IMO Rachel is trying so hard to please everyone...she might lose sight of herself.

[madfloridian]

There are so many shows that have the right wing talkers like McKinnon on, so many shows that have racist Pat Buchanan spouting his nonsense and bigotry.

She is so capable and intelligent that she only needs to be herself...a Liberal with a capital L.

There's a difference in trying to fair, and in getting to the point where the first 15 minutes are taken up with a Republican and Pat Buchanan.

I know she said that is what she would do. But it tires me right now.

I find myself heading back to Countdown for the whole show more often, and just watching segments of her show.

A person who has a TV show eventually has to take sides to succeed. She has not done that yet.

When Olbermann finally did become consistently on one side of the fence he succeeded.

I did not like her interview with Howard Dean tonight. I thought he did great, but she made me nervous and edgy. I felt she was not giving Dean and Obama credit for having sense to come in out of the rain.

It's her show, she can do what she likes. But when both hubby and I start seeing less and less of it...I know we are not the only ones.

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. Interesting - I was listening to Ed Schultz NY Town Hall - one of the attendees said

that the MSM, in their effort (or fake out) to play it fair and balanced lost sight that it implies that both views are valid. And in the past eight years (and through this campaign), it puts Obama and Biden's great ideas on equal footing with the tired fodder of McCain. The right wing noise machine has plenty of megaphones....why can't we have more of our own?

So, though I don't watch Rachel (no cable TV), your point sounds valid and appropriate.

[madfloridian]

2. I doubt many will agree.

But then I don't worry about that.

It's important to be who you are, especially on TV. I have the feeling she is edging away from that.

:hi:

[DeepBlueC]

3. I have no doubt at all about who she is

But she can't be so caustic in interviews that no one from the Other Side will ever agree to come on the show. That was a problem initially...do you remember the scrolls of names of people who declined to respond on air? To make the case she needs someone real to argue with. That's the way I see it. And she needs to treat people with enough respect to make them willing to put their case to her. I have no doubt at all about where she stands and I am impressed by her ability to make her arguments with real representatives of the other side. That's a challenge that she is well equipped to take on.

What was the problem with the Dean interview?

[calmblueocean]

4. It's been interesting comparing this to her radio show.

Somehow, she just seemed looser, free-er on the radio than she does trying to anchor a TV show. TV just seems so much more rigid in terms of format and pacing. I really love Rachel and I think she's got the capacity to produce an even better TV show than she is right now.

[justiceischeap]

5. Do you think low info voters know that there will be lines at polling places?

Do you think low-info voters won't vote if they know ahead of time that there are lines for early voting? Do you think those same low-info voters will stand in early voting lines for 4+ hours?

It seems that the good folks at DU sometimes forget that the majority of the populace aren't as informed about politics as we are. We know about the lines because people post about how there are problems in FL during early voting. Should that be kept a secret?

I don't know I'm torn on the subject, I think it's good to inform people that there may be very long lines at the polls so they can prepare their day by maybe asking for a half-day from work in order to vote but that's just me.

[madfloridian]

6. Low info voters don't usually watch shows like her show.

The lines are shown on TV every night on local news.

[abumbyanyothername]

42. Florida voters know about the lines.

I know because I have been phoning them and talking with them.

[madfloridian]

7. Her show had a different tone last night. Her standing up was odd.

The sound had a noisy background at first.

Her interview with Dean was really odd, like the techs were cutting his voice off too soon without notice. Made the interview sound like she did not even give him a chance to finish a sentence, which is what the other side does, not ours.

She has always been sitting down, it looked odd last night.

It looked like someone was tampering with what has been working.

[Every Man A King]

41. thank you for this

i thought maybe i was imagining things.

[madfloridian]

56. No, it was odd. It really was.

The way that a Republican got free rein while a Democratic leader was cut off frequently....something was really wrong.

[kristopher]

52. I think they re-edited the interview.

It is a standard practice, but the job was very poorly done imo.

