My letter to Rachel Maddow.

[Boomerang Diddle]

Dear Ms Maddow,

It is with great reluctance that I have to inform you that I will no longer be watching your show on MSNBC.

I've been a fan of yours for a long time, however, recently your show has gone from being an excellent source for news and commentary to being mean, nasty and very frustrating to watch. Your strong disdain for President Obama is clear. Your constant barrage of tactless, arrogant and snotty remarks directed at the President makes your show unwatchable. If I were interested in hearing condescending and contemptuous "commentary" directed at the President, I would watch Fox.

Frankly, I expect better from you.

Obama is not perfect. He cannot fix everything in less than a year. As with everything in life, change takes time. It would be nice if Obama could just click his heels together and make all the ills of the world go away. But that is not realistic. I believe President Obama is doing and will do the right thing, and when all is said and done, the progressive movement and this country will have benefited greatly from his presidency.

Criticism of the President is perfectly acceptable, but patronizing and sneering digs at the President just for the sake of it is not acceptable. It is nonconstructive. It is unprofessional. It might make you feel better but to many people, it simply makes you look childish and spoiled. Trying to undermine Obama after only five months in office because he has not yet done everything you want him to do is selfish and beneath you.

I will miss your show, especially your "Holy Mackerel" segments, but I can no longer take your unrelenting nasty remarks and disdainful attitude.

Sincerely,
XXXXX

[bicentennial_baby]

1. ...

:thumbsdown:

[ellacott]

2. Very good letter

You've inspired me to pen my own letter.

[Boomerang Diddle]

7. Hopefully if enough people tell her how they feel about the nasty turn

her show has taken the old Rachel will come back! In my view, she's letting herself be too influenced by the angry left on the blogosphere and has forgotten not all of us are eternally angry and actually appreciate having Barack Obama as president.

[Buzz Clik]

3. I gave up on her months ago.

I love Rachel. She's brilliant.

But her obsession has gotten the best of her. I was stunned to read of her calling Obama "that bastard" on election night, and I have grown to be amazed by her intellectual dishonesty of late. (She made the hysterical and inaccurate comment that the DOMA brief equated gay marriage to incest and sex with children. It was sad to hear.)

I continue to support the causes she supports, but I won't watch her show.

(edited to correct a typo)

[CTLawGuy]

5. did she support Hillary in the primary or something

I'm surprised by what you said about her referring to Obama as "that Bastard."

[Buzz Clik]

8. I was surprised by it, too.

For the life of me, I cannot understand her hardline attitude against Hillary in the primaries.

[snake in the grass]

38. Actually, she was a big Obama supporter...

...so I'm surprised to hear this story. Rachel lost a little bit of credibility with me during the primaries because, like Randi, Stephanie Miller, and Thom Hartmann (whom I could listen to for hours), she was so openly in favour of Obama that she took part in the Great Clinton Hunt, and I had to shut her off. It was very disappointing. Only Mike Malloy was consistent, as he hates everybody (ha, ha!). I don't own a tv now so the only info I get on her is over the clips posted on the web. I watch them from time to time, but I'd say the interest just isn't there anymore.

[Metric System]

57. No she definitely did not. In fact she was a favorite source for DUers during the primaries. Ahem.

[Boomerang Diddle]

10. I've tried my best to stick with her

but her hostility has taken over her and made her very predicable. Besides being frustrating to watch, she's actually become quite boring.

[Buzz Clik]

13. When she first started, her joy at ribbing her targets was delightful.

[QC]

46. But then she ribbed The One Who Must Never Be Ribbed. n/t

[Buzz Clik]

53. You're not following along here.

It's not that she criticized Obama -- she's totally lost her style. It's as if her emotional investment in the issue has overwhelmed her giddy approach to hammering her targets.

[QC]

85. So if she were criticizing Obama's policies in a more lighthearted way,

you would adore her?

[Buzz Clik]

92. I believe that's what I said,

Does that disappoint you?

[Neecy]

110. wow

It's a bad thing that she has an emotional investment in Obama's GLBT policies? Issues that directly affect her life as a gay woman? Wow, that's harsh.

Maybe instead of attacking her you might join us in putting some heat on our fierce advocate to simply do what he said he'd do. Naw, that's too hard. After all, it's our 'emotional investment' not yours.

Personally, I'm thankful that we have ONE GLBT voice - ONE - hosting a show. Yet, because she doesn't smile and pretend that his actions aren't harmful she gets barraged with angry letters from supposed progressives. That's shameful. Obama deserves the criticism. I applaud her for giving us ALL a voice.

[Buzz Clik]

117. I attacked her? I don't think so.

I'm willing to see this unfold. If you want to join the ranks of "nothing is good enough, now is not soon enough", go right ahead.

As for Rachel being the lone voice, I'm with you. That hardly makes her immune to criticism.

[dorkulon]

168. You know, I really think you folks are projecting.

I watch her every night and I really haven't seen anything that could remotely be described as hostility. I think that her critiques of Obama policies raise your hackles, and you feel hostility toward her.

[Buzz Clik]

187. Did you watch the show when she interviewed Howard Dean?

Hostility oozed from her pores.

[CakeGrrl]

112. Hey, how long has Sarah Palin been posting here anyway?

:crazy:

[QC]

113. I guess she felt right at home, what with all these cheerleaders running wild. n/t

[Clintonista2]

191. Zing!

I love watching you outsmart the slow ones QC.

[classof56]

4. Well said, IMHO.

n/t

[panader0]

6. I don't usually watch her because

After Hardball and Keith, my girlfriend has has enough and changes the channel.

[ginnyinWI]

9. welcome to a growing number of us.

I also can't abide the snotty condescending tone. Smart people are prone to it, but really smart ones learn not to convey it. She's got a chip on her shoulder, and it shows. It's as though she is doing the show not to inform us, but to prove to us how smart she is--over and over. She's got an ego and it gets in the way.

[dorkulon]

169. Ego?

No. Keith has an ego. He spends half his show engaging in petty oneupmanship against the Fox news shouting heads. Rachel spends most of her time actually informing her audience. Yes, there is the occasional grating bit of snark, but it's nowhere near the level of blowhardiness on any other political talk show in existence.

[NorthCarolina]

11. Rachel is about the only program WORTH watching on cable news.

Unfortunately truly "fair and balanced" reporting sometimes results in news some die hard party loyalists may cringe at. If you want 100% cheerleader style news treatment of your political party, you would be best to become a Republican and then watch only Fox News with their GOP first and only style of "fair and balanced" reporting. You will never be disappointed that way.

[ginnyinWI]

12. there's a lot more to watch than Rachael or Fox News.

First off, everyone should watch some regular news program to get an overview. Try PBS, BBC or even one of the networks to see what else is new besides the political stories of the day.

Cable news-talk shows are commentary on the news of the day. Come in many flavors and all along the political spectrum. I view it as a side dish after watching the regular news. It's entertainment and optional. There you'll get the partisan opinions and slant you won't get on the regular news, which is of value--but it's never good to rely solely on that slant. Watching only the leftward slant is as bad as watching only the rightwing slant.

[NorthCarolina]

23. Two things.....

First, while I don't disagree with the bulk of your post, I just wanted to clarify that I mentioned Rachel was the best thing on "Cable News". I was not implying "Rachel" to the exclusion of all others such as PBS, Bill Moyers, BBC, etc. as I also regularly peruse those avenues. Second, you mention watching only the "leftward slant"; and I think that the fact that Rachel Maddow regularly breaches this "leftward slant" by discussing shortfalls in the Obama administration is exactly what irritates the OP in this regard. I for one am very happy that cable media has finally given a voice to someone with the smarts and integrity of Rachel Maddow.

[Boomerang Diddle]

14. Since I said absolutely NOTHING about "100% cheerleader style news"

I take it you didn't bother to even read what I wrote?

I like and will still watch Keith Olbermann, and he's been harsh on Obama and the Democratic Party more than once, so that blows theroy out the water.

