Why do I love Rachel, but can't get into Ed?

[RandySF]

One would think that to love Rachel Maddow is to feel the same about Ed Schultz. But for some reason, I just cannot really get into Ed. Perhaps because she is more intellectual. Does anyone else feel hot about one and cold about the other?

[Whisp]

1. she doesn't scream her head off and go nuts like he does.

that's what I like about Rachel, calm and direct with no circus act involved

[mrmpa]

20. Bingo-you got it! and...............

he asks rhetorical questions. Rachel makes you think.

[Inuca]

2. You ar enot alone

Ed is a barker, Rachel is very smart, funny, and fact-based.

[Booster]

4. And a whole lot better looking (jus kiddin')

[WCGreen]

3. I totally agree....

[DataException]

5. Ed is a liberal Rush...

n/t

[jwirr]

14. Hardly - rush is a liar. Ed at least talks about real issues. I like them

both. She covers the full story on issues while Ed takes us to the scene and speaks with the people. I actually see this in all the different news people that we liberals follow. They each have a different approach giving us the larger picture.

[FrenchieCat]

6. She is not reactionary,

nor does she ever foam at the mouth,
even when she may not agree with a policy
that she is reporting on.

It makes a difference. She doesn't run hot and cold alternatively,
and so folks don't have to feel that way about her as they watch.

Plus, it is true that she is easier to look at, apart from everything else.

[immoderate]

7. Rachel is a great mind. Ed not so much.

--imm

[LongTomH]

8. I like both; but, different strokes for different folks.

Yeah, I know that cliche is positively ancient; but, it still applies. Like what you like; don't like what you don't like and don't knock other people for having different tastes (Unless of course, their tastes run toward Rush Limbaugh, Beckerhead, and O'Reilly.).

[OHdem10]

9. Rachel is more intellectual. You cannot argue taste.

It is really unfair to compare them. Each is very
different. Ed comes from a background in Radio.
He has an appeal to and appeals to working class.
(God knows we need all the help we can get in appealing
to this group.)

Rachel (isn't she a Rhodes Scholar?) Her appeal
will be to a different group.

They each do an excellent job. BTW, I am sure each
of them have crossover viewers as well. Rachel
gets some working class and Ed gets some of the
higgher ed. group.

[CTyankee]

13. It's funny. I could never get into her show when it was on radio. She'd come on right

before Stephanie Miller and I tried to listen but for some reason I found her a bit boring. All the things I love about her now, were not brought out in her radio show for some reason. She seemed without focus on the radio, not as sharply defining as she is on her TV show.

[MineralMan]

10. How can anyone not love Rachel?

Great sense of humor. Smarter than can be. Smiles a lot. What's not to love?

[Pisces]

11. I completely agree with you.

[tokenlib]

12. Last night was an interesting contrast..

Ed kept using the word "executed" in regard to Troy Davis losing his life--and Rachel seemed determined to replace "executed" with "killed." Although it brought back disturbing memories of Faux/GOP calling the estate tax the death tax and other deceitful renamings--I was grateful that Rachel in such a slight change in semantics made people think. And Rachel's change was not deceitful and indeed educational. A teachable moment...

Note I like both Ed and Rachel... But I found the difference in wording to be interesting.

[notadmblnd]

15. Ed is loud and boisterous. Rachael is more calm in her arguments

I like both of them. They both speak from their hearts and generally know what they're talking about. They do have more passion for their individual issues (Ed, the working class) (Rachael, the GLBT community). I think we need them both.:shrug:

[graywarrior]

16. Same here.

[JI7]

17. they are just different styles , that's why it's good to have different types representing the same

views. some would find Ed more appealing and some would find Rachel more.

[Rowdyboy]

18. I love Rachel and generally find Ed unwatchable....

My partner loves them both. Guess it takes all kinds....

[Dark]

23. Ed's nothing more than a liberal attack dog. Rachel actually provides a refreshing vantage on

issues that have been overdone.

Can't stand attack dogs of either side, but I love Rachel's show. It's the only political show i regularly watch.

[bullwinkle428]

19. I'll give you a fine example of Ed's "intellectual" prowess. Yesterday,

he was slamming Elizabeth Warren, as he claimed that she wasn't supportive enough of Obama's speech the other in the interviews she was doing, completely putting aside the fact that she's delivered some incredible speeches on how the middle class has been fucked over for years.

Later, in the very same segment, he started unloading on Al Franken for "voting for the Bush tax cuts"! He failed to mention that this took place in December 2010 as part of the compromise deal Obama worked out with Boner, as a way of extending unemployment benefits. The loudmouthed fucker was trying to imply to his audience that Franken voted yes back in 2001 or 2003, YEARS before the guy even was elected to the Senate!

The sooner MSNBC dumps him, the better.

[RamboLiberal]

21. I love both of them

I think we need a rabble-rouser labor guy like Ed. Sometimes liberals are too quietly intellectual. Rachel & Ed are a good balance. Repukes try to claim "the heartland". Ed is a guy who I think working folks can identify with. And we need that.

Damn we need to support all our liberal talkers and not whine about their style. At least now we have a full night's slate. 90's & early 2000's we had almost none.

[Cali_Democrat]

22. I like them both, but Maddow is just on another level

It's no contest.

[Cyrano]

24. Charisma. Rachel has it. Ed doesn't.

As much as I agree with Ed, it always comes down to how charismatic a person is or isn't. Rachel is charismatic. Ed isn't.