I'm disappointed at DU's disappointment in Maddow

[jpgray]

Aside from the "pop culture" bits that end her show, I believe she provides expert coverage of campaign politics and provides a wholly necessary historical context to the debate, which is sorely missing from similar shows. She also is capable of thinking on her feet, allows opposing viewpoints full time to speak, and prefers to out-think rather than outshout. This is all above and beyond what one expects from a cable news commentator these days, but there's something yet more valuable:

I don't like ideologues of any stripe to provide my news. I don't like a bias toward anything, whether it be for ratings, "narratives," false equivalency, or the more talked-about left/right bias. Since any commentator will be biased to some degree, my interest will only be held if valid concerns and criticisms are directed at the benefactors of that bias, when they arise. If you lose that, your worth as a commentator goes straight down in my estimation.

My opinion on -unquestioning- bias is a major reason I don't care for Keith Olbermann much, yet never miss a Bill Moyers Journal. It's also why I get surprised (every time) at the absurdity of people here condemning Jon Stewart for going "off message."

I don't want a 47 minute infomercial telling me Obama is wholly good and his opponents are wholly bad. I don't want someone to tell me that any and all concerns and criticisms of his candidacy are false and overstated, whereas any and all concerns and criticisms of McCain are fair and justified. Rachel's focus on the dangers of voter suppression and the very real chance that McCain could still win Florida don't deserve outrage, in my opinion. If all you expect from her is soothing words with regard to Obama and self-righteous anger with regard to McCain, in my view you're asking her to become a Hannity for progressives and she deserves to be so much more.

The benefit from Rachel is that she won't pretend to false equivalency. When the balance of news is lousy for McCain and good for Obama, she has no problem saying it. However, when she finds some legitimate cause for concern or criticism and expresses it honestly, she becomes something more valuable than I think people realize--a commentator that refuses to manufacture a false equivalency, yet isn't afraid to acknowledge it where it actually exists.

[patrice]

1. DU's disappointment? You're kidding, of course.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. I love Rachel. Keith too. Throw in Jon stewart and you have my 3 most watched political shows.

[City Lights]

7. Add Stephen Colbert, and you've got my 4 must-see-TeeVee shows. nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

20. I don't watch Colbert as religiously, but he's on my "sometimes" list along with

BBC news America and Democracy Now.

[City Lights]

60. I like BBC America too. I don't always remember to watch though. nt

[jillan]

3. I love Rachel and think she is doing an amazing job.

It's too bad people don't see that she doesn't want us to become complacent.

[Frustratedlady]

4. Rachel is at the top of my list for news programs/commentators to watch.

Who on DU doesn't like her? Too intelligent?

[jakem]

8. lots of 'debbie downer' complaints lately-

[Frustratedlady]

69. Who's Debbie Downer?

[jakem]

77. google = your friend. see below-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Downer

[Beregond2]

5. There are many people here who can't bear the slightest hint of

deviance from the approved party line, and write-off anyone who doesn't stroke them off on a regular basis. (See "Tweety.") Pay them no mind.

[myrna minx]

6. I love Rachel and her style. I don't want a cheerleader, I want astute analysis. n/t

[Awsi Dooger]

64. Astute analysis?

That's where she flunks. Her ability to challenge right wing talking heads with brief, emphatic, easy to understand big picture themes is beautiful.

But in terms of political analysis no one could be more inept. That's why I admittedly don't like Rachel. Actually I simply don't respect her.

In previous cycles she was properly pessimistic when the situational factors favored the other side. Hell, I was ripped on this site in 2002 and 2004 for pointing out foundational GOP advantage. But once you move to pro-Democratic terrain like 2006 and 2008, Rachel pathetically never flipped the switch. It's almost like a parody. This cycle screamed pro-Democratic by several points. Every reliable measure indicated that, from Bush approval rating to Party ID to economic variables to enthusiasm level of the two parties. Then the extended primary was like a gift from above, exponentially advancing our status as the heavyweight party, the centerpiece, along with natural benefit in registration and fund raising.

