Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rachel Maddow: Political Game Changer

By Sam Boyd, The American Prospect. Posted October 4, 2008.


For years, liberals thought they could catch up in the media by playing by conservatives' rules. Maddow proves it's better to just change the game.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Sam Boyd

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

"I think I have a fear in general about whether being a pundit is a worthwhile thing to be," Rachel Maddow tells me over dinner at a Latin restaurant in lower Manhattan. It's more than the ordinary self-deprecation of someone who just got her own cable commentary show. It's an insecurity essential to the on-air style that's powered the 35-year-old's rapid rise from a wacky morning radio show in western Massachusetts to the liberal radio network Air America and now to her own prime-time show on MSNBC.

Maddow is not a Tim Russert or a Chris Matthews -- an ostensibly nonpartisan interviewer who badgers politicians and policy-makers about contradictions in their records. Nor is she a Rush Limbaugh or a Glenn Beck -- an attack dog who deals in calculated anger, bluster, and outrage. She's no mild-mannered liberal like Alan Colmes or a veteran observer like Wolf Blitzer or David Gregory. Maddow has broken the broadcasting mold. She has succeeded as an avowed liberal on television precisely because she is not a liberal version of conservatives like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. Unlike so many progressive media figures who sought to replicate the on-air habits of the aggressive shock jocks of the right, she stumbled upon a workable style for the left. She is liberal without apology or embarrassment, bases her authority on a deep comprehension of policy rather than the culture warrior's claim to authenticity, and does it all with a light, even slightly mocking, touch. She proves that liberals can attract viewers on television when they actually act like, well, liberals.

Maddow's accidental path was paved by the success of Keith Olbermann's Countdown on MSNBC. Neither Olbermann's impressive ratings (second only to Bill O'Reilly's) nor his liberalism were foreseen by the network, which hired him in 2003 as a straight newscaster. Olbermann's audience, along with the declining popularity of Republican media outlets as the country soured on the Bush agenda, emboldened MSNBC to give Maddow her own hour of prime time, a coveted 9 P.M. slot immediately following Countdown. (The Rachel Maddow Show debuted Sept. 8.)

The announcement was interpreted by some as a turning of the tide, a sign that cable news networks were no longer a hostile environment to liberalism. But, for her part, Maddow never accepted the idea that cable executives harbor a conservative bias. As she put it, "It's sort of the first refuge of lefty scoundrels to say, 'I get the real picture, and the mainstream media would explode if they ever handled it.' But if you can make it interesting, the mainstream media is interested in it."

* * *

Maddow started her career with more interest in changing policy than in changing the media. After attending Stanford, she studied at Oxford, where as a Rhodes scholar (she says she was the first openly gay American to receive the honor) she completed a dissertation that expanded on work she was already doing as an AIDS activist. Her efforts were based on a profound public-health insight: Prisons offer a surprising opportunity for AIDS prevention and treatment because inmates are a vulnerable population collected in one place and have a constitutional right to health care.

In 1999, Maddow was supporting herself with odd jobs (she met her partner Susan Mikula after the artist hired Maddow to do yard work) when she attended an open casting call for a disc-jockey position at a local radio station in Northampton, Massachusetts, and scored her own morning show. Five years later, when she heard about a new liberal radio network forming in New York, which would come to be known as Air America, she concocted what she calls a great "caper" to get a job at the network -- involving, among other gambits, having an ex-girlfriend impersonate one of Al Franken's students at Harvard.

Her caper paid off, and she was tapped to co-host a show with network executive and Daily Show co-creator Lizz Winstead and rapper Chuck D of the group Public Enemy. (Maddow is perhaps the only person who can claim she has worked regularly with both Chuck D and Pat Buchanan.) But the show never took off and was replaced with a program hosted by Jerry Springer. Maddow convinced the network to give her a solo show and despite being shuffled from time slot to time slot, was able to build an audience via her podcast. She has held on to her radio show, which currently airs from 6 P.M. to 8 P.M. Eastern time, even after making the jump to TV.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: media, liberals, pundits, rachel maddow

Sam Boyd is the assistant web editor at the Prospect.

