Rachel Maddow defends her long-time friend Booker

[Marzupialis]

Maddow gave Booker 12 minutes to try to save his political career last night. At one point Maddow even slammed liberals for jumping in on the "feeding frenzy" against Booker:

When off-message happens on the Democratic side, there`s no mitigating factor that can distract from the feeding frenzy. Democrats join right in with the attack. Liberals join right in. The Beltway media joins in with the attack in way that they can almost not control.

The Republicans not only attack but they caricature this Democrat in this case into a helpless victim who they supposedly want to rescue from being silenced since he obviously isn`t allowed to speak for himself.

his#ixzz1vcfRsNUP

Maddow is being criticized by liberal media critic Bob Somerby:

"Daily Howler (5-22-12): Rachel Maddow and Cory Booker have been friends ever since they went to Stanford together. When Booker appears on her show in better times, Maddow often mentions this fact."[

Last night, she didn’t do so. But she staged a truly gruesome cable segment in defense of her horrible, scam-heavy friend./b]

Maddow mentioned nothing about her good friend's ties to Wall Street big-shots.

[monmouth]

1. "A Friend in Need Is a Friend Indeed." I could tell she was a bit uncomfortable but I'm giving her

a pass on this. She had him on to tell his part and that is a good friend. We don't know their discussion off-camera. She may have well given him either hell or some good advice. That's what true friends do. We should all hope at least one of our friends is a Rachel..

[CatWoman]

2. thanks monmouth

I feel the exact same way

[Whisp]

7. yep. I hold nothing against her for that

she's a loyal friend and that is okay by me

[Marzupialis]

10. Great journalism advice.

Great advice. Be tough and inquisitive except in those cases where you're interviewing a friend. I believe you should become a journalism professor.

[white_wolf]

20. Take my advice and don't. All of mine seem to bitter unhappy people who don't like journalism much.

I'm not quite sure why that is, I may just have bad luck with professors.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. But should we hope all politicians have journalists on call to treat them as friends on TV

rather than as journalists? Isn't that one of the basic complaints regarding FoxNews, that they serve the people they interview? Because they are friends?
I'm of the mind that if it is not good for others to practice crony journalism, if we do not wish that to be the one way things are done, then we need to always treat it as what it is, Public Relations, not reporting.
Unless it is always ok, it is never ok to play favorites.

[monmouth]

27. Have you seen David Gregory on Sunday mornings? n/t

[enough]

3. I'm surprised Rachel Maddow is using the "off message" line.

Booker was not "off message," he was deliberately undermining the central focus of the campaign.

[Arkana]

21. I don't ascribe any nefarious intent to it.

I think Booker said what he believes, and what he believes is reprehensible.

[rocktivity]

4. Maybe Bob Somerby should have mentioned that he's been jealous of Rachel's success

almost from day one.


rocktivity

[Confusious]

6. Yea, well

Defending booker really doesn't go over well in my book, Somerby aside.

As far as his statements, I would never vote for him for anything now, not even dog catcher. He defended a bunch of vampiric ghouls.

He's persona non grata, and people who defend him have it rub off on them.

[scheming daemons]

5. What Rachel did last night was good friendship, but bad journalism

Cory Iscariot Booker stabbed the President in the back. It wasn't a "slip of the tongue". He went out of his way to attack the Obama team for running Bain ads.

He said the Bain ads were equivalent to Rev. Wright ads on the other side. Said it disgusted him.


He was wrong on so many levels... but the main way he was wrong is he let himself become a pawn of the Romney campaign for the next five months.

There will be ad after ad featuring Cory's words AGAINST the President.



Rachel... as a journalist.. should have pressed him more... on the fact that he received half a million dollars from Bain, on the fact that he kneecapped the President on MTP. She didn't, because he's her friend.


She tried to rescue him. That's bad journalism.

[abelenkpe]

8. Im supposed to be upset with Rachel for giving a long time friend a chance at redemption?

Or is this post to remind me to be upset with Booker? Or to erode my trust in media (ha ha don't worry that's long gone)

Sorry I suffer from outrage fatigue and just don't give a shit. I like Rachel.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

9. I love Rachel Maddow but she's not perfect

There should be no figures, however great, immune from criticism when called for, even including the President. I thought Maddow's interview was underwhelming and a waste of time. However, I'll continue watching her of course because next to Amy Goodman she's the best we've got.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

11. So a Repuke using the same straw man bullshit argument is no good. But it's OK when

this guy does it? It seems to me he went out of his way to toss Wall Street's collective salad with his clueless comments. Not only that. Every time I've seen this guy he's is extremely measured with his words. His whole "let's not be disagreeable" shtick is part of the reason he's invited on these talk shows. The word nauseating and conflating Repube racism with well deserved criticism of vulture capitalism was deliberate on his part. He is not a stupid man.