The difference is, in my opinion, that Olbermann keeps it all in perspective whereas Maddow acts like a spoiled brat.

To insult me because as a viewer I expressed my displeasure with Rachel Maddow shows that your use of the words "loyalist" and "cheerleader" were nothing more than projection.

[Hieronymus]

16. I agree with your statements. The die hard Obama supporters don't want

news. They want a cheerleader.

[Boomerang Diddle]

20. More projection.

n/t

[Buzz Clik]

17. Fair and balanced? She's simply the flipside of Fox News.

I think the complaint here is not that she is criticizing Obama (Olberamann is no slouch at doing that), but that she's lost her joy.

[vaberella]

33. +1. n/t

[NorthCarolina]

58. Oh, so it's not her "Content", but it's her "Delivery"

:eyes:

[redqueen]

64. "It's not what you say, it's the way that you say it."

Yep, that's kind of always the case.

[Buzz Clik]

95. That has been said consistently on this thread.

Maddow's appeal is her delivery, not her comments.

[vaberella]

32. Then you haven't been watching The Ed Show. n/t

[NorthCarolina]

43. I watch Ed Every Night....same with Olbermann

and I like all three programs. But of those three, I would personally put Maddow's show at the top of the heap.

[SKKY]

39. I would have to agree with you...

...just because Maddow is not a cheerleader for Obama doesn't mean she's not a good Democrat. I like the fact that she calls it pretty equally on both sides. She's one of the few who does.

[NorthCarolina]

44. I not only believe Rachel to be a Good Democrat

I believe her to be the Best Kind of Democrat. If you can't fathom ever questioning the actions of your own party, or cannot tolerate those that do so, then in my opinion you really are no different than your average Fox watching Repug.

[HousePainter]

180. I agree that Rachel is the best host on cable news

She has interesting guests, she asks good questions and lets her guests answer at length.
Recently her series of shows concerning the murder of George Tiller were unmatched anywhere else on television
and connected the dots with the larger issues surrounding that awful event, which few other shows bothered to do.

I personally don't watch political coverage to hear my own initial perceptions and opinions reinforced, I watch to get more information and differing viewpoints. Rachel does a good job at that for me.

Her irritation at the Obama administration's knuckle-dragging on GLBT issues is the right reaction. I say this as a straight male who is also sick and tired of seeing a large group of my fellow citizens denied their full rights as Americans.

Keep it up Rachel- I for one will be watching.

[NorthCarolina]

186. Well said

and welcome to DU! :hi:

[S_E_Fudd]

15. She became unwatchable near the end of the campaign season...

ANd you are right...if I wanted to see a constant barrage of criticism of Obama I would simply watch O'Reilly...

[bertman]

18. Thank you, North Carolina!! And thank you Boomerang Diddle, for inspiring me to write

to Rachel thanking her for being objective, brilliant, and funny in her political analysis, including her analysis of President Obama's presidency thus far. She and Ed Schultz are the best Progressive advocates we have on teevee.

I campaigned for Mr. Obama, sent his campaign a LOT of my hard-earned money, and I still support President Obama, but I'm not gullible enough to be fooled into believing that he is looking out for the average American. He is a far better President than Bush, but his actions and inactions on many fronts deserve to be exposed for the corporatist positions that they are.

If President Obama were not getting my and MANY others' critical letters, calls, and emails, along with the public questioning of Progressives like Rachel Maddow you can rest assured that he would be caving on many more critical issues than DADT, DOMA, the ongoing wars in Iraq and Pipelineistan, climate change reversal, financial regulation, etc. etc.

[ChiciB1]

21. Well Said Bertman!!! Maybe Some Would Like More Of The USUAL MSM

blather!!! We finally get some more liberal views and they get slammed! Oh well, just another reason to keep my cynicism healthy!

Let's hang Rachel!

[tom_paine]

149. Well said, bert.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[zulchzulu]

19. Unfortunately, she isn't even worth the effort to write a letter in my view

She's been disappointing for months... I thought she sucked on AAR too. The Utopian Purity Schtick was cool when you're 15. It's sophomoric torpor.

[realitythink]

22. You my friend clearly don't understand

Rachel is a true liberal commentator and her job is to be critical of the people in power. What would you have her do? Should her show be a mirror image of what Hannity's was during the Bush administration? That would be unwatchable, in my opinion, and only make her look like the sychophants on FOX. Is that really what you want?

She is doing a fantastic job and has been critically recognized for it.

You, on the other hand, are nothing but an apologist for an elected official and that is really sad to see here on a so called progressive web site.

[ellacott]

25. Why do you think it has to be black or white

The thing I don't understand about this board is that many are so steadfast in THEIR view that they can't look at another perspective.

Because a person doesn't like Rachel doesn't mean they are not a progressive or they are an apologist for Obama.

The OP did state that they listen to Keith and he has been critical of Obama.

I don't like Rachel's show because she whines too much, is too snarky in her criticism and she's a goofy person. I didn't like her during the election because she kept saying that she thought McCain could win when even Repubs were even sayin that Obama as going to win.

Someone upthread posted that she called him a bastard on election night. If true that is evidence that her issues with Obama are personal.

Just like you accuse people of being in lockstep with politicians the same can be said for people who don't acknowledge any shortcomings of people on TV.

[LooseWilly]

40. You've just explained your own dislike for Rachel as being based upon your perception of her foibles

The OP however has apparently recently come to dislike her for her content... because she's being critical of Obama too often for his likes.

There's a difference.

If you don't like her demeanor... by all means don't watch her... but if you find that she's gradually become too critical of Obama for your tastes... then you are essentially an Obama apologist (or just not a progressive) as far as I can tell, because all of her critiques of Obama have been completely justified. I think you are giving the OP more credit for subtle thinking than it deserves.

Keith, in contrast with Rachel, has not taken issue with the Obama administration's treatment of the GLBT community. I suspect that it is because he thinks that to do so would be like stepping on Rachel's toes, and the two of them seem perfectly willing to "divide" the news between them each to their respective tastes/specialities. Rachel, herself a member of the GLBT community... is the one who addresses those issues... and, Rachel being Rachel, snark ensues as the Obama administration metaphorically pisses on the GLBT community.

Some can't take the criticism...

[ellacott]

48. I don't agree that all her critiques have been justified

That's the problem. Yes, my critique of her is on her style. She has her right to disagree with Obama on issues but the added snark is not necessary. This is my view and why I don't like her.

I understand the OP's feelings about Rachel's criticism for Obama policies.


Because you don't agree with her criticism doesn't make you an apologist. I disagree with the way he handled the stimulus but I agree with him on health care reform. Having these opinions doesn't make me any less of a progresive. I love Randi Rhodes and don't like Malloy. Being a progressive shouldn't be determined by a person's acceptance of a liberal talk show host.

[LooseWilly]

75. "She has her right to disagree"/"I don't agree that all her critiques have been justified"

To me that juxtaposition sounds schizophrenic. As I use the words, if you say "she has her right to disagree", then any disagreement is justified... Now, if you want to say you disagree with some of her critiques... that's all well and nice... but when you go so far as to say that they aren't "justified"... you essentially are judging them as being beyond "her right to disagree"...

It is that tone... the one that sounds like you are suggesting that she has gone beyond "her right to disagree"... that makes a post (or poster, in many cases) sound like an "apologist" or a "cheerleader".

While I read your opinion overall to be that of one who is genuinely in disagreement with the style and perhaps content of Rachel Maddow... I think, for pretty much the reasons I just pointed out, that the OP is really just a "cheerleader"/"apologist" who has become dissatisfied that his/her object of awe has been criticized "unjustifiably".

[ellacott]

77. I stand by what I said

She has her opinions. I don't agree with them. I take issue with her snark and the personal insults she throws at him. THAT is not justified. I also feel that most of criticism regarding is not justified.

[blue_onyx]

86. What personal insults?

When has she personally insulted President Obama?

[redqueen]

101. When she called him a bastard?

Just guessing...