[K Gardner]

8. Very well put, I agree. She is a brilliant scholar, a quick mind. We have to fight the 24/7 Fox

Attacks 365 days/year PLUS the Morning Joe's, Mika's, Buchanans, et al; I don't know why we need to pretend to be "fair and balanced" TWO hours a day. We have KO and Rachel. Its all we have. I don't want to see that watered down.

[madfloridian]

9. I agree. She was not being herself last night.

And I think she blindsided Dean in a way...no chance to give a real answer, just kept cutting him off.

Mark McKinnon got a more courteous interview style than our party chairman did.

[Orsino]

10. You don't keep a national audience like hers by being liberal.

It's not her show, and she can do what she likes only for as long as it would take to replace her with another angry white guy in a suit.

Maybe the day is coming when liberal views can't be squelched, and if so, Rachel will get a lot of credit for paving the way. But she can't be what she might like to be. Not on MSNBC.

[madfloridian]

12. Okay, then let Pat Buchanan reign.

I disagree with your premise. I think she is losing her way a little, and I think whoever is the technician in charge of the show needs more experience.

I think the country is ready, and I think she is far more courteous to right wingers like Buchanan than she was to the party chairman.

That's a shame.

[Orsino]

15. Oh, I think the *country* is ready.

Big Money, however, is not. I think that Rachel has had to shift her message, unfortunately.

I can believe that Buchanan's days may be numbered. To be as wrong as he has been, on MSNBC? that could get him canned.

[madfloridian]

18. If you have one of the top shows....you have some voice in whether

to sit or stand or interrupt the party chairman after giving McKinnon such courteous treatment.

Now talk me down from that.

[Orsino]

24. I only know that TV Rachel is different from radio Rachel.

She's had to move to the center. Of course she has "some voice." That's never been in question.

[JoMama49]

68. I've notice some pretty weird things about Rachel's show

lately -- sometimes there are strange noises in the background, like the techies are talking or moving around, even phones ringing and other noises -- sometimes she stands, sometimes she sits - I think the standing is weird -- her necklines have been getting lower and lower -- last night they even had her showing some "cleavage" -- very weird -- are trying to have her compete with the tarts on Fixed News?

[Cha]

30. Right, that's why KO is doing so badly.

NOT.

[Orsino]

63. Heh. Who was it I heard describing Keith as "far left"?

He and Maddow both have to moderate their messages to please corporate masters--to the extent that their ratings aren't good.

So far, their ratings are good, which gives them a lot of freedom--unless you really liked seeing Keith anchoring.

[WI_DEM]

50. Actually Keith does pretty well.

[Orsino]

64. Right. Not by being liberal, but by doing pretty well.

He taps outrage shared by the left and the middle.

But Olbermann is not a liberal.

[progressiveforever]

11. I watch Rachel and I'm not seeing the problem---really

[madfloridian]

14. Good.

I'm glad.

[nyc 4 Biden]

46. I agree. I love her show.

I love her show and think she balances getting the truth out there and having journalistic integrity perfectly. This is something KO doesn't always balance well. I do think KO rocks but he is just further down the line towards pundit status.

[GreenPartyVoter]

73. Me either. I love her and I love that she'll bring anyone on the show. No one can

accuse her of running a little liberal echo chamber.

[HughMoran]

13. You know, part of her appeal is that she's not afraid of talking to the other side

She's articulate and the best I've even seen at recalling critical arguments while on the spot.

She's doing a fabulous job IMO - I'm not going to jump ship due to one or two shows where she shows a little cautiousness!!

Heck, we haven't won anything yet!!

[madfloridian]

16. Nothing wrong with talking to the other side.

That's not my point. Pat Buchanan is featured prominently on her website. He is treated more courteously than she treated Dean. But then her attitude toward him shows on her radio show as well.

This is the wrong way for her to go.

