Friday Rachel Maddow..."The Bush, I Mean Obama Administration....:

[NYC_SKP]

Last Friday, in case you missed it:

"The Bush, I Mean Obama Administration released a statement today saying that the president now believes that with some reforms the tribunal systems can be an avenue toward administering justice along side real courts." (Her words, not his)

Welcome to MSNBC, Rachel, you're fitting right in. :puke:

30 seconds in :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuJ7vGFJB3g

:patriot:

[firedupdem]

1. Republico gladly reported on that as their evidence that we are

so disgusted with the President. NOT!

:puke:

[Thrill]

2. Her sarcasm is getting old

and boring

[firedupdem]

7. I quit watching her long ago. I was still shocked to hear she had

said something so stupid.

[dionysus]

109. thefame seems to have gone to her head or something...

then again, she always has been a hand-wringer with obama...

[GreenTea]

141. Fickle fucks why republican media is so powerful-You'll never hear republicans running away turning

off Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly or the rest over some opinions they may not agree with...but the truly idiot democrats.....just say one thing they don't agree with about their comfortable little Dem world not being perfect and they run away and say with complete ignorance, "I don't watch her" anymore...

Oh fuck, one better not criticize a Dem or off the tube you go, ratings too low, then let's put on some more republicans, they get the ratings, republicans stick with their regressive republican host....

Gee, why aren't there any progressives on television....Because they said something other "progressive" didn't agree with...STUPID Fucks!

I watched these same assholes do it to Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, Mike Malloy, Donahue - Jealously, non-commitment, just plain stupid?

What in the fuck are these stupid critics doing in their life to be able to put others down for trying... sitting on their fat ass saying...Uh, I don't like Rachel she said something I didn't like, whiny, slimy fucks!

These are the same frightened intolerance moderates who use the ignore button on DU - who can't take any bumps in their little world.

At least others are trying and if they don't always hit the mark that's enough to abandon them...sure as fuck wouldn't want or need them as a "friend"!

Rachel hasn't changed, she the same quick-witted, honest, clever liberal person who was clearly good enough to get others attention to get her own show...and these fucks always, always, come out of the woodwork like trolls to slam down the liberal...for a truth or an opinion by by the host.

Say one wrong thing they don't agree with and these fickle fucks who call themselves progressives will abandon you in a heartbeat, toss out all the good and other fine things Rachel's show offers progressives, a voice and a national progressive point of view....

The truth is they truly don't know shit, it's more fun to be obstinate makes them think oh, how special they are...and do nothing themselves but pontificate, what great progressives they are....Fucking uninformed clowns!

[npk]

126. I didn't see any sarcasm

I watched the clip over and over and I believe she simply misspoke when she said the "Bush Administration, I mean the Obama Administration." It didn't sound like she did that on purpose as a form of sarcasm. I think she meant to say "The Obama Administration" all along, and she got mixed up. You could tell after she said it she corrected it with no obvious intent to be sarcastic, but rather to say what she meant to say. Early in the clip she said "The Bush Administration" several times over and over. I think she had those words in her head when they came back to her live after showing the clip of what Obama said when he running for president.

As for the rest of the segment I think she has a right to criticize and clearly Obama has gone back on a campaign promise. I am not trying to defend Rachael, as I have criticized her for some stuff in the past. I do still believe she does the best job at reporting the news with as little bias one way or the other compared to any other prime time news pundit. But that's how I saw it.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Had she detailed the "reforms" like reporters should, instead making them appear of no consequence,

I could have ignored that slip of the tongue without pause.

[Clio the Leo]

4. What that show did with the Gibbs press briefing was complete and utter BS...

.... they took a clip of him mocking Ed Henry with Gibbs saying "it's the same car, but with a fresh coat of paint..." and cut it right there with Rachel snarkilly saying, "oh, so it's a brand new coat of paint huh!?" and then she and Turley launched their tirade.

What the segment FAILED to include was Gibbs saying, approx. two mins later, "for those who want to make the analogy that this is the same car with different features, you're complety wrong."

[NYC_SKP]

5. Right, and thank you for pointing out that little detail.

Is anyone in the media on our side?

[dionysus]

113. i think, right or left, once you get a big time TV gig it can go to your head.

tends to make one pompous

[NYC_SKP]

119. So it seems. Another member says that Ed's material is different from his radio show, too.

I wonder how much pressure is put on them by their MSNBC handlers/bosses.

