Why do so many "love" Rachel Maddow?

[Cyrano]

I can only speak for myself.

First, her research, her diligence, and her devotion to provable facts and absolute truth is unquestionable.

Her knowledge of human history, (political and otherwise), is vast and, no matter how complex, she makes it accessible to us all.

She speaks into that camera like she's sitting next to you and speaking to you alone.

Her humor is delightful, precious and perfectly timed, given the ugliness of what she often covers.

And, I think that to some small, or perhaps large way, she's making the world a better place with her show, her podcasts, her writings and her very presence among us.

[Attilatheblond]

1. She is an EDUCATOR

and one of the best ever.

[Cyrano]

3. Couldn't agree more. And her eloquence is unmatched.

[lindysalsagal]

7. This

[Deuxcents]

16. And educated. She has a Bachelor's Degree in public policy and a Doctorate in political science

Bachelors from Stanford n Doctorate from the university of Oxford so she’s Dr. Rachel Maddow and highly respected and loved and I’m one of the many who admire her.

[soldierant]

72. And she got that doctorate as a Rhodes Scholar -

that's a credential in and of itself, IMO

[BonnieJW]

74. Exactly

But she educates without being patronizing. Her attitude is, "I think you'll find this interesting..."

[roscoeroscoe]

2. I appreciate and respect her work

The Ultra podcast and the lesser-known series she did about history rhyming/repeating itself were both superb. The new season of Ultra has started off well also.

[LakeArenal]

5. She's great but from our perspective she takes too long to get to her point.

Then goes to commercial before she does.

We are used to it but don’t really like it.

[orange jar]

11. This.

She gets really into "world building" before reporting the actual news. Which is fine; I'm sure it helps some people digest news easier. For me personally, though, I prefer when reporters get straight to the point, so I don't really watch her show unless something truly groundbreaking is happening. Different strokes for different folks, tho.

[SocialDemocrat61]

18. I don't think it's always world building

Sometimes it comes across as stretching because the show is running short.

[Cyrano]

22. Most "news" programs get straight to the point.

Rachel's lead in puts the subject in context and teaches most people something they didn't know.

By skipping over her preamble to what she's covering, you're depriving yourself of a deeper insight of the topic she's covering.

[ShazzieB]

43. Hard agree!

I always learn so much from her intros. Yes, not all of them are equally riveting, but there are always nuggets of information that are worth the listen.

Saying reporters should get right to the point is all well and good, but Rachel is not just a reporter. She's there to help us make sense of the news by explaining things at a deeper level, and she does a great job of that.

Maybe it's a matter of personal taste. If "get right to the point" reporting is what someone really wants, then she's likely not the best source for that. For those of us who enjoy peeling back the layers and taking a deep dive into not just the who, what, and when of a story, but the how and why, she's the best.

I am absolutely crazy about her myself, but I realize others may have different preferences. That's fine. Enjoy whatever it is you enjoy. Different strokes and all that.

[forgotmylogin]

56. I feel like she is discussing high level stuff and doesn't want to leave people in the dust.

She's fascinated by the history and surrounding context of politics, and the format feels like a college lecture by an enthusiastic professor. I can understand why some don't like that.

[vanlassie]

91. Also, it's not "news." Its not a news program

like Walter Cronkite. Want news and weather on the hour? It’s right there on your dial!

[LisaM]

26. Agree. She circles and circles around her point.

She also repeats herself quite a bit. I stopped watching because she never seemed to land the plane.

[Raven123]

53. Repeats herself more than I can tolerate.

In other words, she says the same thing over and over. ☺️

Repetition helps some people, I understand, just not me. I guess it is a style preference.

[Trueblue Texan]

99. You missed the plane! LOL!

But different strokes.

[SarahD]

27. It's the Rush Limbaugh method.

Although her content is completely different, her method is the same. It goes back to something journalists used to learn. "Tell them what you're going to tell them. Tell them. Tell them what you just told them." Limbaugh used this method because he had to spend three hours delivering one, single point to his brain dead audience.