[CTyankee]

25. Exactly! His "aw, shucks" defense just doesn't ring true.

He knew what he was doing on MTP. I don't think he was smart enough, tho, to figure out what a backlash he would bring upon himself. I think he thought he was going to get away with this and be praised as some kind of "independent minded Democrat," instead of a vile traitor out after his own glory and grubbing for Wall St. money.

He's not in a very good place right now, is he?

[bullwinkle428]

12. Rachel's great, but she really should have interrogated him more harshly, like she

did with Anthony Weiner, right after "penis-gate"...ahem...arose.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. She should have recused herself due to her personal ties to him

and deferred to an impartial person who would have pressed him and not gone on the attack for him. Crony journalism is not pretty even when it involves people we usually like. Palin used to say she only talked to Hannity, 'cause he liked her. Well, this is the same thing.

[TheKentuckian]

14. Maddow is peddling bullshit here. The right wasn't attacking Booker, they are using him as an attack

If Democrats don't join that attack then they must surrender to it.

Her statement lacks integrity even if it is motivated by deep personal loyalty because it is a betrayal of her public trust and is completely dishonest.

[One of the 99]

15. Somerby is not a liberal

He's been attacking liberals in the media, especially Maddow, for years now while giving FAUX News a pass.

[TomClash]

17. They both did us all a favor actually

They reminded us that, at the end of the day, neither one really challenges the privileged and their political class that holds power in this country.

Cory Booker got the chance to try to redeem himself and Rachel Maddow got the big scoop, in exchange for throwing him a few softballs.

Let's just call it the old boys and girls school, contemporary version, with a little color and caviar. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[AtomicKitten]

18. Rachel and Booker were trying to transfer the outrage over his comments to the GOP.

We already knew exactly what the GOP would do with Booker's comments. However, the fact that Booker is a Stanford school chum of Rachel's plus Booker taking $500K+ from Bain makes their effort to transfer the outrage off Booker to the GOP seem disingenuous. My first real disappointment with Rachel.

[DemocracyInaction]

19. reality check

95% of the people in this country wouldn't know Booker if they fell over him nor listen to MTP. This is a tempest in our political junkie teapot. BUT they do understand the Bain ads......nice try GOP, but killing off people's jobs is sticking to Mitt like tar....

[Horse with no Name]

22. Well....not gonna throw her under the bus for this

although it does make me a little disappointed.

However....the OP of this Rachel hitpiece isn't a veritable source of truth...so probably going to watch it myself to see if there is anything taken out of context--and somehow, I imagine there will be something that isn't what it seems.

These fucking pubs are trying to get a two-fer out of this one....Booker AND Maddow.

Sorry...not gonna take their word for it. Not gonna play.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. jeepers.

Booker was not under attack from the right, Booker joined the right attacking Obama and got slammed for being an idiot.

Seriously how the hell is going after Bain Capital the same as going after Rev Wright? How typical, the false equivalency leading to "we all need to stop and play nice". Off message? Just Off.

Seriously Rachel? That was not the 'left' (what fucking left?) joining in. That was the right stepping back while one of ours made an idiot out of himself.

[procon]

24. I love Rachel

because she usually talks truths in the desert of American journalism, but she dropped the ball this time.

I was quite willing to cut her some slack in supporting someone she holds dear, and I see no conflict in giving Cory Booker an opportunity to explain himself. However, what was lacking was any sort of followup from Rachel... not even a basic journalistic inquiry of, "Dude, what were you thinking?"

If she felt so constrained by her friendship with Booker, then she should have taken a backseat and sat him down in front of a panel to respond to others who were willing to pose the critical questions she could not. I'm disappointed that she didn't handle this better because it left her audience with unanswered questions.

[Spazito]

26. I was disappointed with the interview...

I really did think, even though they are good friends, Rachel would have been tougher with her questions than she was under the circumstances.

My disappointment doesn't in any way take away from my overall respect and I will certainly continue to watch her show, it is, imo, the best one to watch in order to understand some of the more convoluted aspects of more than a few issues. She has a way of breaking them down that clarifies them, makes them much more understandable.