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

Advertisement
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:
What can you say bad about Rachel?
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin on Oct 4, 2008 12:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

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

Rachel! Rachel!
Posted by: Tom Degan on Oct 4, 2008 3:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These are heady days (and heady nights) at MSNBC to be sure. Now, in addition to the great Keith Olbermann, we have an hour with Rachel to look froward to every weekday evening. Talk about the best and the brightest!

What is so encouraging is the fact that it appears that their ratings seem to be going through the roof. Can it be? Will we be able to take back the national political dialogue that was hijacked a generation ago by the forces of darkness? Somebody pinch me, I must be dreaming!

Keep on fighting the good fight Rachel. We need you!

Just my luck. The girl of my dreams would have to be gay....sigh.....

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
Weird Times in Mudville

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

» RE: Rachel! Rachel; Tom! Tom!. Posted by: bobtr900
» RE: achel! Rachel! Posted by: january37
» Hello, Jan Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: Hello, Jan Posted by: wagnerrocks@gmail.com
» bastard Posted by: Darvon
» RE: achel! Rachel! Posted by: kirkmuse
» RE: Rachel! Rachel! Posted by: wonkywriter
» RE: achel! Rachel! Posted by: ranchero42
» RE: achel! Rachel! Posted by: orwellturns
When you have integrity
Posted by: weathered on Oct 4, 2008 4:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and courage to challenge the profound lies, there is no need to change the game.

The truth is very simple, its the lies that require the heavy lifting.

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

» Not change the game? Posted by: Smackback
» RE: Not change the game? Posted by: weathered
What took them so long ?
Posted by: Bozwell on Oct 4, 2008 4:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wndering what took the cables like MSNBC so long to realize, that in truth, the true MAJORITY were NOT locked-step-N-step with the ultra right ...
The true majority are not overly whacked left, nor riteously right but far more centered, far more balanced and even double dippers from portions (key=portions) of each/all sides of the spectrums.
Many tune OUT and OFF due to the overt/overdone blatant righteous right parses that had all chastised if not lockstepped in agreement with the far too many bombastic on air personalities.
Civil discussions CEASED as too often , the only way seemed one absolutely HAD to be bombastic and caustic and nasty and must use outrageously stretch facts and of course shove them in faces,down throats and etc, etc,etc to where reasonable folks tuned out, turned off . Even though some claim audiences of 13 million, not truly indicative of actual audience endorsement of what presented..many listened as was nothing else on but diagreed vehemntly all along..just more silent as seemed they would not be heard or listened up to anyway so became a why bother. (was useful to some degree, learned well how to sift the blusterings, recognize such for what was real/phoney, manufactured outrages/etc...
REAL people living REAL lives appreciate good, honest discourse, discussion and appreciate opportunity to learn something more that will either add to their personal knowledge bank/wisdom, that will sometimes cause CHANGE of mindsettings as well and find no shame in doing so breeding confidence in decisions made.
Maddow is refreshing on many levels and one does NOT have to lockstep/endorse all that she says..but can easliy appreciate her offerings, appreciate the opportunity to learn and even realize one can change positions and mindsettings and there is no dishonor in it at all.
Here's hoping she has a long, long career and that we, the audience have the advantage by having access to what she offers and brings to our attention.

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

Rachel Maddow
Posted by: sunlakedude on Oct 4, 2008 4:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rachel is wonderful because she knows how to mix humor into the mix when pointing out the irrational thought lines of Right Wing personalities. Like, how conservatives can think that keeping teenagers ignorant about sex and condoms will keep them from having sex. Or how funding the CHIP childrens health care program is way too expensive while regularly allocating billions for an endless, ill-conceived war in Iraq.

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

When McCain Gets Vicious
Posted by: Urstrly on Oct 4, 2008 5:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's nice to know there's a smart liberal who keeps doing her homework in place as we enter these last weeks of the campaign. McCain has announced he's taking off the gloves, so Rachel's more important than ever.

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

» RE: When emperor McCain Posted by: Lauren
» RE: When emperor McCain Posted by: willymack
Brings an intellect to the issues
Posted by: disparity on Oct 4, 2008 5:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have watched the Maddow program since its inception and without a doubt it is the best around. She brings forth a depth of knowledge to support her arguments which blows away the opposition. When she has found an equal match, her tone is not like the typical right-winger who resorts to the most base and nasty retorts but one of clear, concise arguments. She has the great ability and humility and grace to even accept, in those every rare times, that the other side may have a correct point.

