Rachel's commentary is on

[nadinbrzezinski]

and she is laying it clear

She wil either be gone on Monday with Keith or a lot of excuses and saving face I guess.

(I hope)

[w8liftinglady]

1. she is destroying Fox news

[Hissyspit]

53. DU VIDEO Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=522722&mesg_id=522722

[VAliberal]

2. and she is dominating with facts and context . . .

FOX - Hannity, Huckabee, et.al. - laying the groundwork for MSNBC's hypocrisy . . .

lovely

[Ozymanithrax]

3. Thanks, my boycott of MSNBC began soon as I heard.

Hope Rachel and Keith do OK.

[proud patriot]

11. this is the first time I've chosen to miss Rachel's show

Perhaps I'll watch the video of Rachel on YOUTUBE LATER still not sure .

I wish Rachel and Keith the absolute best . and Huzzah to Rachel to say something .

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Do so

[proud patriot]

48. k

[greenmutha]

52. Video up here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=522722&mesg_id=522722

[B2G]

4. Who cares what FOX does?

I would if FOX had gone on a rampage and demanded Olbermann be fired. This was an internal decision. She should be blasting her own management.

[haifa lootin]

18. She rightfully pointed out how her own management is very NOT like Faux.

I hope that point is not lost on too many folks.

[janet118]

She did not mention Scarborough's donations though n/t

[haifa lootin]

35. She surely is aware of whether those donations were pre-approved,

something she did mention.

[Meldread]

Not true. She mentioned it, she just didn't mention him by name.

I don't have the exact quote, but this is damn close: "Our morning hosts here at MSNBC in the past have contributed to candidates in the past, but they cleared it under previous management."

[demmiblue]

20. Whoosh! n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. WHOOSH

this is about the media narrative that they are the same.

Which some complained Jon Stewart said last week.

In effect it was a different critique than Jon's... we are doing this since it is against the rules. The other side does not... yet we are compared by the cluckers on the right. See the difference?

For the record what Jon was complaining was the overall media use of fear.

[trixie]

33. I agree

If this is a clause in their contracts, I don't see how they can sign the contract and then go against it. Don't get me wrong, I love KO. I tend to lean very much toward ethics. If you don't like something then work to change it. If you challenge it, be prepared for the outcome.

Laying into to Faux News is the wrong way to go IMO. We all agree they are NOT a news channel so by saying they do it we should be able to too is just not the right argument.

Flame away!

[greenmutha]

5. Go get 'em Rachel!

:loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

[gateley]

6. She'll be GONE? She's LEAVING? I'm not watching it - help!

[bullwinkle428]

7. Tearing Jon Stewart a new one without saying his name!!

:applause: :applause:

[notadmblnd]

14. basically said, let this incident put to rest- that MSNBC is anything like Fox

[Poboy]

24. That she is. Laugh it up Jon, laugh it up.

[greenmutha]

8. I am LOVING the scrolling list of donations!

:rofl:

[deacon]

36. That was very cool. n/t

[bullwinkle428]

9. Rachel not forgetting those who've helped her along the way!

[proud patriot]

21. I'm not watching but crying reading this

Rachel Rocks

[SeattleGirl]

10. I love it that she said "The point has been made" and said that

they should bring KO back now.

[B2G]

12. Well way to let your asshole company off the hook

Not one word about their fucked up decision.

[SeattleGirl]

17. Yes, she did, when she said the point has been made, and they

should bring KO back now.

[B2G]

26. No she didn't

She ranted on FAUX news for 5 minutes. Maybe we should all be faxing and calling them rather than the company that fired him.

[SeattleGirl]

39. Yes, she did say that.

Perhaps you missed it. It was near the very end of her remarks.

[greenmutha]

42. Erm...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9495612&mesg_id=9495682

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Yes she did

rewatch it or find a transcript.

[Subdivisions]

13. She may have just sacrificed herself in Keith's defense. n/t

[liberalmuse]

15. Didn't like it.

I'm so disappointed. KO should be able to personally donate to any candidate of his choice. He didn't publicize it. Faux News does. I take affront that a corporation can dictate what we do in our private lives. If that is the case, most of us are no more than slaves.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Actually that is the case

the government cannot take your freedom of speech away... but private corporations can and do regularly in contracts...

It is contract law, been like this for a LOOOOOONNNNGGGGGGGG time.

[trixie]

43. Happens all the time

In my profession we are allowed union representation but not allowed, by agreement, to strike. We are not allowed to contribute to local politics since it would influence who our supervisor would be..........

We represent all citizens and must act accordingly.

[liberalmuse]

54. That is fucking nuts.

Really. Think about it. Why would any human being allow a corporation to own them to that extent? This makes me ill. I've known about this, but apparently hadn't given it sufficient enough thought. It's WRONG. Period. And I felt Rachel was somehow justifying. God, are we all that brainwashed?