[HughMoran]

25. She neuters Pat though - I find it kind of funny

I think she makes Pat look foolish by setting him up to make ridiculous arguments, then he proceeds to make, you guessed it, a completely ludicrous argument!! It's funny and it has really shown him to be a wild-eyed nut lately - thus neutralizing his opinion.

I'll guarantee that you'll warm back up to her soon enough. I'll also give her a little leeway as she learns the ropes.

[Cha]

33. Why in the world wouldn't anyone treat

Dean with the respect that he's earned.

And anyone who goes on these shows should be treated with respect unless they start lying and acting like goons.

[polichick]

17. I love Rachel, but turn it off when she gives Buchanan yet another plaform...

...from which to spew his racist garbage.

[izzybeans]

21. You should keep it on, she makes him look like a fool pretty much everytime

and in a way that doesn't require yelling.

[polichick]

31. I've seen it, but imo it's not worth having to hear Buchanan repeat...

...the same crap he's been saying since I was a kid.

[izzybeans]

57. I agree, but it's one of the few times where someone has engaged him

in a serious manner that wasn't acquiescing to the bigotry. Sort of the "what'd ya want me to do, he's my crazy uncle" complex. She critically engages it in a very smart way. It's not allowed to be left as the "it's okay, because he's crazy" like it is on Hardball or other shows. And it's not a "smackdown" that turns off more casual viewers that aren't used to the WWF nature of shows like Countdown.

[Cleita]

72. I believe you can find the reason for much of Buchanan's appearances

behind a door named "Accounting". Pat is a conservative who is already on the payroll. Everytime they have a guest they have to pay them, so it would make sense to have one of the in house conservatives on to bring the right wing position for her to argue against than paying a lot of dick heads from the Heritage Foundation to verbally spar with her since he is pretty much on message with them.

[lukasahero]

34. I agree

She's won over my middle-of-the-road husband far more than Keith has.

[madwivoter]

19. I love Rachel and will keep watching her show...but:

I can't stand it when she has "Uncle Pat" on. I don't watch, in fact she usually loses me for the entire show. He is one of the most grating, "talks over everyone all the time" pundits I've ever seen. Chris Matthew's loses me too if Buchanan rears his head over that show :P

Rachel's interviews have seemed really rushed and really edgy for the last week or so, last night she pissed me off a little bit. If I have to listen to one more person say "complacency is fatal" for the Dems this year I'm going to scream.

Informing viewers about the day's news is one thing, having the position of stating the obvious over and over is something I very solidly reserve for myself (and consider it a weakness).

On the other hand, I do believe she has reasons for the recent variations on her show, but imo, the people that watch her show aren't the ones that need to be reached out to, it's the ones that don't watch.

[izzybeans]

20. i think her show suffers most when she trys to appease

the invisible crowd with corny monologues. She's at her best in civil discourse with political foes.

[grasswire]

22. the "cute" tone gets to me

I admire her a great deal. But when she is hosting, she continually talks in a "cute" way that attempts to be amusing. A Jon Stewart-like manner. And I find that tedious. Also, I certainly hope she doesn't think that a woman has to be cute and amusing to get ratings. The Rachel who has a doctorate in political science is the one I want to watch, not the chatty comedienne.

[bunnies]

23. uhm hmm. I stopped watching her last week.

The overuse of "talk me down" by Rachels masses here on DU got me to the point of being irritated at Rachel for it. It drives me NUTS! :banghead:

Plus... I just cant take her *constant* doom & gloom "Obama will lose" attitude. I mean... I'm exceptionally pessimistic... so it takes a serious amount to put me off. She just doesnt seem like her usual self.

I'll give the show another try after 11/4 though. Maybe I'll be more receptive to her then. :shrug:

[VenusRising]

26. Those are the same issues that I have with her show, too, bunnies.

And the Dean interview last night didn't help. It felt like a really badly edited interview.