[markodochartaigh]

33. When I tutored in college.

I found this three step approach great. But I added two steps. 1) Tell the student what you are going to teach them. 2) Teach them the material. 3) Have them teach you what they understood. 4) Teach them what you taught them. 5) Have them teach you the material a final time.

Obviously this only works with motivated students, but I found it effective.

[LakeArenal]

81. Interesting.

[KPN]

32. I agree ... my wife does even more so. We both like and

appreciate her talent, skill, knowledge and persona. But as my wife likes to say, “she starts at the amoebas” and builds painstakingly from there. And at our age, though we appreciate the context, we sometimes forget some of the context by the time she gets to the “news”.

[Collimator]

45. "Starts at the amoebas?!"

Oh, heck, that's waaay up the evolutionary ladder. At least she doesn't begin with amino acids combining to make complex proteins.

I used to work in customer service and I often joked about customers who were more interested in browbeating the reps trying to help them than in getting their problems solved. "Never mind beating a dead horse. That guy took things down to individual horse molecules!"

I tend to agree with those who acknowledge that Maddow isn't really reporting the news per se. She is lecturing on a topical subject. At the same time, she is part of a media industry that has to meet scheduling metrics which includes alotting time for advertising.

At least the content that Maddow creates informs and elevates instead of goading people into knee jerk emotional reactions that shuts off their critical thinking capabilities.

[KPN]

58. Lol. Amino acids! I like it.

Rachel is indeed a great educator. I listened to her all the time when she was doing radio. I agree about her informing … she is great at that. Thom Hartmann’s another. I think they have more impact on those who haven’t been following things closely the past 40 or 50 years, and/or were relatively happy with status quo for much of that timeframe.

[DemocraticPatriot]

66. Agreed. I like her, but sometimes it's too hard to follow her around

for so long... like "big-book biographies" which explain every small point and decision involved in the making of sausage...

I'll say this, she may be more investigative reporter than news anchor,
because she does try to tell you EVERYTHING,
every little spec of dirt on the opposition.... and that is good of course.

[soldierant]

75. I don't know why, but

with her it doesn't bother me.

With Meidas Touch it does bother me intensely.

[LakeArenal]

82. Yesss. 10 second clip, 10 minute monologue.

With a headline that hardly ever matches the content.
ie: “Marge Green humiliated “

[soldierant]

83. Yes.

I'm familiar with "Tell them what you're going to tell them, tell them, tell them what you told them," And that's good advice in general. Butit should not be taken to extremes. And a listener who knows this pattern should at any moment be aware which section the speaker is in.

[Trueblue Texan]

98. Television is not the best format to appreciate her gifts, though she is gifted the most gifted MSNBC host.

Her podcasts are absolutely riveting. You should give them a listen. Ultra is like a horror movie that you cannot tear yourself from watching.

[LAS14]

112. I agree, but was charmed when, at some point...

... she acknowledged that she tells us her point 3 or 4 times. She says you have to when you are giving people new information.

[NGeorgian]

116. That first 25 minutes is what separates her from the rest od MSNBC

[hlthe2b]

6. Intelligent (and proudly intellectual) while still being modest and self-effacing. Sincere and honest

projecting integrity and respect towards others...

She likewise does not ignore the imminent dangers our country and society face at the hands of Trumpists and extremist Republicans. And, that seems to drive her to report on the historical parallels .

[Kaleva]

8. About 1.9% of adults watch her show

[Cyrano]

14. Which is why tens of millions will vote for Trump.

Perhaps, someday, someone will discover a cure for ignorance and/or a lack of common sense.

Personally, I'll listen to a Rhodes Scholar over a snake oil salesman every time.

[Kaleva]

92. A lot of people don't get cable

Cable subscribers are declining as people switch to streaming.

[Trueblue Texan]

100. I don't have cable. I watch MSNBC on Sling TV

It was the only way I'd sign up for a streaming service --if I couldn't get Rachel, I didn't want their service.