[blue_onyx]

105. You have proof she said that?

and some poster on DU who claims she said it (with no link provided) is not proof.

[redqueen]

107. I thought it was common knowledge.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/170385

[blue_onyx]

111. Thanks for providing the link

unlike some poster who will remain nameless. Context is important...at least to some people. She was clearly saying it in a joking manner. Hey...her "light-heartedness" has returned!!!

[LooseWilly]

136. I agree.... that was sarcastic use of the word "bastard".

If you can't hear the sarcasm there... I don't think you're listening. I can't even begin to discern a point of view that would take this seriously...

[redqueen]

139. Me neither.

Perhaps some people are projecting the vitriol they read on this board onto Rahcel. If so, that's not fair of course.

I don't watch her show (or Keiths) so I don't know if people have some other gripe with her. I was just guessing.

[LooseWilly]

145. I have my guesses too... and they all involve criticisms.

Most involve the use of "Fierce Advocate", lifted from one of Obama's own speeches... which becomes less than flattering when juxtaposed with the actions undertaken in the time since Obama dubbed himself a... "Fierce Advocate".

I'm starting to get the feeling that people are turning against her for any and all criticisms of Obama. I guess her "left" perspective offends the adoring centrists?...

[redqueen]

146. I wouldn't assume that.

If I had to speculate further, I'd think the incident when she took a quote out of context in order to make a cheap shot had something to do with it.

I know of one or two incidents like that... not sure if it's a habit of hers.

[LooseWilly]

87. Well then, I stand by my analysis that leads to my labeling you an "apologist".

If you think that criticisms have gone beyond your disagreeing with them to "unjustified"... then I don't think you were being honest when you said that she has a right to her opinions and criticisms... and in the act of deciding which criticisms are deemed "justified" I think you step over the line from honest interpretation of a public figure... to "apologist" and "cheerleader".

And, the "snark" and "personal insults", as you label them, are simply criticisms in the form of sarcasm. Another permutation of your comfort with being a judge of what is and isn't "justified" which I, again, consider to be the defensive signs of an "apologist" or "cheerleader".

[Buzz Clik]

93. No one is denying anyone their rights to anything.

How the hell could that be possible from a bulletin board?

[LooseWilly]

138. I'm sorry... I was assuming that the word "unjustified" was being used correctly.

Used thusly, it would mean that the poster in question does not believe that something is "justified", and the logical consequence is that, in the opinion of the poster, one ought not do said act which is not justified... and thusly, linguistically, the poster is denying the right to do- whatever- by calling it unjustified.

Your progressing to an attempt to drag my meaning into some sort of "Black Helicopter" "CIA Rendition" power being attributed to the poster is an absurd attempt at foisted false equivalence... which says more about your proclivities than it does about anything that I said.

[ellacott]

96. Oh boy, I guess my feelings are supposed to be hurt now

Believe what you want. I said some things she said were unjustified because the poster I was responding to said everything she said was justified. No one is justified(or right) 100% of the time.

I'm an apologist because I disagree with her criticisms of the health care plan proposed by the Pres.? Because I don't think he's being influenced by the insurance lobby means that I am an apologist?

Sarcasm can't be snarky? And since it's sarcasm(as you say)I'm supposed to be ok with it. That's kind of stupid. You guys are amazing.

You guys love the labels. Too bad you're not that interested in substance.

Too funny.

[LooseWilly]

143. I still haven't heard any criticisms made by Rachel Maddow that I would consider unjustified.

Some may be incorrect, but none have been unjustified. (You do seem to realize the difference...) I would be greatly interested to see a clip of something she's said that you feel is unjustified.

Criticism of the healthcare plan is not unjustified. Concerns that Obama may be unduly influenced by the insurance lobby is not unjustified. To claim that such criticisms, in general, are "unjustified"?... Yes, I would consider that to make you an "apologist"/"cheerleader"... If you disagree with her criticisms... then disagree... it's calling those criticisms unjustified that I take exception to.

And I never said sarcasm can't be snarky. In fact, I believe I said the snark was in fact criticism being delivered in a "sarcasm" wrapper... I never said that sarcasm or snarkiness is something, in its own right, and by its very nature, that you should be ok with. I said that Rachel's snarkiness/sarcasm was criticism in the form of snarkiness/sarcasm... and that it was the criticism that you were supposed to be ok with. I thought I said it rather clearly... but I guess it ought to be completely spelled out.

And "... You guys love the labels." The "labels" that you refer to are often referred to as words. Used properly, they actually mean something. On a messageboard, they are the only meaning that there is. So, if you're going to dismiss "labels" you would be better served by going out into the real world, where you can physically point at stuff without having to resort to labels and words which can so often become complex and confusing.

And as for "substance"... please provide me with a link so that I can see this "unjustified" criticism of which you speak. I doubt that I will agree with your judgement of "justified"/"unjustified"... but it will at least give me some insight into what you are talking about... since you're obviously not very proficient with "labels"....

Haha... that was funny. :+

[ellacott]

147. We are going to go back and forth

Maybe the question needs to made as to what the definition of justified is. I was responding to the poster who said all her comments were justified. I don't agree with that. If I don't believe all her comments are justified then I feel some of them are unjustified.

You feel that saying he is unduly influenced by the insurance industry is justified while I feel that is not true therefore I feel that this statement is unjustified.

It's not that deep.

Yes I dismiss the labels of cheerleading and apologists just as most people in this thread crticizing those who disagree with Rachel would dismiss those labels being placed on them.

Agree or disagree, that's your right.

[LooseWilly]

162. Not deep is absolutely right.

" I feel that is not true therefore I feel that this statement is unjustified."

So whenever anyone says anything that you feel is not true, you feel that those statements are unjustified?

unjustified - lacking justification or authorization;

Hmm... "lacking justification or authorization"... and you apply that to any statement in which you "feel that is not true"... hence you are assuming for yourself the role of Justifier and Authorizer of truth.

Must be nice to wield that sort of authority to deem things one way or the other...

[ellacott]

196. round and around we go

This is so funny that it's kind of pitiful. I have explained myself. I don't agree that everything that was said was justified therefore I feel some things are unjustfied. Do you feel that everything that Rachel has said are justified? You are getting so caught up in one word that you are purposely missing the point just to try and make your point.

If someone says that everything Rachel says are justified and I disagree then I feel all things she's said are not justified.

.......Where we'll stop nobody knows.

You all try to be too deep for your own good sometimes.

[LooseWilly]

137. I don't suppose you'd like to supply an example of "unjustified" snark/criticism?

In the meantime... well, my judgements stand.

[ellacott]

158. As do mine

[Zodiak]

24. The entire left mediatocracy is under the bus now

Thom Hartmann, Keith yesterday, Rachael, Bill Maher (well, he's not really left). I'm sure there are others, but I lose count.

Not to mention:

Krugman, Turley

The funny thing is...the more of these people that are thrown under the bus, the more cognitive dissonance it takes to maintain that the anger from the left is simply the "purity police" and "whining".

When everyone is under the bus except apologists, cheerleaders, and corporatists.....don't be surprised when you find that the coalition that you have browbeat will not be there for you when it comes time for re-election. And don't look to blame them when it happens, either...think instead to all of the snark and throwing under the bus you did and tell me if those are the actions of someone looking to generate support.

They are not.

Obama's worst enemies politically are the ones who cheer-lead him the most. He has stated numerous times that he WANTS the criticism. Insulting people who accept the invitation is just going to piss people off.

[NorthCarolina]

27. I wish I could K&R this response....well said...thank you nt

[ellacott]

30. Obama's worst enemies are Dems

This has nothing to do with cheerleading and the fact that you folks can't use other words show a bit of intolerance on your part.

I sometimes wish McCain had won because Dems don't know how to handle power. Much of the criticism for these pundits have been documented but you all look over that and just throw out catch phrases.

Turley should never be considered as a liberal. Most people don't know his history. They just know he was against Bush so he gets a free pass. Krugman has changed his tone on Obama but that is ignored also.