For Rachel not to understand that, and to persistently assert it was to McCain's advantage and made him the November favorite, was so comically ignorant it warranted a dunce cap. That's what I see every time I look at her, a dunce cap atop the pained expression. Then the economic collapse a month ago boosted our edge by another 2 points minimum, and instead of understanding that and giving in to Obama as the major favorite, Rachel continued to whine, and grasp any absurd rationale like the Bradley Effect.

Sorry, she's a joke. Put her relentless pessimism in anyone else's mouth and we'd mock them daily, rated just above the DNC or Lieberman or McAuliffe.

[myrna minx]

67. Rachel is a pessimist, but she is no dunce and is not ignorant.

She is a Rhodes Scholar and holds a PhD in Political Science, but I guess, according to you, she is more "inept" and more of a joke than the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, Chris Matthews, David Gregory, Nora O'Donnall, Candy Crowly, Wolf Blitzer et al. She may be wrong at times, but at least she comes from a place of reason, and not the mental meanderings and from the hip commentators like the aforementioned.

[genna]

84. Properly pessimistic? Isn't that an oxymoron?

It is one thing to say she doesn't see the factors you list as reason enough to be hopeful. It is a different thing to take all the variables she indicates as being cause for concern AND call her a dunce.


Based on how you've delineated your argument there is no question you've been thoroughly educated, but it is not cause for cutting down a liberal who does not see the light at the end of the tunnel. I've watched two elections be taken out of the Democratic column and procedurally handed to Republicans through little to no fault of Gore or Kerry. I've lived through extralegal measures inserted into our democratic process to determine the leader of this world.


There is PLENTY CAUSE for alarm and anguish. There are two different truths out there: 1) this is a democracy and your vote counts AND THE COMPLETELY OPPOSITE REALITY 2) this is a representational system and your vote means what we say it means. The part she is worried about is #2 because it happens away from the spotlight of public scrutiny. The depth of b.s. these government officials have shot us in the last 8 years to COVER & HIDE their extralegal endeavors has been a blight on our democracy.


If you discount these unbelievable and horrifying facts without giving them any merit, I won't call you a dunce and/or a joke for not agreeing with me. Instead, I will hope that what you see in the #1 side of things prevails. Let me worry about the #2 and hope for the best while Rachel Maddow points out the procedural things we can know about #2.


An aside: For those of you who are citing the belief that HRC would run her campaign all the way to the convention as being suspect. I ask you to go back through the threads and watch the behavior March through August. Anything was possible in those months. It has been a long primary and a long general election.

[renate]

9. I love Rachel and I love what you wrote

Thank you!

[FormerConservative]

10. I'm disappointed in your disappointment of DU's disappointment in Maddow

[patrice]

28. LOL!

:hi:

[Bucky]

35. You know, it deeply grieves me that you...

posted this before I could.

[sunnystarr]

45. I find that disappointing ... (nt)

[SeattleGirl]

11. I couldn't agree more with you, jp

Rachel is not a parrot; she is not a puppet. She is incredibly intelligent, and has great insight into things. If, as you say, she sees something that could favor McCain, she talks about it; she doesn't pretend it's not there.

I also don't want someone who will just talk happy talk. I want someone to report on things as they are, and give her thoughts on them, which Rachel does better than anyone, even Keith (whom I also adore).

[regnaD kciN]

12. I'm disappointed at your disappointment at our disappointment...

Seriously, Maddow has many good points, but her relentless pessimism is really getting me tired. And don't give me the line that she's just doing this "to keep us from getting complacent"...she's doing it because she's been convinced for a long time that McCain will win, and won't let facts get in her way.

[FormerConservative]

15. *sigh*...now I'm disappointed in your disappointment

It never ends!!!! :)

[sunnystarr]

48. It's disappointing that

your disappointment of his disappointment in a poster's disappointment of DU's disappointment that he found so disappointing was just another disappointment ... so now I'm disappointed too and share your disappoinment in his disappointment.

[jpgray]

25. I don't buy and wouldn't argue that this is simply an anti-complacency tactic

But I don't like the impression I get that many people tune in just for a campaign news "upper," wherein a focus on positive Obama news and negative McCain news represents the entirety of the program every day of every week.