[jenmito]

9. I posted the part of the transcript that had the whole exchange. Here it is again:

MR. GIBBS: "I’m buying a car except I’m changing the engine and painting it a different color and calling it a different" --



Q Well, he’s not rejecting this law. There’s not a new law coming. He’s not rejecting this. He’s saying, "We’re going to live with this law with tweaks."



MR. GIBBS: No. The law, as you talk about it, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, passed in late September of 2006 and signed by this President, was ruled in 2007, Section 7, to be unconstitutional, okay. That law doesn’t work, okay. The President will seek a continuance in the nine cases that are currently part of the military commissions, setting those cases aside for 120 days in order to institute these changes. These cases won’t go forward under these rules. Therefore, the system that was set up by Congress and signed by then-President Bush won’t be the course under which these cases will ultimately be heard. Your characterization is just simply wrong.


It goes on. It's about a third of the way down: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Briefing-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-5-15-09/

[NYC_SKP]

28. Well, there it is. Damn, to think how many believe she walks on water.

And they refuse to see the truth, instead calling us unreasonable for bringing their attention to it. Hmm. :eyes:

[jenmito]

30. Yup. It's there for anyone who WANTS to see the truth...

but some are blinded by hatred for Obama.

[Clio the Leo]

40. And I ADORE the woman and love the fact that she and Keith...

.... will talk about how they disagree with the President when they do .... but the MANNER in which she handled that clip was beneath her.

[EFerrari]

46. Strawman. I don't think she walks on water. I don't even watch

her show. But nice try at distracting from the facts of the issue and your gratuitous name calling.

[Clio the Leo]

39. Thank you. I'm TRYING to get myself pumped back enough to write the show....

.... but am finding it a bit hard to do while I'm in this post ND speech afterglow. :)

[jenmito]

67. You're welcome...

I know how you feel. Maybe you should sleep it off and THEN write the show. :)

[Clio the Leo]

98. I think that's my problem, I've slept TOO much....

... I was mad Friday night and was too tired to right it and haven't had a chance all weekend.

I cant stay mad at anyone. :)

[redqueen]

134. What utter bulslhit.

I wonder if she'll own up to it or just leave it there.

[EFerrari]

6. So, how many threads do we need trashing Rachel?

All the ones on Friday night weren't enough? Are you mad at her because she was snarky or because she was right?

There's only one reason to keep these tribunals -- to get convictions. No matter how much lipstick you put on this pig, it's still a pig. That's not justice and the human rights community is not going to let this go by and like Rachel, I agree with them.

We've had a court system that has worked just fine for over 200 years. To re-instate these kangaroo courts is another black eye for our values.

[polichick]

10. "Shoot the messenger" comes to mind.

[NYC_SKP]

13. No, unecessary hyperbole and incitement to division amongst us comes to mind. And "media whore".

eom

[polichick]

16. Rachel just cares about the country. She's holding Obama's feet to the fire...

...as we ALL should be.

[jenmito]

21. It's not holding Obama's feet to the fire when you leave out parts of quotes that don't

support your argument. That's misleading reporting and it's wrong for Rachel to do just as it's wrong for anyone on Faux to do.

[EFerrari]

31. The editing in that segment and her snark are the least of the problems

with putting these tribunals back. If that's the worst of it, the administration got off easy.

It's one thing to disagree with her position and another entirely to post all these threads calling her all kinds of ugly names -- while claiming that her snark is out of line. Holy double standard, Batman.

[jenmito]

35. No-the problem is the tribunals under Obama do NOT equal those under Bush

like Rachel claimed, using misleading reporting to "make her point." I didn't call her any ugly names. I just pointed out the facts using her own words.

[EFerrari]

44. jenmito: Obama, no matter how well intentioned, cannot untaint those commissions.

The damage has already been done. It would like trying to untorture someone, it can't be done.

These prisoners have ALREADY been harassed and threatened over even having counsel. How many of them will now have any trust in the ones they get or have? They have been abused in order to provide "evidence" and then FBI "clean teams" were sent in to get the same information "without coercion". What is a "limited use of heresay"?

This process is tainted as well as stacked. We can do better than this.

[jenmito]

66. EFarrari: Rachel misrepresented what Gibbs said and that is wrong.

All I did was quote her and compare her characterization of what Gibbs said to what Gibbs SAID. There IS a difference. Obama does NOT=Bush as she said by "accidentally" mixing up their names.

[EFerrari]

70. Substantively in this case, Obama's choice is not different than Bush's.

The administration set themselves up for her comment.