[NYC_SKP]

37. YES!

What you said. All of it.

:patriot:

[Zodiak]

171. Politically, Obama's main opposition is from the right in his party

So please direct your "don't know how to handle power" comments to them...they are blocking his agenda and preventing it from going through. And that resistance is making Obama move to the right to appease them, pissing the left off.

We (the left part of the democratic party) are the ones under the bus....we don't have power. You can comment on how we handle power once we actually get it.

I agree that Turley is not a pure liberal, more of a libertarian like Maher, but both have been our political allies and do not deserve the crap I see hurled at them here. The big Maher thread yesterday had all kinds of snark referring to his sex life and cheesy arm-chair psychoanalysis of his motives.

And to me, that kind of crap is cheerleading.

Here is a list of other substanceless criticisms of Obama's critics:
1. pony
2. purity police
3. "I wish McCain had won" because the left is so annoying
4. He's only had X months!
5. He can't wave a magic wand
6. Obama didn't specifically promise that (even though that is what he implied)
7. Obama is a centrist and left was duped into voting for him...suckers! Get over it and vote for Kucinich/Nader next time if you are so unhappy.
8. You are addicted to outrage
9. DUers are so out of touch
10. This place looks like FR with the Obama hating!

All of these arguments are insulting, childish, bereft of substance, and/or divisive. And they are the favorites of many people here who cannot resist posting this crap 50+ times a day.

[Political Tiger]

50. This shit of calling anyone who doesn't hate Obama an "apologist/cheerleader"

is really old. Can't you at least come up with some new insults instead of using the same old tired ones??

[Zodiak]

170. If you are pushing the left away with snark and personal attacks

While ignoring the issues themselves, then you are an apologist/cheerleader in my book.

I do pay attention to who says what around here, and I think that you pointing out a mild word like apologist/cheerleader and taking offense to it to be ironic in the extreme. Physician, heal thyself.

As for me....I use words like this rarely, but I am VERY tired of reading these circle-jerks (always conducted and populated by the same people) where a left-leaning media person is dragged over the coals because they said something critical of Obama. The substance of these attacks is completely devoid of any attention to the issues at hand...just "her show is awful", "he just wants attention", "she is just perpetually outraged and addicted to it". These methods are comical, substance-less, and all-too-common around here.

And they remind me of "We've got spirit, yes we do, we've got spirit, how about you?!!"

So if you want to avoid the cheerleader label, try NOT posting 50+ times a day with snark at Obama's critics. You might not be noticed so easily this way.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vaberella]

28. Watch The Ed Show!!! He's great. I stopped watching RM cause she drives me mad.

She's pretty off base a lot of times and it irks me to no end.

[108]

29. use to enjoy her too

but her show has become boring and predictable...

i am all for equal rights, but not all of us are gay...her agenda is consuming her broadcasts...she is starting to believe her own hype, like the Fox hosts do, when they think they are bigger than the news they cover...

[QC]

35. Another casualty of the gay agenda! n/t

[ronnykmarshall]

69. Agenda?

My dear I think your slip is showing.

[Dappleganger]

142. What?

If you think that her program is consumed by the 'gay agenda', you must be watching an entirely different show than I am.
That's a ridiculous charge.

[QC]

31. I am sure she will be devastated. n/t

[ronnykmarshall]

70. I'll have to start watching again.

Sounds like Rachel's isn't scared to speak out.

[indigo32]

103. get out of my head

LOL

[Cha]

83. So, she doesn't give a

shit?

[QC]

123. She probably gets sputtering hatemail from crackpots all the time.

It goes with the territory.

[Cha]

133. That's ridiculous and you know it... this letter is respectful

which is more than I can say for you.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. You don't like her because she stands up for her own people

And her ratings are outpacing all expectations, so send off your letters, feel free.. Rachel is a Rhodes scholar, and yours will not be the first letter like that she's gotten. In fact, most folk have a special drawer for such letters. The intent is very clear, the motivation as well. Your concerns will matter not to Rachel, as they will just be the repetition of what she hears from fan club types and homophobes daily.
If she were easily intimidated by fools, she'd not even have that show. So knock yourselves out! Send two, send a dozen. We've all seen it and dealt with it thousands of times before.

[NYC_SKP]

41. You just have to mix the "homophobes" with the "fan club types", doncha?

It could be that one has nothing to do with the other and Rhodes Scholar Rachel is not above critique because she's a lesbian.

This kind of defense of her is pointless and divisive.

Many feel that she's sold out and plays the petty games that nearly everyone on Cable "news" plays.

She's become a hack, plain and simple.

A hack.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. The 'many' who think that way

are the same old folks who take the same old offense. Write you letters, feel free. Just don't think the tactics are new.
And when the shoes fit, I freely offer them to be worn. I was speaking to the OP, not to you. The OP is all over DU with the same old song. Not just about Rachel either.
So I'm divisive and Rachel's a hack. A hack. But fan club is too strong a term for you? How does that work?
Point is not that Rachel is above criticism just that she should not be piled on for standing up for her own community. That is a good trait, not a bad one. And much of the criticism of her is about that, like it or not. Not yours, I'm sure. But some of it is. If you don't like it, well hell what do you expect from divisive hacks?

[NYC_SKP]

128. My problem with Rachel has nothing to do with GLBT issues.

I am still proud that she got that show and want her to represent with dignity.
Now, true, she is far and away better run most but I cringe when she gets petty and twist's Obama's words to seem clever.

She did this over the detention issue.

[QC]

82. There is considerable overlap between those two groups,

and as gay DUers have become more frustrated with Obama's anemic record on GLBT issues, the attacks on us have grown more strident.

[Colobo]

36. Good letter. I like Rachel, but she gets on my nerves quite too often.

[MarjorieG]

42. On many issues, amazingly fair, researched and wonky. Pet issues, GLBT, she withholds facts

and full picture.

So okay, she's an advocate, but also adds to the libs' impatience over having to massage a reluctant, bought-off Congress. Not to cover-up anything as uncritical cheerleader, but appoach issues equally with resons why the obvious criticism isn't what it seems. She's good at distilling and bullet-pointing.

We need at least a few people explaining exactly what Obama has said, and explain the realities of what can get passed. Easier to target our outrage and activism. Knowledge is real power, still.

[Buzz Clik]

56. bingo

[LooseWilly]

45. You know.. I think your letter will give Rachel great satisfaction.

Those disappointed that the "Fierce Advocate" is being criticized for being neither "fierce" nor an "advocate"... deserve to be disappointed. The "condescension" is meant to make people feel uncomfortable with the inaction. It's also fun. I, personally, find it very amusing and satisfying to watch her show... and I've written to tell her so. If you are too uncomfortable watching a news show that criticizes a news-worthy figure that you venerate... maybe you should stay away... The print news is easy to skip around... and the newspapers really need all the money they can get...

[Buzz Clik]

55. I submit that many of those fierce critics of Obama ...

... came into the discussion with a predisposition and strong bias. Every move Obama makes is assumed to be negative.

[LooseWilly]

78. I note your submission... but I counter submit that it is the moves themselves

... that have been so eminently critiqueable.

Mind you, I think the bank bailouts could've been handled better... but Obama's moves there were understandable. The stimulus package, aside from being so miniscule in comparison with the Wall St. stimulus, was a rather nice little something something for the economy.

Obama's complete and utter failures with regards to the GLBT community need no predisposition nor bias to add up to appalling. McGlurkin I assumed was just an oversight. (I begin to think I was wrong). Warren I interpreted as the political equivalent of stepping in dogshit and tracking it through the house... I assumed Obama just didn't fully appreciate the sentiments out here in California... and I assumed that the yelling screaming bitching and moaning would educate him to the seriousness of the community.

Then... nothing. Silence. Dan Choi, on Maddow's show, came out... forcing the issue... and he was dismissed from the army. Nothing. No suspension of investigations/dismissals under 10 USC 654 pending Congressional attention. No call for Congressional action. Nothing but vague platitudes. And then the DOMA defense brief in Smelt vs US? Are you friggin kidding me?