[Kaleva]

102. I'm just saying that "many" is inaccurate

Just a very small percentage of adults watch her show. It's in the very low single digits.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

105. 1.9% of adults *is* many people.

1
: consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number
worked for many years
the many advantages of an education

[hunter]

109. I don't watch ANY television news or opinion.

Traditional television made Trump, traditional television must die.

Okay, that's a bit of hyperbole... or is it?

I only know Rachel from what I read here on DU. I probably wouldn't recognize her if we were talking face to face. I might tell her that advertising supported television corrupts everything it touches.

Wouldn't be the first faux-pas like that I've committed.

[JohnnyRingo]

9. I like how she starts the show with some historical event....

...then applies it to a current event.
I like how it winds its way through the intro until we have a grasp on what is happening now.

[BidenRocks]

10. She adds historical context..

To steal a line from Paul Harvey,
When Rachel finishes, now you know the rest ..of the story.

[appmanga]

70. You've hit it on the head.

If you just want someone to tell you something, watch the regular news. If you want depth and context, you watch Rachel. I think her "A" block is one of the best segments in media and it trusts her audience to be engaged and intelligent, and want to know what's behind the curtain. And oftentimes, it turns out what's back there isn't new, the difference is can we be willing and interested in doing something about it. She and Lawrence are the heirs of the kind of TV news Linda Ellerbee, Lloyd Dobbins, and Bill Schecter once did. And not to offend anyone, but news for thinking people ain't instant pudding.

[Tree Lady]

12. Listened to her since she was on the radio

She is very smart, like Pete a few others that can take very complicated matters and break them down to bite size pieces so the rest of us can understand it.

[Brainstormy]

13. She's WAY SMARTER

than the average bear.

[Bucky]

15. Well researched facts backed up by context & analysis. Minimal opinionating

[B.See]

17. Her passion and compassion evident in every broadcast.

A real American hero.

[mahina]

19. I appreciate her warmth, her humanity, her compassion, brilliance, insight, and ability to find what matters and tell

that story in an original and impactful way.

[CaptainTruth]

20. You seem to have answered your own question.

[BigDemVoter]

21. She CERTAINLY seems likeable, and she is DEFINITELY highly intelligent.

She is a plus to have on our side.

I very much enjoy watching her show. The only gripe I have with her would be her interviewing skills. This may be just me, but sometimes I feel like she is too nice to some of the horrible people she is interviewing, but maybe disarming them is her goal.

[Rhiannon12866]

90. That's how she gets the "opposition" to appear on her show, she always asks them if she was accurate, goes on from there

She did a great job with Liz Cheney and, more recently, Dr. Fauci, who it tuns out she admitted to opposing in the distant past.

[DeeDeeNY]

23. Thanks to Keith Olbermann for getting her on MSNBC

He would have her sub for him on his show occasionally and I think was basically responsible for introducing her to the public. That was about 20 years ago.

[Deuxcents]

80. Yes, I remember the two of them would have a discussion on a topic every once in a while, too

[Trueblue Texan]

101. I think she started on Al Frankel's Air America. nt

[DeeDeeNY]

108. You're right

There were a lot of good people on Air America and I enjoyed listening to them all - even RFK Jr, who cohosted the show Ring of Fire with Mike Papantonio and who made sense back then.

[SocialDemocrat61]

111. Franken didn't own Air America

It was owned by Fred Eychaner. Franken was just one of the hosts along with several others like Maddow.

[Trueblue Texan]

114. I thought he was like the originator of the concept...anyway thanks for the info. nt

[Backseat Driver]

24. I expect no less from a woman who is on the side of democracy and a Rhodes scholar insofar as

researching the facts, historical or for the day, and delivering it with clear communication and interview skills in many forms of media: television, podcasts, books, documentaries. Her values are clear, and she conveys these in her approach to politics; she's bold, brave, compassionate, empathetic, ethical, and sometime humorous. In addition, she has always protected the privacy of her relationship(s), professional and personal. I can trust what she tells me!