And I hope you did let her know that you didn't appreciate the way Gibbs was edited. That's entirely fair to my mind.

[jenmito]

72. That's not true at all.

And no it didn't. She misrepresented Gibbs' reply to the reporter.

I sure DID let her know. I emailed her yesterday.

[EFerrari]

77. Maybe you should read up a little on the so called improvements

that the administration is making and think it over before you make up your mind. Most people who know the stakes agree with Rachel on this, if not with her presentation.

This is a summary of the changes the administration proposes:

The president said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will notify the Congress of several changes to the rules governing the commissions to provide better protections for defendants.

The objective of the changes will be: First, statements that have been obtained from detainees using cruel, inhuman and degrading interrogation methods will no longer be admitted as evidence at trial.

Second, the use of hearsay will be limited, so that the burden will no longer be on the party who objects to hearsay to disprove its reliability.

Third, the accused will have greater latitude in selecting their counsel.

Fourth, basic protections will be provided for those who refuse to testify.

Finally, military commission judges may establish the jurisdiction of their own courts.


http://english.vietnamnet.vn/international/2009/05/848063/

And here is an extreme right wing nutcase, David Rivkin, approving the re-introduction of these kangaroo courts:

David Rivkin, a Washington lawyer who served in the Reagan administration, told The New York Times the decision suggested that the Obama White House was coming to accept the Bush administration?s thesis that terror suspects should be viewed as enemy fighters.

"I give them great credit for coming to their senses after looking at the dossiers," Rivkin told the paper.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090516/pl_afp/usjusticemilitaryrightsguantanamo_20090516103740

That is a starting point if you are really interested in the issue and not just in bashing Rachel for being snarky.

[jenmito]

84. I did...

and Rachel misrepresented not only Gibbs' answer to the reporter (usually a RW tactic) but she misrepresented the difference as if there IS no difference. There is.

[EFerrari]

92. Well, no. There is no substantive difference that I can see.

There is a cosmetic difference. And that's why the human rights orgs, activists and people like me who have been following this story agree with Rachel.

Maybe you could explain to me, because I could be wrong, why the changes to these tribunals are substantive. I'll gladly hear you out.

[jenmito]

93. Yes there is...

all you have to do is read your post above where you listed the differences. Those ARE substantive.

[EFerrari]

96. I have enough posts on this thread to show that they are in fact not, jen.

If you have anything to add or to challenge the objections I have posted, I'll be happy to consider them.

[jenmito]

99. I like your post #77.

I rest my case on the facts in that post. :)

[EFerrari]

101. And that is your privilege. n/t

[snowdays]

149. But the is still afraid to try them is Fed court--so the military courts have LOWER

standards.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. That's the truth

And I note folks playing name calling snipe games include those who claim a religion that teaches the opposite of taking high offense, of returning slights real or imagined. Same religion those folks use to keep equal civil rights away from me n' Rachel. A religion they do not think about when it comes time for them to do the Pharasee stomp.
Holy Hypocrisy Batman.

[NYC_SKP]

43. We can do that without slanted reporting and 1/2 truths and snarky tag lines.

I had higher hopes for her than what showed us last Friday in that broadcast.

It was nowhere near an objective discussion of the tribunals or of Gibbs' presser.

[Phx_Dem]

94. Doing one-sided, hyperbolic shows doesn't hold anyone's feet to the fire.

That's what Fox News does, and I don't think anyone would say they are holding his feet to the fire.

In addition to her lame incomplete segment on Gibbs, she also had only one guest to talk about the military tribunals. Naturally, he was a lawyer for one of the detainees. If Rachel had any desire for fairness, she would have had someone on to argue the other point of view. She's getting into the Fox News style of reporting, and doing a great disservice to her viewers and her reputation.

[EFerrari]

19. You lost the high ground on divisiveness when you posted this OP

in order to restir this pot.

[NYC_SKP]

23. Rachel Maddow lost one hell of a lot more High Ground than I did.

Which suits me just fine.

[EFerrari]

25. "She did it, too" is exactly what the Republicans have been saying all week. n/t

[EFerrari]

14. Here's what one of the detainee attorneys thinks about this decision:

Gitmo detainee lawyer to Obama - Restarting military tribunals is unacceptable

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x313262

[NYC_SKP]

20. Make no mistake. Obama is the best thing to ever happen to his client.

It's his or her job to energetically support his or her client, including this self-serving statement.