No... I acknowledge your submission... but I counter propose that Obama has been making no moves but negative moves with regards to his self proclaimed "fierce advocate" status for the GLBT community. You can pretend that this is vestigial primary nonsense if it gets you through the night... but I suggest to you that an honest assessment of the inactions will lead you to the same conclusion that I have reached.

[Buzz Clik]

94. We are destined to disagree.

[LooseWilly]

135. Yes. Yes we are.

[olegramps]

47. If the media had done it s job we wouldn't be in this mess Obama inherited. .

If the so-called news people had asked as many questions from the Bush-Cheney cabal that they have asked of President Obama we would have never invaded Iraq. Nor would the Republicans have been able to deregulate the financial markets to rob us blind. One of the most important functions for the maintenance of a democracy is the Fourth Estate. Today is it a total failure dominated by incompetent idiots who only serve their corporate master's interests. The major print media only purpose is to line bird cages and the TV news media's major contribution is to cure insomnia.

[blue_onyx]

51. Your letter is a sad reflection of how....

so many progressives have become exactly what we hated so much during the Bush years. How dare she criticize Obama! Yes, I know you tried to make it seem like it wasn't her criticism of Obama that bothered you but it is. Rachel is far from "patronizing and sneering." You don't want to watch her, fine but don't make up BS excuses as to why you dislike her. I had hoped progressives wouldn't fall into the same mentality the GOP had for the past 8 years. I'm very disappointed that so many have done so.

[Buzz Clik]

54. It's frustrating how many respondents to this thread are missing the point.

It's not the criticism -- it's Rachel's abandonment of her light-hearted lampooning approach. It's been replaced by dark, brooding commentary.

[blue_onyx]

59. I don't see much of a change

Of course, when she criticizes Obama regarding something important like gay rights she is going to be more serious.

I DO think it's the criticism that bothers you. You're using the supposed loss "of her light-hearted lampooning approach" as an excuse to make you're opinion seem more valid. I've seen posts on DU complaining about Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann too. These hosts who were loved a few months ago are now disliked because they dared to say something negative about Obama. These types of posts seem be getting more popular has the Obama term goes along.

[Buzz Clik]

60. Thanks for telling me what I think.

It's good to recognize that someone who doesn't know me at all knows exactly the way I feel.

What a relief.

[blue_onyx]

61. I just recognize BS when I see it

[Buzz Clik]

62. Lovely. So, your arrogance is trumped only by your stubborness.

Being told you're wrong is not enough for you -- you need to ensure us that you really do know how I think.

Read the thread, genius. You'll see a consistent trend. Your concept of "bullshit" is simply your inability to understand people.

[blue_onyx]

63. Arrogance? LOL

Pot, meet kettle.

I understand you just fine. I'm just calling you out on your (and others ) BS excuse that Rachel's criticism of Obama isn't a factor in their disapproval of her.

If you're going to sit there and criticize her delivery (which is the same as when she started the show) rather that what she says, go for it.

[Buzz Clik]

88. Ah. The truth comes out. It's the criticism of Maddow that YOU can't tolerate.

:rofl:

Project much?

[blue_onyx]

97. LOL...

Criticize her all you want. Doesn't bother me one bit. I only have an issue with your BS justification for criticizing her. Criticizing her for not being "light-hearted" and not the content of what she says make you look foolish.

[Buzz Clik]

106. "Doesn't bother me one bit." Yeah, I know bullshit when I read it.

And you are wallowing in your own bullshit. Nice try, though. It's been fun getting to the heart of the matter.

[blue_onyx]

108. Go ahead...the more you say, the more foolish you look

like that "bastard" comment you made with NO LINK PROVIDED. Just throwing shit at the wall and hoping it sticks, huh?

[Buzz Clik]

115. You want a link to the "that bastard" comment? Your request is a bit late in coming.

Seems insincere, don't you think? Your argument has been rubbed in your face, and suddenly you want a link?

Here you go. Choke on this:

"Can you believe that sellout, Barack Obama?" says Rachel Maddow, looking around the room. "Let's hit him from the left!" It's 1:30 p.m. on Nov. 5, and the six-foot-tall Maddow, wearing her trademark baggy 501 jeans and thick-soled sneakers, has just burst into her staff meeting in a small office at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, home of MSNBC. Her team of political junkies, mostly in their 20s and 30s, perk up, laugh and start talking about how Obama is looking at hiring former Clinton staffers. "Yes!" Maddow responds, beaming. "He's already triangulating, the bastard."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/170385

How's that taste?

[blue_onyx]

121. No, when I make statements like that

I provide links when I make the original post.

I guess the term "context" is lost on you. Clearly, based the statement about people perking up and laughing, it was done in a joking manner. You should like that...very "light-hearted" of Rachel.

[Buzz Clik]

122. Your welcome.

I notice that someone else had already provided the link before you even asked me. What a toad.

[BzaDem]

194. I think someone's looking foolish here

just not the one you have in mind.

[blue_onyx]

195. Yes...you

[Political Tiger]

71. In other words: How dare he criticize Rachel!

Aren't you doing the exact same thing you are accusing the OP of doing?

[blue_onyx]

76. No

I have no problem with people criticizing her. This "she's not light-heart anymore" argument, however, is just code word for "she criticizes Obama." It seems so silly that people would be so upset with her delivery that they would stop watching her show. Don't you think criticizing the content of what she says would make more sense?

[CakeGrrl]

189. So you're passing judgement on "how" Rachel can be criticized

If it doesn't meet your "standard", you chalk it up to overzealous Obama defense.

:crazy:

I'll say this for myself: She just isn't enjoyable enough to make it worth my while to tune in.

She is not The Oracle.

I know the hot topics of the day without having watched her show.

I could give a fig about her sexual orientation, and it doesn't scare or intimidate me that she's a lesbian.

She couldn't keep her journalistic integrity intact, so much did she want to make her point on an issue near and dear to her that she, in my opinion, took a White House response out of context to suit her.

Those who are 100% in agreement with her and enjoy her style tune in. Those who have a difference in taste do not.

The need for some to accuse the no-longer-watching crowd of 'throwing her under the bus' or 'silencing a true liberal voice' indicates they are taking the smallest disagreement with Rachel's approach pretty damned personally.

[Buzz Clik]

90. Yes. You have it perfectly.

[Generator]

72. Exactly

Which is why I stay away from commenting or reading much of DU these days. I don't watch much politics because if you were anywhere near progressive-it's been disheartening to heartbreaking these days-from torture to gay rights to the war that is not ending.

I did watch Maddow the other day-and yeah she was very balanced AGAIN in her criticism with Obama's betrayal against Gays. (It is BAD when Howard Dean has to come on to be appalled at Obama-oh wait he's the enemy now that Obama is president-all progressives are because they have the AUDACITY to tell the truth) At this point I trust Obama ZERO. I watch what he does. Period. The rest is a faith based (he's MY guy!! RAH) reality which I find repulsive. Comparing it to Bush raises the hackles. Maybe we should compare it to how Palin's supporters defend her.

And I knew this was coming. Maddow actually watches what Obama DOES. She isn't giving him a four year pass. Imagine that. This place has lost any critical thinking. And the most prolific and vocal on this thread will literally defend ANYTHING Obama does. And when that fails they slam you-which is what every post was to your comment.

[jgraz]

52. If you listen very closely, you can hear Rachel crying into her cocktail

:eyes:

[CakeGrrl]

65. Good letter - K/R

I stopped watching her too.

As the President himself observed, he knows these cable TV personalities, and they, such as Matthews and Olbermann, have their roles to play, but he learns nothing new by watching them.

I put up with it at first despite her Debbie Downer act during the general election campaign, but now I think she's just using the power of her soapbox for her personal issues with Obama, and the "too cutesy by half" delivery does not help one bit.