[martymar64]

79. What you call pessimism , I call keeping it real

She is the most intelligent commentator out there. She doesn't ride the rose-colored happy talk express like many here wish she would. We don't want a Democratic version of Billo or John Gibson or Joe the Intern Killer that just cheer leads regardless of the facts.

Rachel rocks . . . and rolls!

[melody]

13. So if we love her we can't find fault with her?

I thought she was supposed to be "reality based". My reality is she's going way too negative for some of her audience. It's her show and her right to do it but shouldn't we have the right to disagree?

[jpgray]

19. I don't remember asking anyone to shut up, but I'll reread the OP

I figured I'd just state my opinion, which finds fault with those who find this particular fault with her. :silly:

[melody]

22. You were criticizing those who criticized her

Which was my point.

[jpgray]

29. "Can't" and "shouldn't" are different things, no?

I can argue that one shouldn't find fault with Rachel for this particular reason; I couldn't begin to argue that someone -can't- find fault with her for this particular reason. The difference may seem slim to you, but it's important to me.

[melody]

50. Namaste n/t

[jpgray]

58. I didn't mean to offend, and I'm sorry if I did

It's understandable that the OP could be read that way--a lot of the time DUers seem to post this sort of thread with -exactly- the intention of shutting down the opposing side of debate.

[SeattleGirl]

23. Of course you do.

I don't always like hearing the things she's saying, but I'm very happy that she doesn't pander; she calls 'em as she sees 'em.

Have you emailed her about anything you really disagree with her about? I'm sure she gets scads of emails, but I also think she is open minded enough to listen to discent.

[melody]

51. Yes, I have but I also recognize it's her show to do with as she pleases n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

14. she's a quality analyst

[ShortnFiery]

17. Rachel is also a "big girl" and she is aware that overall we approve of her show.

This is not a one-dimensional forum. :shrug:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

59. remember who her bosses are!

[A-Schwarzenegger]

16. Yay for groupthink against wanting Rachel to be part of the groupthink!

[jpgray]

18. Yay for groupthink against groupthink that is conscious of groupthink!

Your move. The score is oogy to boogy. And I already had oogy.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

21. We're on the same side of a good anti-groupthink groupthink.

Although DU could fuck up a wet groupthink.

[SeattleGirl]

26. You two have just tied my brain into knots.

:crazy:

[jpgray]

62. Gordian groupthink.

[RagAss]

24. I gather you don't live here in Florida !

We've got some apathetic repugs here....not willing to wait in long lines to vote...but if things like she said get out there...they'd have no problem waiting to vote !!!!!

[jpgray]

31. Fear of critical stories impacting events was a factor in the runup to war

It helped drive the milk-safe coverage from the press on the baldly fraudulent case of the Bush administration. It also allowed the worst of Abu Ghraib to skulk below the radar. I'm not saying the cause of electing Obama is at all similar to the cause of starting and maintaining an imperialistic war! In the case of electing Obama the ends are superlatively good! But the means would still stink if we decide that such and such a story shouldn't get coverage solely because it may be harmful to our cause.

There may be valid reasons for not reporting a story, but "it hurts our cause" should not be chief among them.

[RagAss]

41. I agree if it was a story...but it was an opinion given at the end of an interview....off the cuff..

[jpgray]

43. See, I agree that a case can be made against "downer" comments or opinions

I just don't think any of Rachel's have been particularly egregious in terms of separation from relevance or fact. They also don't seem to be pushing toward a particular bias. I suppose I'm more inclined to see opinions that don't offend on those two points as honest and non-troubling, as opposed to seeing them as something that needs shouting down and urgent criticism.

Did that make any sense?

:silly:

[RagAss]

53. Yes..it makes sense.....but I still hurt from those comments coming from her....a friend of ours.

[jpgray]

56. Personal reaction to it is an inarguable fact--I feel the same way sometimes

And I wouldn't argue with anyone who watches Keith to feel a welcome relief from all the paranoid, horserace-driven, "unbiased" coverage. He provides that exact relief for me a lot of the time as well.