Good for them, they deserve and will get justice, the best possible under the circumstances.

And the circumstances are that BushCo created such a cluster fuck with Gitmo, Iraq, and all the rest, that even a good man like Obama cannot easily or quickly undo it all.

Emphasis on the words "easily" and "quickly".

[EFerrari]

24. Really? Guantanamo Prisoner Abuse Continues Under Obama

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5672198

And if these tribunals go forward, the problem of tainted evidence does NOT go away:

GTMO, the FBI and the "cleansing" of "evidence" gained through torture

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5672230

[NYC_SKP]

12. 17 threads. We need 17 threads on this topic. 16 wouldn't be enough and 18 would be over the top.

Lipstick on which pig, Rachel Maddow? :rofl:

[EFerrari]

17. Very classy, NYC.

[NYC_SKP]

22. Had I seen a single one of the other threads, I might have not posted.

But I hadn't.

In fact, I mentioned it in one reply Friday night and others didn't believe it.

Just found it this morning on youtube and thought I'd put it out there.

She got snarky, I'm calling her on it.

[EFerrari]

26. Get back to me when she calls Obama a pig. n/t

[Robeson]

37. Agreed.

[HamdenRice]

8. She's horribly over-rated. She has nothing interesting to say most days anyway.

Her 15 minutes is almost over anyway.

[Tarheel_Dem]

83. She just picks up and repeats what Ed, Chris & Keith have already reported.

Within a year, I have a feeling Rachel will be back to subbing for Keith, and do "special projects", sorta like the blond with the hoarse voice, whom I've never heard from again.

[jenmito]

11. Thanks for that. A few people yesterday didn't believe she said that...

and asked for a link. :hi:

[NYC_SKP]

15. I know. Friday I mentioned it in a thread but couldn't find a link.

Apparently, there were OPs on the matter but I didn't see them.

At least one member is upset that I posted this today.

17 threads sounds about right, total, wouldn't you agree? :evilgrin:

[jenmito]

18. Yup...

I saw that and see what you're talking about.

Yes, it sounds about right. :D

[Cha]

36. And, yeah, you lost no "high ground"

whatsoever. I don't mind Rachael holding Prez Obama's "feet to the fire" but not if she's going to do with 1/2 truths and stupid sarcasm.

They lost the high ground by ignoring all the facts..I guess it doesn't fit into their theatrics.

[EFerrari]

45. Her theatrics went over just fine here when they were directed at Hillary Clinton and McWar.

No double standard there!

[Cha]

48. As I said her 1/2 truths and stupid sarcasm

caused her to lose the high ground.

And, I've let her know.
Rachel Maddow [e-mail]

[EFerrari]

49. Good. I hope you also invited her producer to DU

so they can see reasoned, civil discussions modeled.

[Cha]

50. Actually, I believe someone sent a

a link to her on a DU thread where she was being discussed.

[EFerrari]

52. I hope for DU's sake no one called her a pig on that one. n/t

[Cha]

64. I like Rachael and think we

can all learn from each other.

[EFerrari]

73. For the record, I detest the Obama = Bush meme.

It doesn't really say anything useful.

[NYC_SKP]

75. Thank you for saying that, we agree.

And it was, after all, what was offensive to me in her Friday show.

I want her to be above that kind of thing, it doesn't advance the discussion.

[Cha]

76. Exactly..

We also need to hold her feet to the fire.

[EFerrari]

79. And that seems to me a very legitimate position.

I guess what I object to is when we go on binges of attacking people and allowing the real stakes to get lost. But yeah, on this we do agree. And I really have been keeping a list of all the outlets that are promoting this meme. It's definitely a right wing strategery, whether Rachel knows it or not.

[QC]

106. No, they just queerbaited her on that thread:

47. Rachel has a bias, and I think you know why. I was never crazy about her,

but I gave her a chance early on, but she continued to disappoint, so I watch Hardball in that timeslot.

[EFerrari]

111. What?! A new low, even for GDP.

[QC]

132. But not a new low for that poster.

He would need a backhoe for that.

[Tarheel_Dem]

86. Thanks for the contact addy. I'll probably get a phone call.

:rofl:

[NYC_SKP]

97. I'm perplexed that many seem to think that I'm discussing the tribunals...

And defending the decision.

No, like you, I'm holding Rachel Maddow to specific standard.

Thanks for writing an email to her, I just did myself.