She is very capable of drowning the screaming, obnoxious voices that get louder as they lose the arguments with a fusillade of facts and figures along with her disarming smile, or sometimes a smirk or two.

She is a refreshing strong wind in the hurricane of smog and dirt and obfuscation and the acceptance of all modes of political lies and corruption put out by the right-wing radical movement.

She is not fearful of attacking any political subject because she appears to have done her homework and done it well.

The NBC parent is still frightened by being called "liberal" by the conservative bullies. The proof of this is what they did to Olberman and Matthews although I thought they should have been pulled for difererent reasons. I thought they were too wordy and became enamored with their own rhetoric. They have Scarborough of for several boring, BORING hours and he is in no way a tv journalist not a TV commentator. He was a poor congressman and a poorer TV guy and now an even poorer couple of hours TV pundit. They also have a few other right-wing quacks but the NBC cowards have to be allowed some leeway--after all they do allow Maddow to have her piece. As the article indicated, it is all economics and as long as the intelligent public supports her show, she will be around and hopefully for a very long time.

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

She is no Ann Coulter
Posted by: jrmart on Oct 4, 2008 5:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank God. or what ever diety you do or do not believe in.
Her smiling somewhat incredulous delivery is just to freaking fun to watch and listen to. She has the ability to reduce the absurd to a couple of lines of common sense.
Thank You Rachel.
MSNBC gives us Rachel---Fox news gives us Hasselback!!

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

» RE: She is no Ann Coulter Posted by: orwellturns
What has MSNBC actually learned?
Posted by: BobKincaid on Oct 4, 2008 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While the author notes that MSNBC may be bringing "liberals" to the airwaves as a function of market forces, he fails to note that, prior to the Slaughter of Iraq, its highest rated show was hosted by Phil Donohue. He also fails to note that MSNBC dumped Donohue not for his show's failure, but because he failed to rah-rah the war.

This should serve as a small reminder to Rachel that being a real "liberal" carries consequences, and that a real "liberal" still isn't necessarily welcome on the elecktrick teevee box.

One may hope that sufficient management changes have taken place at MSNBC since Donohue's tenure there to prevent Rachel and/or Keith from being purged, but it is, after all, a for-profit medium and that means one cross word from an advertiser and ZIP, "See Ya!"

For clarity's sake, one must note, however, that the same rules DO NOT apply to Repiglickin gasbags. Remember: IOKIYAR.

America's Liberal Voice

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

Very impressive woman
Posted by: madcat007 on Oct 4, 2008 5:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rachel is the brightest most prepared broadcaster in media at this time. We do have Olbermann to thank for really getting her some major exposure and hosting experience, but she sure knew what to do with the opportunity. The thing about her that really stays with me besides her smarts, her wit and preparedness is that she's always polite and rarely raises her voice. She doesn't need to bludgeon her thoughts on people. I really enjoy watching & listening to her. She's proving that it's ok to be nice, people will still watch. For me, MSNBC currently has the best two-hour block in television. Keep up the great work Rachel!

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

The Best 1-2 Punch Liberals Could Ever Have!
Posted by: deb.dellapiana on Oct 4, 2008 5:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The combination of Olbermann and Maddow is the best 1-2 punch liberals could ever have. They are fantastic and, of course, they are right! Rachel Maddow is spectacular and her show is always entertaining. She's always on top of things and is always prepared. She's got an answer for everyone and has, apparently, even earned the respect of Pat Buchanan. They seem to get along fine in spite of their political differences. I have to tell you, that as fellow lesbians, my partner Beth and I are particularly proud of her achievements and never miss her show (unless the Red Sox make the playoffs; then we watch it later). Rachel was a great find for MSNBC. She deserves every ounce of her success.

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

What???
Posted by: RedFoxOne on Oct 4, 2008 6:02 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is that a chick? No way dude. Ouch. Thats scary!