And her selective editing of responses by the WH to reinforce her arguments puts her down there with Fox journalistically.

[incapsulated]

66. That mouthy lesbian made a face while criticizing our Dear Leader

YOU VILL SHOW ZEE PROPER RESPECT VEN SPEAKING OF ZEE LEADER!!

(Note: "acceptable criticism" is limited to choice of ties and dogs and then only with a loving chuckle.)

[Boomerang Diddle]

102. Why make this about sexual orientation???

Ever hear the story about the boy who cried wolf?

[QC]

109. See this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8476821&mesg_id=8476992

[Buzz Clik]

116. No mention of sexual orientation in that post.

If you have an issue with that poster, take it up with that poster.

[incapsulated]

134. I'll tell you why

If she were black and criticizing Bush about racist policies no one here would say boo.

However if you are gay, or want the transparency Obama promised or disagree strongly with something he does, you are suddenly browbeaten for not being "respectful".

Which makes me want to puke.

He is supposed to respect *us* he is the one in power, for fucks sake.

[ronnykmarshall]

67. How dare the lizbian get upset!

:sarcasm:

Damn this place is sure showing it's true colors.

How fucking dare those homersexuals want equality!

[RoadRage]

68. If her show was only suppose to represent that one

policy, I would agree with you. But Rachel is suppose to cover everything.. and it seems that as of lately she, like many here on DU don't plan on giving Obama an inch of credit on anything until he fixes that fist.

I agree that it needs to be fixed... but it's tough to watch a "liberal" show constantly bash Obama when he actually has done a lot of good so far - just not on the issue that is (understandably) most important to Rachel (and i'm assuming you as well).

[dionysus]

73. oh yes ronny, you nailed it... rachel is annoying people because she's a lesbian...

:eyes:
it's the gloom and doom transformation that's annoyed some folks...

[Boomerang Diddle]

91. Rachel Maddow is gay?

n/t

[Doctor_J]

74. People who want to hear about everything wrong with Obama will watch Fox

that's why her ratings are diving.

[blue_onyx]

104. Her ratings dropped because

it's no longer election season. If you compare anyones ratings (except O'Reilly) from October of last year to June of this year, they would lower.

June 11 2009

The O’Reilly Factor— 3,438,000 viewers
Campbell Brown— 747,000 viewers
Countdown w/Keith Olbermann – 1,193,000 viewers
CNBC Reports— 148,000 viewers
Nancy Grace – 985,000 viewers

Hannity– 2,597,000 viewers
Larry King Live— 826,000 viewers
Rachel Maddow Show – 1,013,000 viewers
Marijuana Inc — 357,000 viewers
Lou Dobbs- 358,000 viewers

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/06/12/cable-news-ratings-for-june-11-2009/20561#more-20561


October 24 2008

The O’Reilly Factor— 3,441,000 viewers
Campbell Brown— 1,166,000 viewers
Countdown w/Keith Olbermann– 2,451,000 viewers
Nancy Grace – 1,128,000 viewers

Hannity & Colmes— 2,899,000 viewers
Larry King Live– 1,752,000 viewers
Rachel Maddow Show— 2,243,000 viewers
On the Money– 188,000 viewers
Lou Dobbs- 480,000 viewers

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/10/27/cable-news-ratings-for-october-24/6929

[styersc]

79. Obama's policy towards the GLBT community is not " We will get

around to your concerns in good time but right now we have greater priorities." The Obama Admin's policy is "The Christian Right wing is right. GLBT is the equivalent of practicioners of bestiality and incest. You are second class citizens, shut up and give the Democratic party your money and votes".

But Obama is a swell talker and Rachel should shut up and get in line.

[MadHound]

80. How dare she criticize or question the Great and Mighty Oz!

Keep this up and pretty soon you won't have to watch TV or read a newspaper or magazine at all.

Obama himself stated that we need to make him do it, whatever you want to substitute for "it." That is what criticism is for, to make him do it.

But if you're looking for a perfect paradise where everybody cheerleads for Obama, you're doomed to disappointment, time and again.

[ellacott]

84. The Great and Mighty Oz, The Messiah, The Chosen One

You all disparage people who support him by calling him these names yet you all are upset that he hasn't saved the world in 5 months.

[MadHound]

89. No, "I all" am only criticizing the attitude of the OP

If you want to take offense for whatever reason, that's on you, not me.

If you want to put words in my mouth, like saying I called him the Messiah or whatever, you're simply making yourself look foolish.

If you want to use hyperbole ("upset that he hasn't saved the world in 5 months) it's simply another clue that you can't debate the issues rationally or logically.

If you want to come across as erudite and intelligent, I suggest that you drop the "you all" phrasing.

If you want to continue this discussion, how about addressing the issue at hand, you know, throwing liberal commentators under the bus because they dare to criticize Obama.

[ellacott]

99. Who said I was offended? You all are too funny

Acting like you want to fight when someone disagrees with you.

I used those words because that's what I see posted on this board frequently when you want to criticize those who support Obama. Again, "you all" use those words yet you are critical of the fact that he hasn't solved all problems in 5 months.

I suggest you not try to criticixe someone's intelligence when you title a post The great and mighty oz.

I've addressed the issue at hand throughout this thread. Use that eruditate intelligence and look it up.

[PVnRT]

118. Really? Who's said their upset he hasn't solved everything in 5 months?

Speaking of just spouting catchphrases and slogans...

[ellacott]

119. read this board

[PVnRT]

131. I do

And I've seen no one demanding that he make the world perfect by the end of the year. So, again, who is saying that?

[ellacott]

140. Again, read this board

[MadHound]

120. Again, more strawmen

Please focus, I'm not here to address what others might or might not do in other threads. I'm not here to be "critical of the fact that he hasn't solved all the problems in five months." I'm here, in this thread, to discuss how liberal commentators, such as Maddow, are thrown under the bus for criticizing Obama.

I'm not a plural, I don't have a mouse in my pocket, and I'm not going to chase up and down a thread in order to have a discussion with you. If you want to actually discuss the issue rather than hurl insults, then discuss it with me rather than demanding that I chase up and down the thread to find your opinions.

So do you want to discuss the issue at hand, Maddow, etc.?

[ellacott]

126. Sorry, try again. No strawman

You don't hurl insults? Too funny.

You made no attempt to discuss anything, you just proclaimed the Pres. as the mighty wizard of oz. At least be honest about it.


Now you please focus. Read the thread. I'll even make it easy for you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8476821&mesg_id=8476938
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8476821&mesg_id=8476960
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8476821&mesg_id=8477029
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8476821&mesg_id=8477369
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8476821&mesg_id=8477475

[MadHound]

127. You are, by the very definition, constructing strawmen

You are trying to focus this discussion on what I said, what others have said, what you have said elsewhere, anything and everything than the issue at hand, the issue contained in the OP.

Therefore, since you seem either unwilling or unable to stick on topic, I'm done with you on this thread. So insert your pithy last word, hurl your childish last insult, and we can both move on.

[ellacott]

129. Don't go away mad

You said you wanted to discuss the issue. I included every link in this thread where I discussed the issue.

You had no intention of dicussing this issue and when I called your hand you folded.

Bye:hi:

[Boomerang Diddle]

98. My, the Rachel apologists are sure up in arms!

I guess we're not allowed to criticize their Messiah!

The Rachel cheerleaders dismiss any criticism of her!

Why do they act like Rachel walks on water?

The Rachel can do wrong crowd is at it again!

The Rachel loyalists hate the truth!

(See, I can play the game too!)

[MadHound]

124. Yeah, that's about all you can do apparently, play games

Look, you posted the OP, if you want to have a discussion about the matter, fine. If not, if you simply want to defend your position by simply hurling insults and flinging shit, then I'll move on. It's up to you.

[CakeGrrl]

100. Nobody has ever asked for that, despite the consistent hyperbole

implicating that they do.

No one in the public eye or on a public soapbox is exempt from criticism. Fair enough?