[malaise]

25. Nailed it

Rec

[madamesilverspurs]

28. I can count on half the fingers of one hand

the number of fisherpersons I trust to tell the truth. She is one of them.


.

[Richluu]

29. She cares in a big way

From her educated perspective she is teaching us what to do to save our democracy. She's educated, funny, and personal.

[Bumbles]

30. I've followed her since she was on Air America.

Like a fine wine, she's only gotten better. She's a national treasure. Maybe she'll bring back her cocktail "hour." She mixed spirits and history. What fun!

[electric_blue68]

87. I was soooo mad when she left. I had no cable tv.

[John1956PA]

95. I think that she and Liz Winstead hosted an Air America morning show.

Those two ladies were often humorous in their informative discussions of lesser reported items in the news.

[senseandsensibility]

31. She grew up about 10 miles from me

so I see her as a hometown girl. Also, find her "accent" to be very familiar even though it's not really an accent. It just sounds like the people I grew up with.

[calimary]

34. I did, until she bailed out of the Monday-thru-Friday lineup.

Since then, gotta admit, I’ve been nursing disappointment.

I would have given her a two-hour block on a Saturday or Sunday evening, early enough to run twice in a row. And long enough to cover anything she wanted to do, in depth. Hell, even a three-hour block Saturday evenings, to repeat on Sunday evening. Plus periodic prime time specials airing on a weeknight.

The Monday-only thing doesn’t work (at least for me). Really chops up the prime time lineup for the week, and rather awkwardly so.

But that’s just me.

[Cyrano]

44. No normal human can do what she did five days a week.

The research and the depth of coverage it takes for her to do an hour is virtually unimaginable. She stopped doing five days because it was killing her.

I'm more than thankful for that one golden hour on Monday night.

[calimary]

60. But she doesn't do it alone.

She has what’s very likely a large support staff that includes researchers, bookers, writers, producers, and segment producers. Some of the best in the business, I’d guess. Not counting the publicists and promoters.

I’d guess she has clusters of people, each group working on a different story or angle. And she can demand pretty much anything for her show, considering her stature at that network by now. She left the one-man-band thing long ago, as she certainly deserved to.

She’s paid seven figures by now because she’s earned it, and she’s certainly worth it. But sheesh - even Johnny Carson didn’t work a one-day-per-week schedule - even toward the end of his tenure. I used to work at NBC, back in the day. The cavernous studios in Burbank had to have 40-50-foot ceilings (I’m guessing) and the entire wall of his studio was covered by a HUGE black & white likeness of him that extended from floor to ceiling. EVERYBODY, EVERYWHERE in that Burbank compound spoke of him in hushed tones. Cuz they all clearly understood that HE was the one pulling in the biggest numbers - of ratings, viewers, salary, and advertising dollars. He was King of Late Night, certainly King of NBC-Burbank, and he had a 30-year run. And the best big-name comedians and celebrities tried to dethrone him, to no avail. Joey Bishop, Dick Cavett, and more tried, and they all failed. He eventually started backing off after maybe 20 years or so, with a regular Monday night “Best of Carson” show in that late-night timeslot (which consisted of reruns of “The Tonight Show”). Rachel now gives us ONE night a week, after a ten-year run.

I’m sorry. Maybe I’m just spoiled. But in my opinion, Rachel Maddow is still young enough to give us at least a few more years of five-day weeks. I still wish she would. She closed down WAY too early. And the news these days is WAY too important to have to do without the brains and perspective of the network’s highest-profile marquee news name for four out of the five weeknights.

[Trueblue Texan]

104. Podcasts, books, book tours, tv, speaking events...

I think she works pretty damn hard. I couldn't do it.

[arthritisR_US]

86. I totally understand but it did drive me into Podcasts

and any time she’s on special coverage, I’m there!