JIff
Privacy Center

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

» RE: What??? Posted by: chowderhead
» Are you a Dumbass? Posted by: rgoalierob
» RE: What??? Posted by: donl51
» RE: What??? Posted by: Quannah
» RE: What??? Posted by: wagnerrocks@gmail.com
» RE: What??? Posted by: Quannah
» RE: What??? Posted by: Spot
» RE: What??? Posted by: willymack
» RE: What??? Posted by: GeorgiaBlue
» RE: What??? Posted by: madcat007
» RE: What??? Posted by: orwellturns
» I agree 100% Posted by: hurricane hugo
» RE: What??? Posted by: Joy
Breath of Fresh Air!
Posted by: bacalove on Oct 4, 2008 6:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Love her work, her honesty and integrity to truth and democracy.

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

Rachel reminds all that liberals are patriots too.
Posted by: Mary MacElveen on Oct 4, 2008 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I thought that liberalism would die off in this country as so many have attacked those like me who are, it was Rachel Maddow through her wit and style that said to me, it is okay to be an unapologetic liberal. After all this is our country too and I appreciate being able to sit and watch an on-air commentary show that does not belittle my political beliefs. As we now live in such dire times given the Wall Street crisis, it is Maddow that is our little respite from that world where we can believe that there is indeed hope in this dangerous world of ours. She serves as a reminder that liberals are indeed patriotic Americans and for the continuance of this republic, all sides need to be heard, but NOW is the time for liberals to be heard from. Thank you, Ms. Maddow for allowing our beliefs to see the light of day.

Mary MacElveen
http://www.marymacelveen.com
Contributing writer for OpEdNews.com

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

About Olbermann
Posted by: Rudh Dalpra on Oct 4, 2008 7:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of his great accomplishments was helping to launch Rachel. Keith is great, but half of his show is devoted to nonsense. We need less flippant crap, and more unvarnished truth about the world around us, which is getting increasingly ugly, ala Jack Cafferty !

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

» RE: About Olbermann Posted by: donl51
» RE: About Olbermann Posted by: wagnerrocks@gmail.com
» RE: About Olbermann Posted by: Quannah
» RE: About Olbermann Posted by: medusa
» RE: About Olbermann Posted by: ranchero42
» RE: About Olbermann Posted by: Quannah
» RE: About Olbermann Posted by: Lilly
just one thing
Posted by: sunspot on Oct 4, 2008 8:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love Rachel & am really impressed with her first month on air -- she's off to a great start! And her guests seem genuinely happy to be on her show and happy for her success.

There is just one thing -- I wish there was a bit less redundancy between her show & Countdown. I'll sit in front of the tube for another hour if there's a hugely different angle to a story, but not if it's the same story I just heard. And to both Keith and Rachel: Our government is huge, with lots of different branches and departments. After the election, could you mix it up with EPA stories or political stories from the Dept of Transportation or Agriculture? Surely there's other news we're not hearing about our other elected or appointed officials.

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

Rachel Stays on Radio, I Hope
Posted by: zepher on Oct 4, 2008 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wondering how relevant it is to be on MSNBC, since they only reach a select audience that either pays for cable TV or satellite TV (DISH). Every month I write to MSNBC to ask why they don't get available to ALL OF US?? They never reply, nor does DISH TV. So, that is why I hope Rachel Maddow stays on Air America Radio. That way, the select subscribers who get cable/DISH MSNBC and us out here who don't get MSNBC can all listen to her programming. Steady as you go, Rachel.

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

TV?
Posted by: TREEGUY on Oct 4, 2008 8:44 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This might be an interesting article if I actually watched tv.
But I learn more by thinking for myself.

Enough said.

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

» RE: TV? Posted by: wagnerrocks@gmail.com
» RE: TV? Posted by: GeorgiaBlue
» RE: TV? Posted by: BobCP
» Alternative Media is Where It's At Posted by: salt-of-the-earth
» Alex Jones is NOT a Republican Posted by: salt-of-the-earth
» illuminati smilluminati Posted by: wefearwhatwedontunderstand
» RE: illuminati smilluminati Posted by: Quannah
» Alex Jones is a charlatan Posted by: realtruther
Rachel just
Posted by: JefffromCA on Oct 4, 2008 9:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
tells the truth and adds a dash or two of her personality. The newness or game change that Dr. Maddow brings is that she speaks the truth. And republicans can't handle the truth.