So I can't ask people not to feel a certain way about it, but I would ask whether or not we -should- feel a certain way about it. Asking that isn't meant to question personal feelings, but rather to consider their origins and implications more deeply.

Hopefully. Otherwise I just end up typing a lot of words. :P

[tularetom]

27. I'm 67 years old and Rachel is the most intelligent commentator I've ever seen on TV

Of course we didn't have a TV until I was about 14 but when we finally got one all we could get with our 50 foot antenna out on the fringes of the fringes was TV preachers screaming about Jaysus and the devil.

I think some DU'ers were concerned about Rachel outlining some scenarios whereby McCain could conceivably win the election. Well so WTF. That's not negativity that's reality and we all should hear it. We NEED to hear it.

Personally I think she emphasized the national (horse race) polls at the expense of the more telling individual state polls but so what? I don't have to agree with everything she says to admire and respect her. Do you want a Limpballs clone who does nothing but trash repubs? You won't learn anything from that except how not to think for yourself. And thinking for ourselves is what we all do better than "them".

[Connie_Corleone]

30. I like Rachel's show except for the "Talk me down" segment.

And I don't pay attention to her predictions since she's been wrong several times before.

The Debbie Downer act irks me. That doesn't mean I want a cheerleader. She admits to being very pessimistic. It's just not my style.

What's wrong with people having some criticism of Rachel every now and then? That doesn't mean we're going to stop watching her show. Well, I skip the "talk me down" segments, but that's it.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

32. Please stop

making sense! :*

[IsItJustMe]

33. I actually learned something from her show that I already had a sneaking suspicion about.

No one ever talks about it, and yet it had been on my mind for quit some time. Rachael was the first one, I have ever seen, that brought it out into the open and confirmed my suspicions.

She was asking Dean about how the top Democrats never talk about voter suppression or black box voting machines. She basically said that she knew the reason why they did not talk about it, because that would discourage Democratic voters from going to the polls and casting their votes anyway. Dean did not directly respond to her, but I could tell that the conversation was making Dean nervous.

Good for you Rachael. You finally brought out a piece of the missing puzzle, for me anyway. I don't think anyone else would have asked the question.

[AtomicKitten]

38. I actually heard Howard Dean speak about election fraud a while back.

He said that citizens need to gather signatures to get these issues onto state ballots, i.e., mandating open as opposed to proprietary source coding, paper trails, etc. That's also the way to make gay marriage legal state by state. We as citizens have a lot more power than we exercise.

[madfloridian]

76. No, not true. Dean and Obama ARE working on that issue big time.

He is not going to come out and say what they are doing....but she kept interrupting him anyway until he gave up.

That is just not true at all. They ARE working on it.

[AtomicKitten]

34. I adore the 5:00-7:00 PM PST Keith-Rachel MSNBC block.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

36. She's been a downer on the dems for a while now...sorry you don't like it

http://blatherwatch.blogs.com/talk_radio/2008/03/rachel-maddow-m.html

[anonymous171]

37. We need an echo chamber. We don't need another liberal "journalist"

We already have enough of those as it is.

[jpgray]

40. An uncritical echo chamber can lead directly to abuse of power

While in the beginning it allows some cherished ideals of one's cause to be forced through without major opposition, in the end it sows discontent, division and mistrust amongst those who used to be united by those ideals. Look at the GOP these days--in a mere 14 years their carefully built coalition has imploded to near-total ruin, due in large part to their hubris and irresponsibility. This was directly aided and abetted by a lack of internal criticism.

[Dollface]

39. Rachel insists that I think about things. I like that. But Olbermann is my guilty pleasure. I know

and recognize the bias but I was in the desert of right-wingatude for so long that I deserve some attitude from the left. Keith doesn't pretend he is not biased and he lasers in on hypocrisy. I like that too.

[progressivebydesign]

42. Rachel's okay. But she's been Debbie Downer So.Why does everyone HAVE to like the same commentators?

I don't get it. I prefer Ron Reagan. For some reason, hands down, he is my fave. I like that he never seem to push any one idea, and he doesn't throw his emotions too much into things.