[Trueblue Texan]

103. She talked about the schedule change in her visit to Houston...

She said she was getting burnt out--apparently it was a truly grinding schedule--and she was afraid if she didn't change it up, she wouldn't be able to do it much longer. She said she loves what she's doing now and thinks she'll be able to do it a really long time. She's producing some amazing work and I am so grateful to still have her on the TV airwaves, the podcasts, and her books. I'd love to see her on TV every night too. But she's human, after all. We can't just use her up and expect her to keep delivering political and historical insight at the pace we've been spoiled to.

[NGeorgian]

35. I love that she is 25 minutes uninterrupted! **

!

[TexasBushwhacker]

36. No one connects the dots like Rachel

and she takes her time doing it. I'm okay with that, but I know some people are less patient.

[Srkdqltr]

37. She is only on 1 or2 nights a week so you can't get tired of her.

Makes her show fresher.

[chowder66]

38. I think she repeats and reframes so that it reaches all types of people with different ways of processing information.

I appreciate what she is doing and how she does it. There have been times I have been distracted and luckily she comes back around and I pick up a part I missed.

[ColinC]

39. I don't love any TV/ radio political opinionators

That being said, out of the TV/ radio political opinionators that exist, she is among the most substantial and profound of the lot.

[bluboid]

40. yup, she's the best...

[PortTack]

41. Edward R Murrow of our time

[Music Man]

42. I think you've got it right.

She's intelligent. She came into her position as an academic and not as a talking head.

I also appreciate the research and writing she's done outside her show, such as her book "Prequel" about anti-Fascist efforts in America during the '30s and '40s.

[Joinfortmill]

46. She's our Edward R. Murrow.

[CTyankee]

63. Or maybe Murrow was an early version of Maddow?

[BComplex]

47. I so totally agree, Cyrano! She is truly a once in a lifetime teacher and historian.

She pretty much blows me away every time. I love her.

[louis-t]

48. That about covers it.

She is brilliant.

[moniss]

49. At the same time that I can find praise for her I can also

critique glaring failures by her or her staff during one story in particular. The Flint Water Disaster. Through all the many shows covering the problem and the politicians involved there was no mention or attempt to name and hold accountable the engineering professionals who signed off on the water source plans. They were licensed Professional Engineers who are required in matters like this to conduct various evaluations and testing and by their signatures to certify the results as being safe and consistent with public health in order to proceed with the plans. Absent those signatures from those licensed engineers the project, by law, does not move forward.

While it was vital to try and hold the leaders accountable not doing the same for these engineers is inexcusable. The leaders could not have proceeded without them. But this does happen sometimes unfortunately when media shows deal with stories that have science and engineering personnel failing in their profession. The show producers should have contacted a senior engineer with a background in public water systems and had that person walk them through the project process for such a change. That would include a basic description of the testing/evaluation/approval process. There was more than ample time over the years to do so.

Maddow is better than most in dealing with most stories and I can issue knowledgeable critique so the producers, Rachel and the show can do better on matters like this.

[MichMan]

54. Also very little coverage of the dozens of other cities that had lead levels higher than Flint. n/t

[moniss]

64. Yes and the fact

that for decades we've known about the lead problem, the immense damage it causes etc. and we knew how much it cost to fix it but our governments have only ever, until recently, provided more than a fraction of the funding needed. Always tons of money for Elon Musk, military contractors, oil company subsidies etc. but just a cry of "too costly/no money available" when it comes to this, hunger, homelessness, healthcare, education etc.

[FailureToCommunicate]

50. Agree with all you say Cyrano. Rachel spoke

several times at the graduate school where my wife works, so I had the chance to meet her. She is of course just as charming and authentic in person as she appears on MSNBC.
We are all so lucky to have someone that insightful and passionate dissecting the news of the week for us. With us.
So, sure, I can say I “love” our national treasure Dr Maddow.
I hope she keeps on making sense of our nutty politics…for a long time.

[Torchlight]

51. The couple of times I watched her show, she spoke of topics I was clueless about.

But she presented enough context and relevant background about the subject that I didn't think I was floundering and looking for inferences to latch onto.