:patriot:

[Cha]

102. Thanks for sending her an

email too. This is hard enough without getting the facts right.

Talk about "just like bush".

[EFerrari]

116. So how are you holding her to a standard by calling her a pig?

Please explain.

[qazplm]

27. there is nothing per se wrong

with military commissions. How they were run was wrong. IF the appropriate legal protections are instituted then they are a suitable alternative.

So the mere fact that they are continuing them does not by itself make them like the Bush Administration.

IF they continue them without suitable protections, then they may be.

[NYC_SKP]

29. Well said.

I wish more people could take the reasoned position that you do.

:toast:

[EFerrari]

34. You mean how they are run. For one thing, the prosecution and

the tribunals are on the same team, unlike in our courts. The prosecution has a huge advantage just in that respect alone. Yeah, there's a lot wrong with these tribunals and this fig leaf of "improvements" is just that, a fig leaf.

Whatever, I'm done.

[MadHound]

32. So let me guess, you're now down with military tribunals

Let me make another guess, you were against them under Bush.

Let me tell you this, there is absolutely no reason to have military tribunals, reformed or otherwise. To do so makes a travesty of the American justice system. What, McVeigh wasn't killed quickly enough for you by going to through the normal judicial process after being tried in open court on terrorism charges?

It is sickening to see how many Democrats around here suddenly come out in favor of these sort of extra legal procedures because Obama has (wrongly) embraced them. If tribunals were wrong under Bush, then they are still wrong under Obama.

But instead of acknowledging that wrong, instead you choose to throw another good liberal under the bus because she dares to speak the truth. Classy:eyes:

[NYC_SKP]

42. Rachel spoke the truth? No, I don't think so.

Read upthread. She totally mischaracterized Gibbs' analogy to an old car, she was misleading her audience and it was dishonest.

I don't profess to know as much as one probably needs to to know how to extract the US from what Bush started.

Tribunals would never have been instituted by this president, but he's inherited things that are already in motion.

I doubt very much that these will be conducted in the same way as they would have under Bush.

My post is about Rachel and her dishonesty, not about the tribunals, which are a more complex topic.

[EFerrari]

51. So, by your own admission, your post was an attack on Rachel

and not a discussion of the issue at all. Thanks for the clarification.

[NYC_SKP]

59. Yes, indeed, it's a callout of Rachel. I thought that was pretty clear.

Holding "journalists" to a standard of objectivity, you betcha!

[EFerrari]

60. Holding journalists to a standard of excellence has nothing to do with

vomiting or likening them to barn yard animals. That's just straight personal attacking and much worse than what Rachel actually did or didn't do on Friday. Physician, heal thyself.

[NYC_SKP]

78. For the record, the first use of "lipstick on a pig" in this thread is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8415772#8415810

And while I trust that the reference is to tribunals and not to the president, that is not made crystal clear.

It could have been in reference to him, and many DU posts of late have been that critical.

[EFerrari]

81. Oh, please. I could have called Obama a pig and I could have flown, too.

You could have honest intentions and you could be trying to further obscure the issue, too.

[EFerrari]

82. I want to point out for readers of this thread (that I hope include our mods)

that you are passively accusing me of calling Barack Obama a pig when I was obviously talking about the military tribunals

'Way to go.

[NYC_SKP]

88. "And while I trust that the reference is to tribunals and not to the president...."

"And while I trust that the reference is to tribunals and not to the president, that is not made crystal clear."

EFerrari, you used the reference, and I clearly give you the benefit of any doubt.

[EFerrari]

91. Wrong. You tried to cast doubt on my clear statement --

the same passive aggressive crap that the Republcans have done to Nancy all week.

Are you lost? DU is not a mirror image of Free Republic.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[Jennicut]

38. I neither love nor hate Rachel. I actually don't even get MSNBC, I watch at my parents

house on occasion. I have nothing wrong with her stating her disagreements with the Prez over his decisions but to equate Obama with Bush is wrong on many levels. She should know better.

[EFerrari]

57. I've actually been keeping a list of the reporters and outlets

who use the equation Obama = Bush. It's defintely a right wing strategy to create division on the left and it's been pissing me off royally for weeks and weeks. The presstitutes have just fallen in line with it.

Rachel shouldn't have done that, imo, AND the administration set themselves up for the comparison.