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

Rachel's other great gift to the Nation
Posted by: westomoon on Oct 4, 2008 9:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until Rachel got her show, I genuinely hadn't realized how few eminent women were visible in the media. Rachel has been booking a huge proportion of female "talking heads" for her show -- Senators, Representatives, experts of all kinds.

And surprisingly, what they say to her is clearer and makes much more sense to me than the usual boy-on-boy exchange. Granted, her interviewing skills are unparallelled -- but it also seems that the information that smart, achieving women provide in her hands is somehow more illuminating than what we're used to.

She's also been going to the newsmakers themselves, or to non-journalist experts, for her commentary. That's a big difference from Olbermann, who gets most of his commentary from other journalists. I love Olbermann's talking heads, but I also love the way Rachel gets the horses' mouths to explain what they're thinking. That's been especially interesting when the horses' mouths are female.

During the primaries, I'd been puzzled and outraged by the meme that appeared so often on these boards -- Hillary Clinton was the "only viable woman Presidential candidate" for the foreseeable future. Several of us would respond by listing names of women who were ready right now, but I realize now that most people had never seen or heard of all these eminent women. Rachel has smoothly fixed that perception gap, and given us an interesting new depth in news coverage by so doing.

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

A True Positive Female Role Model
Posted by: Purple Girl on Oct 4, 2008 9:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With the numerous HORRID examaples of Females worth emmulating for younger Women, I esp appreciate Rachal.
Probably Most disturbing was the HYPE over how women were 'flocking' to Hillary.But a Closer study of those 'Hill Raisers' who then switched to Palin, began to set my mind at ease. Women Know these type Women- ones we have been battling along with the guys for Millenia-Fair Weathered Feminists,"Desperate Housewives", and The "Pay Back's a Bitch" Brigade.They are the ones who will back you as long as you don't have to become a bit 'Unlady Like'. Or they are decades long married women who have depised their husbands, have personal regreets and unfulfilled Dreams. Then there are the ones who live 'vicariously' through some famed female, decide the best way is Revenge, Vote for any female regardless because 'Pay backs a bitch', fanatize about 'Amazon Rules'.These are Our Moms, Friends,and Co Workers- Love 'em or hate 'em,they've been around Forever.
What these Segments of Psuedo Feminist Do - Unfortuantely is, While trying to support the other female, they are conceding to basic concepts we are trying to dispell.
Hillary is a wonderful example of 'Feminism Gone Wrong'
She did not stay true to her innate Female Intuition and Connection to others- she relied on cooked up Male type tactics to 'connect' with voters.I would sumise she had a Sign Copy of 'Roves' handbook.She applied many of 'his' style tactics ( same ones used on Carter, so calling these 'Rovian' is granting credit where none is warranted).
Went on to Claim 'Woman Behind the Man' On Her resume as if a Earned Degree or true level of expereince. If tht 'Logic' prevailed I would be qualified to put up you Walls & Ceilings- I've been married to a Union Carpenter for 16 yrs...Was Hillary Privvy to Presidental level Information and Activation ability or was she JUST THE FIRST LADY?
Then when all else failed Hillary got NEO CON NASTY and delved into the 'dark Side'...After Three Statements regarding WHY she Had NOT yet Conceded she Invoked the assinsation of RFK..3rd time the Charm Hill? Was it a Request?Not to Mention Ferraro's slithering from under her rock about to HISS 'Obama Wouldn't be at this level if He were Not Black'
Which lead to Hillary's Loss of ALL Creditability as a True Womens Advocate- she attempt to par out the Womens Movement form the Equal Rights Movement....Hillary, Women are the literal Bearers of Diversity. Our children are Boys & Girls, of all colors, creeds and even sexual orientation.Women are the Hear t& Soul of the EQUAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT (We're It's founding MOTHERS!) I Won't Stop to Put Lipstick On before I come at you with TEETH bared if You mess with My Kid! She didn't (couldn't?) dig farther than Our Gender allegience?..The most gutteral and action provoking allegience is Our 'Momhood'.If you ask a woman to sacrific herself or her child...She'll sacrific yourself. Unless of course It makes for a great photo Op while under 'Sniper fire' or Perhaps giving a speech to Oil Boys, Or For A Specific State Initials on a Birth certificate. both those Women proved they either did not possess the maternal or intellectual ability to be making critical decisions for this country, or they lacked the Moral and ethical fiber to fulfill such a role in Care of our Country!
Then She Reclaimed a State Primary Vote which had already been agreed on was 'Not going to Count'(MI & FL- So called 'Popular Votes' that made up that 18 Million count illegitamtely).So She Required the Game Rules to be changed (Lowered) for her Benefit
Libber Guidline- NEVER ASK FOR THE BAR TO BE LOWERED OR RULES CHANGED TO ACCOMODATE YOU!Your Proving the True Sexists Right, Causing doubts in supportive males and underming every Woman around you and to follow you! the Reason I've Spent so much time back filling the 'field'to Level, is not just to fill in 'naturally' made holes, but those Made (Dug) by My Own Team mates!