With the amount of over-the-air viewers she brings in, I can only imagine the trickle-down from that; Youtube clips, podcasts, etc. Heck, there are so many people I know who don't give a flip about politics at all, yet knows exactly who she is. I have to presume she has a much greater influence than a mere cable news-program, and giggle at the aggresive attempts to minimize it.

[brooklynite]

55. I don't lover her...and I don't hate her...

I just don’t feel the need to watch opinion shows which offer someone’s perspective on news stories I-already know about.

I watch one hour of cable news each morning to catch up on the headlines. That’s it

[Evolve Dammit]

57. National Treasure. n/t

[DooverBeliever]

59. My woman crush!!!!

Besides being a brainiac, she is such a fantastic story teller. She can tell a history story like no other! Yup, I'd marry her, if I wasn't straight!

[Arne]

61. When I see her she makes me realize what

Hillary Clinton could have done as president.

[Paladin]

62. I like her, but not as much as I used to.

I've been to funeral services that were more uplifting than some of her recent discussions. And yes, I know we're fucked in any number of ways, by any number of evil forces---but how about more of an emphasis on pulling ourselves out of this swamp? As intelligent and well-spoken as Rachel is, that's not too much to ask.

Commence firing...

[LetMyPeopleVote]

65. I also really like Rachel

[Faux pas]

67. I consider Rachel

my very own personal history professor and I LOVE 💘 her.

[DFW]

68. I would assume it's because she is so NOT full of herself

We don’t get American TV here, but I met her and her parents one time at the Provincetown Airport. My family and I had been talking to her parents, who had not given a hint wjo they were. Outside the entrance to the terminal, I saw a very tall woman with dark short hair and big black glasses approaching. I thought to myself, “she must think she’s Rachel Maddow.”

Well, she had good reason to think that, since it WAS Rachel Maddow, coming to see her parents off. She just joined us, stuck out her hand and said, “hi, I’m Rachel.”

[iluvtennis]

69. My favorite host on MSNBC - she's a walking political oracle - love her 😍. n/t

[Martin68]

71. Why put "love" in quotation marks? Nothing to be embarrassed about.

[Jack-o-Lantern]

73. I have been watching various news outlets, TV and radio for decades...

The flyover states are a vast wasteland of political ignorance thanks to a thousand or more rural right-wing talk hate radio blaring at them 24/7.
If only broadcasters the likes of Rachal had been available to that segment of society over the years I think the country wouldn’t be on the brink of destruction the way it is now.

[wyldwolf]

76. I like smart people.

I didn't care for her when she did her Air America radio show back in the day. And she spent the better part of her last show trashing Bill Clinton. But she grew on me on MSNBC. She'll always be the smartest person in the room.

[Liberal In Texas]

77. I first heard her on Air America radio back in the day.

She was on with Liz Winstead. I like Liz and all that, but Rachel has an almost eerie natural talent for making herself interesting. She overshadowed Liz back then. I couldn't say I knew she was going to be great, but I'll just say I really like listening to her above almost all the other Air America talent.

[IrishAfricanAmerican]

78. I'm listening to her audio book, Prequel...

Aside being impressed that she read it, I was thinking earlier that she reminds me much of Dan Rather, not just a reporter but a natural story teller. I never watched her much on TV, (I don't watch TV news,) but I really appreciate her work on this wonderful book.

[OAITW r.2.0]

79. What you said.

[greblach]

84. Agreed...

My only quibble is her melodic tone and tempo tend to put me to sleep while watching, to the annoyance of my wife...The content of course is fantastic...and her podcasts majestic...

[jcgoldie]

85. title made me think this was gonna be a shot taking post...

...clicked it ready to FIGHT!