[Jennicut]

63. I like Rachel. She is a good progressive, but she was wrong here.

She is probably more to the left then me but I really don't want hatred poured on her. I will try to give her the benefit of the doubt. I get she and others are upset at Obama. But Obama would have to start a needless war, promote tax breaks for the wealthy, steal one and possibly two elections, have a VP like evil Cheney, out a CIA agent, leave a bunch of people begging for food and water after a hurricane and well many many other things before I could ever compare him to Bush. He might not change all of Bush's policies as much as we would like but that is different then actually starting the policies in the first place. Rachel is very intelligent and should get that the comparison does not make sense.

[EFerrari]

69. I hope that she did read the feedback she got on that segment.

:)

[NYC_SKP]

117. So, lets' agree to agree.

And let my unfortunate over-reaction to your use of the "lipstick on pig" reference go, can we?

That reply was a reaction to your reply and not representative of how I feel about her.

Of course I don't think she's a pig, far from it, I like her more than anyone on Cable.

I'd like her more if her show was on PBS where I'll bet she'd sound less like the rest of them

It's my profound disappointment in that one show that made me write the post.

Generally, I love her to death.

:thumbsup:

[polichick]

41. Rachel gets the best guests, people who go there first and are then picked up by the networks...

Guests like Janice Karpinski, Philip Zelikow and Col. Wilkerson ~ people who are helping to make sure justice is served.

[NYC_SKP]

68. There is consolation in that fact, yes.

It's a shame, though, that she couldn't rise above using these typical MSM tricks and just deliver information objectively and honestly.

[grantcart]

47. I didn't see it, I missed the O'Reilly, er the Rachel show

[Tarheel_Dem]

89. GC...........You owe me a keyboard.

:spray:

[RetroLounge]

53. Rachel Maddow, get thee under the bus

There's still room under the Hopemobile.

God, syncophants are pathetic.

RL

[jillan]

54. The way I have been feeling lately - thank goodness for Big Eddie!

[stray cat]

55. Its not any different from the variety of posts on DU

[spoony]

58. Rachel is an enemy of the people. eom

[EFerrari]

62. Not again!

lol

[ErinBerin84]

61. I like her interviews a lot

Sometimes, the in between stuff can be too "cute" by half. And no, that has nothing to do with her criticizing Obama. She has been criticized on her sarcasm for a while. It's her style, but sometimes it can be grating with me. Some people have the same criticism of Olbermann. Sometimes his voices can be a bit much for me, just like how Maddow's "old man voice" that she makes (a lot of times when citing a point by the GOP, to point out how outdated it is) can be too much for me too. That doesn't mean she is "under the bus", as some are claiming. I would still rather have her than not of course, but that stuff can get annoying. I wish that her discussions with Keith were more frequent, I like the way they play off of each other, and loved it before she got her own show.

[NYC_SKP]

65. It's unfortunate that she probably has to do what the producers tell her to do.

I agree that a few things they've tried to make the show "entertaining" were full of fail.

I don't know if she wrote the line I'm calling her on or if it was written for her.

But she owns it now, and it was beneath what I have thought was a higher standard that I though she maintained.

[ErinBerin84]

74. her

talk me downisms over policy are more understandable to me than some of her talk me down-isms during the campaign. I thought she did some needless worrying during the campaign, like when she was afraid that Jerome Corsi's book was going to be Obama's swiftboat and that the Obama team's response was not enough, when she was pretty sure that Obama would lose, etc. I mean, I could understand not getting your hopes up, but she didn't really seem realistic about Obama's chances given the political situation that the GOP was in. So to her credit, I understand a lot of the policy critique, but I was also turned off by that sort of knee jerk cynicism during the campaign. Either way, like I said, I'm still very grateful that she has a show....I sure as hell wish that they would let her on some MTP panels, since Joe Scarborough is apparently acceptable to them. I think that it would also be fun to see her on Morning Joe, though I guess that I shouldn't wish that upon anyone. Unfortunately, the Bush=Obama thing is used by the RW (and Politico, as they quoted Rachel) against Obama (remember, they even tried to do this during the McCain campaign), so I think that the fear is more like, saying that characterizes everything that Obama does as Bush-ian, instead of criticizing particular policy points.

[HopeOverFear]

80. They all do

that's why people have been seeing a different side to Ed than what they're used to on his radio show. The brass at MSNBC told him to do that.

[NYC_SKP]

118. I've missed most of Ed's shows and if that has happened to him to it is most unfortunate.

But not surprising.

[sniffa]

71. RACHELL MADDO IS DAED TO ME

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[NYC_SKP]

100. That is just a bit much there, ruggerson... Please edit or delete your subject line.

I wish you'd consider an edit to your subject line.