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

and she brings fresh voices
Posted by: lb on Oct 4, 2008 11:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to the airwaves. I love seeing all my "friends" from the netroots. Keith has Markos on regularly and had Nate Silver from 538 on Friday (!), but Rachel goes even further. We need to hear and see these progressives on the teevee, like David Sirota, Steve Benen, Anna Marie Cox. Rachel strikes me as being a faithful friend and she is bringing the blogosphere along for the ride on MSNBC.

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

» Markos?? Posted by: realtruther
Indeed A Rarity
Posted by: thebeerdoctor on Oct 4, 2008 11:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sad to say there are not many women in broadcasting or news, allowed to show how capable they are. Amy Goodman, Lyse Doucet, and now Rachel Maddow, have become part of the conversation. This is good for broadcast news, just as Pam Ward is good for broadcast sports. These are competent women doing their jobs.

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

Not Quite On Target ...
Posted by: scribble on Oct 4, 2008 11:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Randi Rhodes works just as hard and is just as informed and articulate on public issues as Maddow is -- and probably knows more politicians. Comparing Rhodes to a typical shock-jock is simply wrong.

You left out other progressive hosts, like Thom Hartmann, Laura Flanders and Christine Craft, who are as good as Maddow. If you care about objectivity and personal command of facts, most Progressive hosts blow away conservatives, and you should have said that. I can't think of a conservative host or commentator who compares to Maddow, Rhodes, Hartmann, Flanders or Craft.

Jerry Springer did NOT replace Maddow. Different time slots. You should have noticed.

sc

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

Yeyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy Rachael, go girl!
Posted by: what0now0toons on Oct 4, 2008 12:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been a fan of Rachael Madaow since her first day on Air America radio's airwaves. I am thrilled to now ad her TV show to my must watch list of news programs, and to learn that millions of others have also done so. Change is coming, people are waking up and rejecting the snake oil they were sold by these free market Con-Servatives. It's too bad that it has taken a banking collapse to wake them up, this all could have been averted if we had just kept FDR's policies in place.
Left of center cartoons & animations
www.whatnowtoons.com

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

Poorly written article
Posted by: hrayovac2 on Oct 4, 2008 12:50 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Love the Maddow..hate the article. Take note that Rachel's very first official campaign McCain/Palin rep finally appeared just last night after a three week initial snubbing. She is just establishing herself so any impression formed of her manner must take this into account. The assessments of Mathews, Russert, Blitzer as neutral are incorrect. Blitzer pushes the corporate/Saudi view. Mathews has turned Democrat partly with an eye for survival but I think mostly because his Democrat guests (post primary) aren't falsifying nearly as much as the RNC surrogates and he resents being lied to on camera. I wouldn't call that neutral although it should be in a better world..remember that Russert gave away no points to anyone. Maddow is more polite at this point as befitting her freshman status. I don't see Maddow as a game changer..she is simply doing the kind of work every TV journalist claims to do but often don't..research, question, verify.

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

Sapphic sense
Posted by: daverageous on Oct 4, 2008 1:12 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lesbians will rule the world soon. Rachel will be Queen. All hail the Queen!