[Jimvanhise]

88. BEHIND THE SCENES THINGS HAVE HAPPENED

She had a falling out with Keith Olbermann she won't talk about but 2 years ago when he was in talks with MSNBC to do a new show, Rachel went to the head of NBC and demanded that they not hire him. Keith has openly talked about that. He also mentioned that few years before when he was fired by MSNBC over political donations it happened the night Rachel was on Bill Mahrer live and when Bill asked her point blank what had happened she denied any knowledge of it but Keith said she was lying. Interestingly I don't think she has been on Bill's show since because he would confront her about that. So she is not all that she seems to be.

[electric_blue68]

89. Sooo Intelligent, caring, and witty! So glad I caught her early on Air America.

[BobTheSubgenius]

93. Nice post!

Your Subject line left me predisposed for a rebuttal, but....you got me.

[Crunchy Frog]

94. I've been following her since she was doing her show on Air America.

I remember watching her the 1st time she guest hosted Keith Olbermann's show.

She's amazing.

[John1956PA]

96. She and Liz Winstead were a great duo on Air America. n/t

[Trueblue Texan]

97. Rachel Maddow is a national treasure.

Her depth of knowledge, her ability to present her research to all of us in an accessible way, and to connect it to present day events is deeply educational, allowing us to integrate the information into our own experience and knowledge to become more effective communicators and protectors of democracy ourselves. I went to see her on the 13th and she packed the house in Houston, TX of all places. I wanted to upload pictures but I didn't know how.

[riversedge]

106. I love how she very often gives us the history behind events.

[gibraltar72]

107. She is an artist

that paints with words.

[Botany]

110. Because she is very good

End of story.

[Prairie_Seagull]

113. I have always appreciated how she

builds a story with the ingredients first, mixing to a thick batter and baking to the eventual cake.

Rather you like the batter or the end product. There is something for everyone.

IMO

[Ilsa]

115. She is self-deprecating. She isn't caught up

in her ego. She's confident. I respect her so much for all of the reasons listed in this thread.

[Cherokee100]

117. Air America

I started listening to her on Air America, some 20 years ago, while I lived in Texas. She was a breath of truth, in that red soaked environment.

[Pepsidog]

118. A voice that needs to be heard by a much larger audience. She should have been a host of a Sunday show.

[Cyrano]

119. Last month, I read Rachel's book, "Prequel," which

makes clear how Nazis were a large, well financed movement in America until WWII started.

I've currently been listening to her podcast, "Ultra, Season 2," which is informing us that, even post WWII, the Nazi movement is still alive in America. They may go by many different names, but they are a disease that never goes away.

If you miss Rachel's five-night-a-week TV show, try the other mediums through which she reaches and educates us.

If you are not computer or smart phone savvy, ask a friend, neighbor, or people at your smart phone store how to receive podcasts. Or, you can download the Spotify app to your computer (it's free) and then just follow the prompts.

I'm sure that the powers that be in the Republican world hate Rachel with a passion. Through TV, books, podcasts, and public appearances, she tells Americans the truths that the American "Fascists in Waiting" don't want you to know.

Yes. She is truly a national treasure.

And one more thing. She has her own website which is always worth visiting: maddowblog.com

[spanone]

120. K&R

[pwb]

121. I fined it hard to love some family.

She is better than the rest but I hardly love a stranger on a t v screen. Respect and admire yes, but love I am more choosy with that.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

122. Her boundless curiosity, her extraordinary communication skills and her humility.

During her opening block she takes us on a journey from how some event in the past has resulted in current circumstances. Her emphasis on context is laudable in an age of "crisis of the day" news.

I feel like I am being talked to as an adult who is being included in the conversation and not being treated as a student by a dismissive professor who jealously guards his information and doles it out in a way to impress and control his class.

She loves to go trout fishing on her days off.

I learn almost as much from her conversations with Lawrence O'Donnell as I do from the rest of her show.

She always exudes a child-like wonder, 'I can't believe they're paying me to do this." (Note: They pay her a lot!)

She is a human being. At the very end of one show she was handed a story about T***p separating children from their parents at the border. News of the event overwhelmed her emotionally, and she asked Lawrence to report the story on his show as she hurriedly closed her own.

That's why I like Rachel Maddow.