[madfloridian]

28. Yes, badly edited.

That segment was really badly done over all. Kind of sad as many of us were really looking forward to it.

There's been a lot of technical problems with her show, and it's odd.

[TheDonkey]

76. I like Maddow MOSTLY but I do get tired of her "concern troll" routine

if I wanted to see that I'd turn on CNN or FOX

[npincus]

27. I like Rachel. Period.

[K8-EEE]

60. Me too!! She never bores me.

I find most pundits predictable and boring. She annoyed me a bit with her 'IT'S GOING TO THE CONVENTION' nightmare scenarios during the primaries but she never bored me and I think she is authentic, nobody's talking head.

[blm]

29. Keith Olbermann went thru the same issues during 2004 election cycle - I don't think he really broke

free until Katrina. His Special Comments started summer 2006 and he never again bent over backwards to try and create a faux balance when it just didn't exist.

[madfloridian]

32. Well said, blm.

It's like he found his voice.

[blm]

35. But, only when he could no longer PLAY up to network chiefs, and AFTER his ratings established

him as a solid anchor for that time slot.

[madfloridian]

43. Well, maybe if she does her whole show standing up she will win them over.

:shrug:

Maybe if she is rude enough to good Democrats she will gain credibility with her bosses.

[blm]

44. I hate seeing it...but...it's a dance I've seen for decades now.

.

[madfloridian]

49. Well, the standing up will do the trick. And being rude to party chairman...

will definitely win over the non-netroots.

Oh, she will do just fine.

[goletian]

36. I STAND BY RACHEL! guys remember its called "talk me down" thats what its all about....

RELAX!

[madfloridian]

37. I am finding it more tense to watch her than not watch. Not a good thing.

There's a difference between factually pointing out problems, and making it sound like there was not good early voting.

That is just not true the way she presented it.

[goletian]

39. you shouldnt get tense over what you see on a show like this. thats silly.

its a segment she does daily, whats she supposed to fill it with? come on... the title of the segment itself is an invitation to optimism. a cry for someone to come "talk her down," reassure her. its a show... besides, if she makes it sound like dems arent doin so well, itll only motivate people more. i dont see what the problem is.

[madfloridian]

47. We need to be on guard for what little crumbs the media tosses us...

lest they take them away.

Call me silly, whatever, but we only get little pieces of the media.

And we are supposed to accept Pat Buchanan in exchange for those crumbs.

[goletian]

53. rachel isnt a crumb, shes a whole slice o bread. shes obviously on our side.

its just a silly segment she does, just like that feed me enough pop culture so i can go out in public or whatever. i wouldnt take it too seriously.

[madfloridian]

55. I think you are missing my full point.

I have watched her show faithfully since she began, but now I am not. I have not changed. So....

[Hieronymus]

38. I'm with you ... a dyed in the wool Rachel fan. BTW, She already rates higher

than O'Reilly. It's Keith, Rachel, and in third place is O'Reilly.

[madfloridian]

51. Do you think she was honest about early voting being down?

I don't. I think she was uninformed for someone who is supposed to be knowledgeable.

[Thrill]

40. I stopped listening to her radio show. Because she just insist everyday McCain is going to win

I think it dampers enthusiasm, more than fire people up.I still like her. But I get tired of that pessimistic bullshit all the time.

I tried to listen to her yesterday. And as soon as I turned it on. She was talking about how Obama had 100,000 in Denver. But not many went to vote after the rally.

I can do without that

[VenusRising]

45. At the Denver rally, Obama asked the crowd if they had already voted.

Cheers erupted and hands flew into the air. From the look and sound of things, a lot of those people had already voted. There would be no reason for there to be a surge at early voting places, in that case, and it was then turned into doom and gloom.

That bothered the hell out of me.

[WI_DEM]

48. And on the same day she went on and on about McCain having an

enthusiastic crowd of 4000 at his Co rally! (this was on her TV show).