It's one think to be silly, like the post above, and quite another to bring her sexuality into this using words like that.

The OP calls attention to her use of clever but divisive phrases, inaccurate ones, and as indicated by other members, her broadcast used selected parts of Gibbs' press conference to make a dishonest point.

TIA.

[ruggerson]

103. I guess you missed this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8411628

Many of the same usual suspects are posting here in your thread as well.

They're doing to Rachel exactly what they were complaining was being done to Wanda Sykes a couple of days ago.

[NYC_SKP]

107. Well, I guess that's on them, and it's unfortunate if it's all about something else.

I can only speak for myself, and I was and remain ecstatic that they gave her a show.

But I've watched it devolve, first with attempts at making the show more entertaining (not her ideas, IMO) and I am upset with the editing of Gibbs' presser and with her cheap Obama=Bush line.

That any members have a different ax to grind is out of my hands, I'm staying out of that battle.

If she can do it, Rachel will be a stronger voice for all progressives and their causes if she can maintain objectivity and avoid cute phrases like, "Bush, I mean Obama..".

Cheers, ruggerson. :toast:

[ruggerson]

108. Glad you like her

I agree with her about 50-60% of the time, but I respect her intelligence and her analytical skills. And, btw, you shouldn't "stay out of" that other battle. If people who call themselves liberals have an axe to grind against her because she's honest about who she is, then that's your battle too.

[sniffa]

120. Who's the author of the thread?

I don't feel like logging out.

[ruggerson]

124. jenmito

[jenmito]

136. I am. And I couldn't care less that she's gay. My post said NOTHING about that.

Neither did any of my posts IN that thread. I'm not saying anyone is accusing me of any of those comments, but this is just a preemptive post just in case.

[sniffa]

127. Some real pieces of garbage on there.

:puke:

[QC]

104. Check this out in the thread ruggerson linked:

47. Rachel has a bias, and I think you know why. I was never crazy about her,

but I gave her a chance early on, but she continued to disappoint, so I watch Hardball in that timeslot.

[NYC_SKP]

112. Yeah, saw it, I don't share the theory.

I think MSNBC producers have a hand in this.

I think she's ordinarily brilliant and funny, but there have been a few weird "enhancements" done to her show that look an awful lot like other peoples' ideas meant to boost ratings.

The selective editing of Gibbs' press conference and the phrase I cite in my subject line, these tricks are beneath her.

Why she went along with them I have no idea, but I hope she's fighting a little to maintain some objectivity and to engender a higher level of discourse.

MSNBC.

Maybe Rachel Maddow on PBS would be more to my liking.

[EFerrari]

114. A higher level of discourse? Like when you called her a pig

and turned around and insinuated that I called our president one?!

:rofl:

[and-justice-for-all]

85. NO ONE is allowed to question Obama...

and don't even think about dissent!!! :sarcasm::banghead:

[Chulanowa]

87. So you're saying military tribunals are a good thing, or, what?

I can't agree, if so. Feel free to puke some more.

[NYC_SKP]

90. How you get that out of my calling out Rachel for being Freeperish I have no idea.

Nowhere in my OP or my thread have I discussed much about the tribunals.

You will note, however, that she used a RW snarking point, and she used Gibbs' press conference snippets to make a dishonest point.

That's not cool.

Discussing the tribunals, that would be a different thread.

You can't get there from here.

[OwnedByFerrets]

105. Dont like her, go watch fucking FauxNewsCorp.

Otherwise, STFU. She has the right to say whatever the hell she wants to, whether you fucking like it or not. When YOU get a show, you can say whatever the FUCK YOU want to.

[NYC_SKP]

115. Wow, you're really out of your happy place, aren't ya?

Rachel Maddow is not above criticism. She's always been better than that BS and you know it.

[OwnedByFerrets]

130. Damn right I'm out of "any" happy place.....

the U.S./World is going to hell in a handbasket and the serfs cant/wont do a damn thing about it.

[NYC_SKP]

131. Surely we'd both rather see Rachel Maddow helping our cause with integrity...

And not the divisive snark that MSNBC seems to have applied to her presentations.

Who, after all, buys into her simplistic and misleading Bush=Obama rant.

How does it help?