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

Corporatist threw us a couple of bones .....
Posted by: Kahoneez on Oct 4, 2008 1:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Make no mistake the Corporatist still control the message i.e. the news , MTP and all the crap they pass off as news on cable .
The Council on Foreign Relations still has their lapdog Tom Brokaw , (member & moderated their Denver Meeting ) to push their foreign policy agenda and have complete control of what NOT to report . The massive suffering in Iraq from millions of homeless, street crime up over 300%, malnutrition and kids dying , but the " surge is working ", to the fact Wall Street wanted to give loans to everybody, to expand their portfolios and disregarding the fact , wealth doesn't disappear, it's just transferred to a few , BY DESIGN , like to WAR PROFITEER JP MORGAN .
Spinning more obscene agendas like " we need to send more troops to Afghanistan " or " we took our eyes off the ball " Ask the fucking over 6000 DEAD afghan civilians , KBR who built billions of dollars of bases , the Narco State created, the Caspian Pipeline deal struck weeks after CIA op. Karzai was placed into office. if we took our eyes off the ball, lol .
No, OIL & U.S. military intervention will never be discussed .

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

Lilly
Posted by: Lilly on Oct 4, 2008 1:24 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My husband and I are an elderly couple, liberal Democrats who for decades have made the focus of our day the network evening news---we always watched it with dinner. Now CBS, ABC, and NBC are so scared of the GOP-Right (and so owned by Corporate America) that they give the kid glove treatment to any news that makes the Bush administration look bad and politely don't even mention a lot of controversial issues. Cable isn't reliably better, with CNN showcasing Lou Dobbs the Conservative and Wolf Blitzer being Runner-Up for Wimp of the Year, second only to FOX's Alan Colmes. Our reaction: the focus of our day is now The Rachel Maddow Show (so we eat dinner later, so what?).

Rachel comes across like a really, really well-prepared professor. First, she is very smart; with a Political Science doctorate from Oxford she is light-years ahead of TV pundits who just talk fast and shoot from the hip: she KNOWS what she is talking about. Second, it doesn't hurt that her presentation is beautiful, with perfect diction, a pleasant manner, and a bit of wicked humor. Third and best of all, she seems absolutely courageous. You really do get the impression that she is not going to take any crap from the GOP-Right---but her manner remains serene. She reminds me of the admonition that in our work we should be like ducks, seeming to sit placidly on the water but under the surface paddling like hell. A lot of study, research, revision, editing, scheduling, and all kinds of work must go on behind the scenes, and I imagine her legal advisors will be kept busy, but Rachel...smiles.

The day after the Biden-Palin debate I spent hours online while meanwhile my husband toggled among TV channels, both of us surveying reaction to the speech---but nobody else, only Rachel, gave a detailed list of Palin's lies, misrepresentations, and out-of-context quotations.

We think that Rachel Maddow is the best thing to happen to television in about forty years. And congratulations to MSNBC for having had the moral fortitude to give Dr Maddow her own program. It is past time for a strong voice to counter the Right-wing propaganda machine.

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

» RE: Lilly Posted by: joysea
Fox going down
Posted by: ckuhn55 on Oct 4, 2008 1:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you have seen Foxnews with OReilly Hannity, Gibson Rove and others, you know why this Woman will succeed. Fox is going to go down the tubes when McCain loses. They took it hard with they lost both houses. They will only hold to the truth Right, while America changes and grows, Fox loses..like American are wise to Bush and Cheney, Fox will go down to a new low. Americans need to buying what Fox Advertises. Write the Advertisers telling them NO more goods bought, if they continue with Fox. Fox survives on Advertising. OReilly and Sean will continue to write books and make millions. Americans wise UP...Fox goes down with McCain.

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

» RE: Fox going down Posted by: orwellturns
Mischaracterizations
Posted by: jg on Oct 4, 2008 1:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love Rachel and have followed Air America hosts since the beginning.