[MadHound]

125. Asked for what, that Obama not be criticized?

Perhaps not in so many words, but look at what happens to well know figures if they do dare criticize Obama. Letters are written, insults are hurled, vows are taken, and well known and loved writers, commentators and critics, who have done more to advance liberal causes than this entire board, especially in the dark days of Bush, are thrown under the bus. I've watched this happen time and again around here, and frankly I'm sick of it.

Again, this comes back to Obama's statement that we need to make him do it. OK, fair enough, we need to bring enough pressure to bear in order to get him to move. We can do that, but when that venture is undertaken, the one's who are doing the heavy lifting are damned because they dare to be critical of Obama. How the hell are we supposed to progress in that situation?

Nobody is exempt from criticism, but there is a contingent of people who don't want to play that way, they simply don't want any criticism of Obama. That's not fair, that's not right, and in the end that's detrimental to our country's well being. Not to mention it smacks of how Bush supporters operated.

But thank you for having a rational discussion with me, and for staying on topic. I truly appreciate it, given the shit I'm wading through upthread. Peace:hi:

[CakeGrrl]

154. No problemo. What frustrates me

are the hyperbolic reactions to any criticism: "Oh, the mouthy lesbian has to shut up", etc. It reinforces the idea the people really cannot handle a constructive discussion of anything that isn't seen 100% their way.

Truly, I don't think I've seen reactions to the high volume of criticism of Obama that mirror that. I have yet to see someone respond to Obama criticism by saying things like "Oh, you just want to keep the uppity Negro in line, is that it?" That just kills whatever chance there is at a rational discussion because at least one party's stake is too high, evidenced by the personalized reaction.

It's going to be an exhausting term at this pace!

[Doctor_J]

157. You sound exactly like Caribou Barbie

this exactly the same kind of crap the haters and rest of the wingers spew.

[MadHound]

160. And you sound like a small spoiled child, who

When they can't come up with anything intelligent to say, simply go out and hurl insults. Oh, and that also seems to be a tactic also used by right wing idiots. Congratulations, you've become that which you hate.

So, do you want to discuss this issue in a rational, calm, intelligent manner, or do you want to hurl more childish insults? The choice is yours.

[Cha]

81. Thanks, Boomerrang! What a letter!

It zeros in on your point quite respectfully.

I don't watch because I don't have cable but if I had been..from what you and others have reported..I would have to be writing a letter to her myself.

[bullwinkle428]

114. Enjoy "Hannity's Heapin' Helpin' o'Horseshit", or whateverthefuck

they're showing on Fox in that time slot these days!

[Buzz Clik]

130. That's the bottom line? You're either a die-hard Rachel fan, or you worship Hannity?

That kind of black-and-white thinking is reminiscent of days gone by.

[bullwinkle428]

197. In the eyes of some, there really is NO difference between

Rachel and Hannity! Just re-read the OP and think about the words, in the context of Hannity's nightly commentary...

[Hell Hath No Fury]

132. I think she is consistently right on --

and her show is required viewing for me.

Her interviews and guest choices are excellent and I appreciate that she allows serious, extended dialogue.

She is not acting as a "booster", and is doing her job in questioning power -- wherever that takes her or whoever it involves. And that is EXACTLY what I am looking for when I turn on a political show.

[Blue_In_AK]

144. Seconded.

[NorthCarolina]

155. I'll "third" that...or a second "second" nt

[TEXASYANKEE]

161. I agree.

I like the fact that nobody talks over anyone else on her show. Always thoughtful dialogue.

[dorkulon]

166. +1

Rachel is the only talking head out there with even a smidgen of objectivity. She doesn't just reinforce her audience's preconceptions, she challenges them.

And some people just can't handle that.

[HousePainter]

183. Agreed

[Dappleganger]

141. You should have given specific examples

otherwise it's just a whine.

What a wasted opportunity for constructive criticism towards someone who knows how to take it.

[NYC_SKP]

151. *****HERE: And Example of How Rachel Maddow used Clever Tricks to Paint Obama as an "Evil Man"*****

The President never used the terms "preventive detainment" or "Indefinite detainment" (or detention or incarceration)
The term he used was "prolonged detention", and there is a significant difference between "prolonged" and "preventive".

This was a linguistic stunt on her part, cheesy and amateurish. She is above this kind of trick, or at least I thought she was.

Here is what he said:

"That's why my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category. ...We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified. ...our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred. Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man.

And here's her stupid trick:

Clip from Obama's speech: There may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes. In some cases because evidence may be tainted but who none-the-less pose a threat to the security of the United States.

Maddow: We're not prosecuting them for past crimes, but we need to keep them in prison because of our expectation of their future crimes.

Clip from Obama's speech: Al Queda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States and those that we capture like other prisoners of war must be prevented from attacking us again.

Maddow: Prevented. We will incarcerate people preventively. Preventive incarceration. Indefinite detention without trial. That's what this is. That is what Obama proposed today if you strip away the euphimisms.

Sources:

http://open.salon.com/blog/behind_blue_eyes/2009/05/22/obama_proposes_indefinite_preventive_detention_without_trial

http://obamanati.info/2009/05/obama-proposes-indefinite-preventive-detention-without-trial/

I don't know if she started attributing the term and concept of "preventive detention" but it caught on like wildfire and was incorrectly attributed to the President over and over and over again by other.

Rachel, really, you could be so much better than that.

:patriot:

[Doctor_J]

159. I think many DUers are so addicted to Fox "News" and hate radio

that they like hearing Dem-bashing. Hearing it constantly from one of "our" few media members makes them more comfortable.

[NYC_SKP]

174. K.O. would have called bullshit on it and taken her apart. If someone else had done it.

Taking words out of context, swapping "prolonged" for "preventive", and then being all clever about it.

If Newt or Rush or Bill-O had done it, K.O. would eat them for lunch.

:patriot:

[dorkulon]

165. Big whoop.

Obama wants to "prolong" their detention without trial to "prevent" them from attacking again. Calling that "preventive" detention is not a major distortion, hardly a distortion at all.

This is clutching at straws.

[LooseWilly]

167. You do realize that the "stupid trick" you mention is called "supporting your argument"?

What she did is exactly what English teachers and Composition teachers (and teachers of advanced course in other languages presumably as well) try to teach kids to do all over this country... largely unsuccessfully.

Maddow played that first clip... and then interpreted it. She then played the second clip... and interpreted it. She then analyzed the two interpretations, and drew a conclusion.

Pointing out that she did this does not undermine the success, nor the relative ease, with which she did it. Your challenge is to undermine the interpretations, with evidence to support your counter interpretation... or to undermine her analysis... by providing an alternate analysis, and supporting that analysis.

Here... I'll show you how.

Firstly, "detention" can't really be interpreted in any other way. Obama himself concedes this point... so we'll leave that one alone.

That seems to leave us with the "preventive". Let's focus on this: "We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified. ...our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred."

And, with that we argue... Maddow knows clearly that these detentions are not preventive... which suggests detention before one has committed any wrong. Obama was clearly referring to "the remaining Guantanamo detainees ". Not new detainees preventatively, but detainees who are already in detention... a detention which must be "prolonged", according to a "carefully evaluated and justified" ... "legitimate legal framework". It is a sad necessity, and one which Maddow should not twist to suit her personal agenda...

There, how was that? It's not that hard. Of course... I personally think what I've just written is bullshit (and I suspect that I'm in a particularly valid position to judge it thusly)... and I think that Rachel's analysis was essentially accurate... not particularly kind to Obama's feelings... but a valid analysis nonetheless.

I think, rather than criticizing Rachel for making a valid analysis... you might devote some effort to justifying the preventive/prolonged detentions. Or you might ask yourself why one term should offend you more than the other...

[NYC_SKP]

172. No, it's called constructing an argument using out-of-context snippets, ala Rush Limbaugh.

You can't get away with swapping someone else's words when the words have different meanings. preventive/prolonged. I call bullshit.

It's more of a Gingrichian false argument.