[trixie]

57. Just think about the other side of the coin

Since it's pretty obvious I work in a tax supported profession, how would it be if only 1 side of politics was hired? We can't have that. We can't have 1 party taking over all facets of local government while all citizens pay taxes. Neutrality has to be observed.

Most of us do not live in the community in which we work so we can partake in politics in our own community or at state and federal levels.

[Parker CA]

16. BOOM! She just destroyed Fox. She's so terrific. nt

[eleny]

19. Bless Rachel from her head down to her toes

[tishaLA]

23. I didn't think I could love her more than I did

but now I do.

[RoccoR5955]

25. I believe that Rachel is doing the correct thing

Showing that Fox is a PROPAGANDA network, and MSNBC is a NEWS network.
As always, she did a fine job in this.

I now believe that Keith will be back in short order. He was merely a sacrificial lamb to bring forth a larger point.

[winstars]

27. She mentioned a certain morning host... nt

[onehandle]

29. She called his suspension 'temporary.' nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. I caust that as well

different choice of words than Thomas Roberts earlier.

I think they were taken aback by having the whole average day time demo sign a petition.

[Better Today]

30. She didn't stand with Keith, she simply points out that MSNBC has standards, and as such

should never be compared to Fox. But she does not say Keith is somehow right or MSNBC wrong, quite the opposite in fact.

[Dappleganger]

31. Rachel just made herself a giant bullseye for FOX all next week...

she's probably going to need to get a bodyguard for going after the blessed network of St. Shawn.

[dtmfman]

32. ok...what am I missing here?

I want to preface this comment by first saying I REALLY LIKE Rachael...but...either I'm getting old...and heard something she didn't say....or she just plainly sold keith down the river...wtf?

Who cares what was scrolling down the screen...

[SeattleGirl]

40. She did not sell Keith down the river.

She was talking about the difference between Faux Snooze and MSNBC. She also said that MSNBC's point had been made, and it was time to bring KO back.

[dtmfman]

55. yes..she sold him down the river....here is why....

Rachael takes the company position that Keith violated the rules...But..according to their own text:

“You should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the President of NBC News or his designee.”

HE DID NOT VIOLATE THE RULE. The operative word in the above text is "should"....had it been "must"...then it would be a clear violation...I think Keith will have a very good position relative to litigation...

[SeattleGirl]

56. Apples and oranges

You are accusing Rachel of selling KO down the river, when she in fact did no such thing.

If anybody did, it was MSNBC, not her.

She said, as I pointed out, that their point was made and he should be brought back. How is that selling him down the river? If she did that, she would have said, "KO is my friend, but he broke the rules, so he deserved what he got" or something like that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Well, well that was interesting

parse the worlds. I think he is coming back SOON.

[w8liftinglady]

37. Rachel's listing of keith's accomplishments over the years had me in tears...

Like I said before-keith saved me when my son was overseas...helped me really think and understand what was happening in Iraq,In washington...to all of us.I owe him my sanity.
At the time,rachel still had a radio show in the AM.I owe her a big one,too.She brought my middle son to the thinking side in a sea of red.
If MSNBC has 1/2 a brain cell,they will kneel as they ask Keith to come back.
Otherwise,i see Showtime or HBO taking all MSNBC's liberal newscasters.

[tishaLA]

45. Ebert tweets....

ebertchicago Rachel Maddow shames Fox's GOP fund-raisers. You go, girl! 9 minutes ago via web

And everyone's favorite Rachel guest, Melissa Harris-Perry:

MHarrisPerry And now the world is spinning at the right speed again because @Maddow is the truth.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. that is funny

and the tweeter is no source of information, so I have been told, shame on you!!!!

:hi:

[TomClash]

46. We all know what Fox does

This had little to do with KO and was just rant about how MSNBC has more journalistic integrity than Fox. We know that too.

It was a not so subtle defense of the MSNBC decision to suspend KO. I suppose she wants to keep the job Keith helped her get. Maybe she did it because KO blessed it, but she just did the rough equivalent of crossing a picket line.

[B2G]

49. Thank you.

[greenmutha]

50. Wow...

:shrug: That was NOT my take on what I watched at all.

[Tatiana]

51. I think Rachel put just enough info out there for us to try to read between the lines.

1) She calls Keith's suspension "temporary." That sounds very different than "indefinitely."
2) She states that Scarhead's contribution occurred BEFORE MSNBC personnel were subject to the contribution policy.
3) She says plainly that Keith ran afoul of the policy by not clearing his contribution with his boss first - not because of the donation itself.

Keith is not stupid. So I only have more questions. Namely:

a) Why didn't Keith disclose his donations to his boss before he made them?
b) Had Keith previously disclosed his intention to donate to any candidates to his boss any time previously? What was the response from management, if so?
c) Was Keith discouraged from making any political contributions at any time?