[madfloridian]

54. Everytime Obama and Dean speak they beg people to early vote...always say it.

Obama is seen saying it on national TV. How could she miss it? Most of the people at the rally she mentioned shouted they had early voted when he asked. Maybe they had. Obama always urges it.

Now we don't see Dean on TV but he travels the country talking about getting out early to vote. It only takes a simple quick search on google to find his words. Not hard at all.

He must have been blindsided by her question and her statement about the early voting, since it has been public knowledge that there is at least a 2 to 1 advantage for Democrats.

That is the first step, be aware that the party leaders have been saying to early vote, begging, urging.

[LisaM]

58. I think she's smart to keep insisting it's not over.

I think she is stretching herself a little thin between her two shows. But don't forget that she's going to have to keep this show going after the elections, once the built-in audience goes away. I don't want her to be an echo chamber for any of the branches of government if the Dems don't get a little more backbone.

As for Pat Buchanan, well, they all seem to like him as a person and love to debate him. Bill Press, whom I love, said the same thing.

Not to mention that it's taken a while for other conservatives to go on her show at all. I'm not afraid of honest debate. I know which side is right, and I know that Rachel is liberal enough to take all comers. She's more like Thom Hartmann than Keith Olbermann in that way.

[madfloridian]

59. Honest debate is not Rachel standing up for the whole show.

Pat Buchanan never does honest debate. He is the resident racist meant to appeal to the rabid right.

Honest debate was not the poorly, pathetically edited interview with Howard Dean.

Geez, LisaM, I hate that kind of "honest debate."

Something was seriously weird about her show last night.

[LisaM]

70. Well the last thing we need is for her to turn into another KO

He's so full of himself his head is about ready to explode. His is the show I have trouble watching now.

I watched most of her show last night (I agree, the standing up thing was strange) though I missed Howard Dean. But I thought she did a good jot with Jennifer Granholm.

[BlueIdaho]

61. I liked her much better on the radio. nm.

[WA98296]

62. What an incredible job she's done from the moment she hit the ground. Give her some space to grow.

[madfloridian]

66. Last night was going backwards, IMO.

It was like an experiment gone awry. And she used our party chairman as a tool apparently without his knowledge or his ability to get a word in without being interrupted.

That is that not growing. Standing up for the whole show is not growing.

[WA98296]

67. I didn't get the same take as you from last night. I think you're being a bit hard on her & besides

MSNBC beat CNN in prime time for the month of October, led by the breakout success of "The Rachel Maddow Show," which brought MSNBC its first-ever victory over CNN in the 9PM hour.

That is incredible, and a huge accomplishment that no one was able to pull off for the network before Rachel stepped in.

My first loyalty though, will stay with Keith Olbermann. Nothing beats his Special Comments.

[madfloridian]

69. It is my opinion, hubby agrees. It is an opinion.

I think it was not a good show and was very tense to watch.

That's not how it should be going.

[IndianaJones]

65. head and shoulders better than Olbermann and will go further too. nt.

[femrap]

71. I don't know of anyone who hasn't had

to give up a piece of oneself if she/he works for a Corporation.

[Uzybone]

74. I agree

Jon Stewart said it yesterday, the people at Fox aren't worried about being accused of being biased, so why should liberals?

[Turn CO Blue]

75. I really, really like the show. I love the way she does interviews.

She is so inciteful, funny, respectful.

Keith has been doing this for well over four years so his show and writers have had time to find their groove - let's give Rachel more than a few weeks before we bring out the torches and pitchforks, shall we? The first season of Seinfeld was crap, I'm sure the first season of Countdown wasn't all smooth and polished.

[madfloridian]

77. If I feel uncomfortable watching more segments...

then is it me or is it her producers? I have watched her show faithfully from the beginning, but the last little bit has been straining. I have to turn it off for the Republican strategists parts, and I can not watch Pat Buchanan. That's about 20 minutes right there.