[GarbagemanLB]

133. 'STFU'...so Maddow has a right to speak but the poster doesn't because you don't like what he/she

says? :rofl:

[NYC_SKP]

145. Isn't it ironic?

Thanks for the laugh... :P

[Arugula Latte]

110. I gave up on Rachel awhile ago. She annoys me to no end.

The "talk me down" thing got old after, oh, the 53rd repetition.

[MasonJar]

121. I wasn't sure if it was on purpose or not (probably not), but it did fit

nicely with the statement about military tribunals, which are so Bushian.

[BeyondGeography]

122. Impossibly lame

[AZBlue]

123. I stopped watching her a while back.

And this kind of b.s. is exactly why.

[NYC_SKP]

125. Wasn't she fresher and sharper and more genuine at first, or is it just me?

Like she's sold out, was brainwashed, started sounding like all the rest of the MSM talking heads...

:shrug:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

128. I can no longer watch Rachel. I listened to her AA show daily for years, then had to stop during

the primaries. I tried to watch her show, but I cannot stand the constant whining. Seriously she is on my nerves.

[berni_mccoy]

129. Well, she's jumped the shark.

[NYC_SKP]

135. Maddow might instead have discussed reasons that Obama made his decision.

She could have discussed pros and cons and possible reasons the President made this decision.

She could also have discussed pros and cons and possible reasons behind the decision to not yet release torture photos.

(waiting for the new SCOTUS appt., legal traps, etc.)

Instead, she gave up her integrity for a cheap shot.

It is very disappointing to me because she began her show as my very favorite cable show host.

:patriot:

[jenmito]

137. MSNBC has been playing that video clip all morning in a segment they're calling,

"Obama Angering Left."

[firedupdem]

144. uugh! n/t

[NYC_SKP]

148. Oh, Really!!! So, they just created the news with that comment, then repeated it.

What bullshit!

[MadBadger]

138. I like Rachel, but that was low-class.

[ellacott]

139. I stopped watching Rachel some time ago

She whines too much and is too goofy. I was getting tired of her during the primaries when she kept saying that McCain has a good chance of winning.

[GreenTea]

140. You must adore Fox news....

[NYC_SKP]

142. Rachel just lowered herself to their level. You don't really need to do the same..

Do you?

[GreenTea]

143. Then I'll say it again, directly to you!

Why republican media is so powerful-You'll never hear republicans running away turning off Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly or the rest over some opinions they may not like or agree with...but the truly idiot democrats.....just say one thing they don't agree with about their comfortable little Dem world not being perfect and they run away and say with complete ignorance, "I don't watch her" anymore...

Oh fuck, one better not criticize a Dem or off the tube you go, ratings too low, then let's put on some more republicans, they get the ratings, republicans stick with their regressive republican host....

Gee, why aren't there any progressives on television....Because they said something other "progressive" didn't agree with...STUPID Fucks!

I watched these same assholes do it to Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, Mike Malloy, Donahue - Which one is it concerning Rachel....Jealously, sexist, non-commitment or just plain stupid?

What in the fuck are these stupid critics doing in their life to be able to put others down for trying... sitting on their fat ass saying...Uh, I don't like Rachel she said something I didn't like, whiny, slimy fucks!

These are the same frightened intolerance moderates who use the ignore button on DU - who can't take any bumps in their little world.

At least others are trying and if they don't always hit the mark that's enough to abandon them? I sure as fuck wouldn't want or need them as "friends"!

Rachel hasn't changed, she the same quick-witted, honest, clever liberal person who was clearly good enough to get others attention to get her own show...and these fucks always, always, come out of the woodwork like trolls to slam down the liberal...for a truth or an opinion by the progressive host.

Say one wrong thing they don't agree with and these fickle fucks who call themselves progressives will abandon you in a heartbeat, toss out all the good and other fine things Rachel's show offers progressives, a voice and a national progressive point of view....

The truth is they truly don't know shit, it's more fun to be obstinate makes them think oh, how special they are...and do nothing themselves but pontificate, what great progressives they are....

Obama is far, far from perfect like every one of us...Do you think he's super-human, a god, get fucking real!

So who do you watch & support instead, suppose they say something you don't like...drop them just as fast, forever? Of course you will!

[NYC_SKP]

146. I'll just direct you to this fine thread elsewhere in DU.

I stand by my criticism of Rachel Maddow, she can do better.
Obama can do better and we also call him on it.

But the snark is just juvenile, and "go watch faux news" is juvenile, and moronic.

Good day.

Please read this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5676364

:patriot:

[Winchesterboys]

147. wow

is she nuts