First, the situation with Randi Rhodes was told incorrectly. Randi's Hillary comment was made on stage at a private gig...not on air. She left AA over a contract dispute. Her contract with AA was up for renewal and AA management suddenly decided that they didn't like the clause in her contract regarding the conditions of her employment. Randi would not give in, so AA decided to use the occasion of her controversial remark, again made outside the radio venue, to undermine her position. Big mistake on their part: Randi was one of their biggest draws, if not the biggest, but I guess AA figured she would "blink" thinking that she had no alternative. Wrong! Randi split and within four days--FOUR DAYS!-- had her entire audience back in the same time slot with the same affiliates under the banner of Nova-M Radio, I have no doubt to the complete surprise and dismay of AA. Way to go, AA---real smart move.
And then there was the time that the mismanagement at AA stabbed Mike Malloy in the back, and he too is now at Nova-M, but I digress.

Randi's show is a talk show--she takes callers. Rachel's show is a news show--she doesn't take callers. Randi is primarily polemical; Rachel is primarily analytical. They are apples and oranges and cannot be compared except to note that they are both progressives. I like 'em both for what each has to offer. That being said, my personal radio favorite is Thom Hartman who combines elements of each with a heavy dose of historical perspective and analysis.

The author describes Randi as "strident, angry". Instead of these Republican labels, I would have more accurately said "uncompromising and unapologetic". Conservative callers to Randi are taken first, not screened out, and given ample opportunity to make their (unsupportable) arguments before Randi factually refutes them.

Rachel is great and it's about damn time that another progressive voice combat the 10:1 ratio of conservative to progressive media access.

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

» RE: Mischaracterizations Posted by: Quannah
No thanks.
Posted by: pdecarlo on Oct 4, 2008 2:11 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rachel Maddow's snarky tone just annoys me. It's worse than listening to Brooklyn hipsters talk politics.

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

» RE: No thanks. - I hear ya Posted by: MartianBachelor
Can't miss it
Posted by: Jeanne on Oct 4, 2008 3:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I record both Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow every day. It's the only news worth watching.

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

Hmmm, my wife likes her.
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 4, 2008 5:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She wishes though that Rachel would move past Democrats only and recognize people such as Ralph Nader and Cynthia Mckinney. But as usual, neither she nor I are convinced that TV is worth much to watch these days at least as far as news and analysis is concerned.

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

Glib 'n White Bread Maddow
Posted by: PointMan on Oct 4, 2008 6:17 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maddow chatters a mean streak while (for the most part) offering all the clever surface wit and depth of a birdbath.

About the best that can be said about this one is that she's cute, fairly innocuous and skin-deep "informative" at recycling cooked "news" from a faux progressive corner. (to be fair Maddow is far more balanced than clods on the "right" such as Coulter, Limbaugh, etc that pretend to be "conservative") But then, that has described the bulk of corporate MSM decoy artists for decades.

Lastly Maddow has never spoken real truth to real power. (Ever)

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

» RE: Glib 'n White Bread Maddow Posted by: PointMan
» RE: Glib 'n White Bread Maddow Posted by: madcat007
» RE: Glib 'n White Bread Maddow Posted by: PointMan
Maddow
Posted by: Eat Politicians on Oct 4, 2008 6:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is Brilliant...we need more like her.

I don't know what else to say...just wanted to add to her deserving praise list.

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

Frostman
Posted by: Frostman on Oct 4, 2008 6:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think her show is great!

I'm disappointed that it's scheduled against Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert. I'd much rather be able to watch ALL 3 of them!

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

Rachel rocks
Posted by: georgiaorwell on Oct 5, 2008 12:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It makes me ill that I can't get the Maddow show as I live in Europe right now. I have to rely on youtube and clips to hear her honest, articulate, thoughts - Rachel is fantastic - as much as I like Keith, I would love to see her program in his spot (they show Olberman, followed by O'Relley) here.

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

When will Noam Chomsky be a guest?
Posted by: robertkamper on Oct 5, 2008 4:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just saw a Noam Chomsky appearance on the Charlie Rose show in which he made the case that he (and by the way, folks of my opinions as well) are in the mainstream, not the left wing, liberal fringe of American society. When will Rachel bring him on so the 80% of Americans that think the country is headed in the wrong direction can get represented in the media?

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

» Chomsky is either senile or... Posted by: realtruther
Rachael Maddow a role model?
Posted by: nutsack on Oct 22, 2008 8:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sure, I want my daughter to be bright, articulate, engaging, and a dyke!

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