[LooseWilly]

177. The snippets were not out of context though.

We are detaining people that we are not charging with crimes. And... why are we detaining them? Here Rachel just picked the word "prevent" out of Obama's own statement:

Clip from Obama's speech: Al Queda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States and those that we capture like other prisoners of war must be prevented from attacking us again.

Hence... the detainments are occurring, and they are continuing in order to prevent. preventive detentions...

You can also reach the same term this way. Follow along... Obama calls them "prolonged detentions"?... And why are we "prolonging" them? Because it seems like a fun time? Because the not-so-Geneva-Convention-Abiding prison guard union has too strong of a lobby to ever let them go?...

No. We are "prolonging" their detainment to "prevent" them from attacking US citizens, property, etc... See, it wasn't a long walk. Rachel's "stupid human trick" was essentially to... strip away a layer of euphemism that Obama was kind enough to provide to those who prefer not to look the truth in the eye. It's what news people are supposed to do... and it is frankly refreshing to see someone do it.

The example I provided you, on the other hand, was an example of taking snippets (semi) out of context... and then trying to slap together some shoddy edifice of spurious logic that might look reasonable from a distance, and to the average idiot who's been homeschooled by an idiot parent. What I did was what Rush does (though, in all fairness to my bullshit... it really is the only possible refutation of Rachel's distillation of the "prolonged detention" term...). So, as someone who freely confesses to have constructed some Limbaughan (sounds like an exotic cheese, doesn't it?) Gingrichity... I would like to reassure you that there is a difference (alas... what're the odds that you'll listen?...)

[NYC_SKP]

178. I take "prolonged" to have meant while a suitable and constitutionally sound solution is found.

That is what I believe he meant and it's pretty much what he said.

Yes, you could say that it's prolonged to prevent anything untoward from happening until a solution is found, but it was really constructed to suggest "interminable".

And you can be sure that many expanded it further to an imaginary place where new detainees could be held "preventively", and that this was just too Bush-like.

Rachel's construction, interpretation, whatever we call it, was unkind and neither objective, unbiased, nor fair.

[QC]

173. To continue your education analogy...

remember that many people you are trying to engage are the equivalent of home-schooled children named Hezekiah and Ezekiel first encountering sex and Darwin.

[LooseWilly]

175. That's why I tried to show an example of what I was saying.

I guess that was too complicated though (despite the fact that I purposefully constructed one that was consonant with nyc's argument)...

:shrug:

[QC]

176. Have you considered drawing some pictures? n/t

[NYC_SKP]

190. Typical.

And sad.

You can't find a way to refute so you trash another DU member.

Classy.

[Lex]

148. She's crushed

no doubt.

[Bucky]

150. Dear Rachel Maddow, Please quit criticising the president. He is too fragile to handle it.

Sincerely yours

[jillan]

152. I stopped watching her about a month ago and haven't missed her at all.

It wasn't just her Obama bashing - it was her negativity all around.
Her inability to report the news - I felt like she just talked about the same topics over and over and over, nite after nite.
When I found that PBS Newshour was on at the same time, that was it for me. Now I feel informed about other matters than the shiny objects of the week.

Great letter....I hope she reads it.

[scheming daemons]

153. Ever since it became the "Rachel Maddow and Jonathan Turley Show" I've tuned out

The guy is on the show practically every freaking night... and he's an ass hat.

[me b zola]

156. I feel just the opposite of what you wrote

I still consider myself a very strong Obama supporter, but don't agree with everything that he has done/is doing, particularly with gay rights. I understand the anger of most of the people on this board who speak out against some of the policies of President Obama, but disagree with the way that some of them vent their anger. I've thought long and hard about how to apply pressure so that Obama hears us w/o tearing him down in a way that weakens him and consequently would hurt his ability to to the 90% of things that I agree with. For me, Rachel has that ability, and I appreciate her for doing so.

[dorkulon]

163. Dear Rachel, I am unable to understand the concept of objectivity.

I really liked it when you criticized Bush, because I didn't like him. Back then you seemed really smart. Now that you criticize Obama, who I really like, you seem hateful and mean. Why can't you be more like Sean Hannity and blindly support one party while constantly attacking the other? Because I am a mindless follower who values loyalty above critical thinking, I will no longer be watching your show.

Sincerely,
Can't Handle the Truth

[donco6]

181. Can I sign it, too?

:rofl:

[Moral Compass]

164. Mr. or MS. XXXXX

Rachel Maddow is doing what journalists are supposed to do. You are looking for a fawning partisan hack. Perhaps you would be more comfortable with a left of center Fox news channel.

Maddow is unflinchingly honest and is doing a phenomenal job of calling out Obama when he needs to be called out. You are apparently looking for constant criticism of the Republicans and the right wing, but can't stand it when she points out some of the things that are not going well in the Obama administration.

Let's list some of them:

-A failure to follow up on his expressed opposition to "Don't Ask Don't Tell"
-Seeking to have the State Secrets act expanded not dialed down
-A failure to provide the transparency in government that was promised and that he still speaks to
-Failure to put his support behind genuine health care reform and not forcing his own party to make sure everyone has a seat at that table--including single payer
-An escalation of the war in Afghanistan without any clear statement as to goals or potential benefits
-Continuing the Iraq status quo very quietly
-Allowing clearly partisan Bush era District Attorney's to remain in their positions and to continue prosecutions that appear politically motivated
-Refusing to undertake or even encourage investigations into what alleged war crimes by former administration officials
-A failure to truly take on the huge investment banks and the people that ran them and our country into the economic ground

Rachel Maddow is showing the truth. The Obama administration is currently floundering and seems to have caught a severe case of Beltway disease. The list above is by no means complete. As each day passes the Obama administration is beginning to look almost like a continuation of the previous administration, but he is much more well spoken and clearly more intelligent.

If you can't stand to see him called to account then by all means don't watch. But uncritical Obama worship will get you and this country nowhere. We citizens and Rachel Maddow, who actually seems to be a real journalist, should be his gadflies and goad him on to the greatness that is possible. Right now, I'm not seeing it.

I'll continue to watch Rachel because she consistently speaks truth to power. You can build your shrine to Obama and pray to it if you wish. But you are not serving yourself and your country well with uncritical worship.

[Senator]

192. +1 Well said

And welcome to DU.

--

[ZombieHorde]

179. Maddow is a fan of debate and will probably recognize your logical fallacy right away. nt

[donco6]

182. My letter to Rachel:

Dear Rachel,

You'll soon be getting a letter from a "Boomerang Diddle." Please ignore it, as it is a steaming pile of crap. You're great and should keep doing exactly as you have been doing. Thank you.

Sincerely,

donco6

[Raine]

184. Good letter

I'm very disenchanted with Rachel lately, can't stomach to sit thru her show anymore. :-(

Ed is the show to watch, he's the best. :thumbsup:

[avaistheone1]

185. I love Rachael. She is very principled and fair.

I know how that can rankle some people.

She is one of a mere handful that I can say when I listen to her show I learn something valuable.

[Clio the Leo]

188. The real test will take place in 24 minutes....

.... on tonight's show.

Last night she seemed a bit giddy, even remarked under her breath, "that's MY President! I have a President now!" after the breaking news about today's memo and before she had a chance to fully understand it.

But it was clear she was happy at what she'd heard so far .... and I'm anxious to see what she has to say after having 24 hours to see it play out.

But what last night told me is that if she shows disappointment at something Obama does, it's because she likes him and WANTS him to do well (as she considers it.) She's not snarky because she doesn't like him, she's snarky because she DOES ... and sometimes feels a bit hung out to dry. (whether or not she really has been in a debate for another thread.)

I see that here as well. I think there are some who never really liked Obama and now have a soap box on which to vent that dislike ... but more who are just as geeked about him as I am ... yet feel disappointed in some things he's done.

And regardless of whether or not I disagree, I can respect that.

[Norrin Radd]

193. We are lucky to have her in the mainstream corporate media.