on MSNBC.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Funny discussion...
Posted by: radiomorning on Apr 10, 2008 2:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reading through these comments, there is a lot of funny stuff. Everyone seems to feel the need to somehow qualify themselves before they can offer their opinion on Rachel. Like 'I am a straight white male and I like her!' As if you should be extra commended for it. What fun. Good comments though.

I'm glad to see an intelligent voice who won't be pushed around getting some airtime. Good on her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Funny discussion... Posted by: kww355
» RE: me three...nm Posted by: jimidee
Rachel is the bomb
Posted by: fomented on Apr 10, 2008 2:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Love Rachel. She's so smart... and so is MSNBC.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama Media Groupies
Posted by: bjmiddle on Apr 10, 2008 2:37 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like Rachel Maddow, too, but the other night when she filled in for Keith I noticed that she adopted some attitudes in presenting news on Hillary Clinton that were straight out of Keith's book. I can barely tolerate him these days because he is so anti-Hillary. Sen. Clinton is admired by many, many progressives and I am one. The rock star groupie persona some in the media adopt when Sen. Obama is the topic is very silly and distorts what we're about - electing a President. Don't join the g