Rachel is okay.. she's fine. She can be interesting, but like Randi Rhodes, I lose interest when they interject too much of their own inner dialogue. Of course I dislike most personal essay type columns in the newspapers, so that might be my own taste.

I like Ed Shultz okay. He sometimes makes me nuts because he doesn't correct complete lies told by the right wingers he lets on the show. He says "you have a right to your opinion" but the are facts that the person is misstating.

Stephanie Miller I like a lot. She's pretty no nonsense.

And Thom Hartman, I know people love him, but his show bores me. His callers tend to be rather boring.

[Phx_Dem]

44. I'm not disappointed in Rachel. She can be a real Debbie Downer, but I still love her.

I don't want her to become some little cheerleader, but some times she rains on my excitement and enthusiasm. It's not a big deal -- she's always been like that.

Sometimes a little sobering talk is good and can keep you on an even keel, and other times it just dampens your enthusiasm and excitement. She's still one of my 2 most favorite pundits though.

[meow mix]

46. im somewhat concerned, with your disapointment.

i think?

[jonnyblitz]

47. weak people have to have their beliefs confrmed 24/7. we

strong folk can handle difference. *FLEX* J/K

Seriously though, the highly overrated Keith Olbermann already has his head implanted firmly up Obama's ass, there is no room for Rachel's. I want to know what is what, NOT insipid fanboy/girl gushing. :shrug:

[jpgray]

49. During her coverage of the bailout, she gave great interviews to Kucinich and DeFazio

She really brought out some of the progressive voices on the issue to an audience they may not have otherwise received.

[Claire Beth]

52. I love Rachel...Who is disappointed? n/t

[jpgray]

63. There are few threads right on the first page of this forum

Again I should make clear that the personal reactions are inarguable--they're just the basic fact. You either like her more pessimistic comments or you don't. However I think we can discuss whether or not her making those comments are necessarily bad in terms of journalism or our cause in general.

[Kahuna]

54. Rachel is always a downer during elections. Year after year. Election

after election. I think she actually supported Nader in 2000. I like Rachel, but she seems more interested in trying to be "right" than in being positive towards our candidates.

[blm]

55. People forget now that back when Olbermann started on MSNBC he was more restrained, too.

He didn't really go after Bush the way he wanted until Katrina. his Special Comments only started in summer of 2006. He had to put up with the faux 'balance' act before the 2004 election the same way Rachel has to now. It takes TIME and RATINGS to earn that level of freedom when you are a lefty.

[AlCzervik]

57. I Enjoy Rachael very much and my Dad called me the other to tell me he actually

"Enjoys that smart gal on that cable channel." Could knocked me over with a cotton ball, looks like my Step Mom is a good influence over Dad.

I also love TDS and Colbert and i sure do not expect them to be a wing of the democratic party.

[bluedawg12]

61. She tries to present the issues not our wishes. n/t

[quiet.american]

65. All well and good. Maybe the style of the show just needs fine-tuning.

Watching her was a huge downer for me last night. There's just no other way to put it. The biggest downer was that she was offering up McCain's propaganda that he's significantly narrowing Obama's lead with a legitimacy it did not deserve.

At this point, I think it's just a matter of fine-tuning the show's style; I get what she's trying to do, but it was a DOWNER.

[Life Long Dem]

66. I got the same thing last night.

I think some were popping the cork a bit early, but I deleted a post last night because DU didn't like it.

No one wants a downer, and I can agree with that. But for someone like me who never post downer post, I was surprised by the reaction.

So I guess for the remainder of the race, we shouldn't be concerned about anything.

[jane_pippin]

68. Well said.

It's nice to see and listen to a thinking person on TV. She makes me think about what she's saying, what her guests are saying and she forces me to be critical about the information I'm getting and I really appreciate that.

I admit, I think it's fun to gush for an hour with Keith and get all wound up, but I don't look to him for unbiased news.



Edited to add: Rachel is of course biased as well, but she does seem better able to temper that by being willing to consider opposing viewpoints. They may be crap and if they are she calls it out, but there may be something valid that can be learned from them too.

[madfloridian]

70. None of us feel all is ok. None of us think Obama is perfect.

So if we all love Rachel and never question, will all be ok here?

I just posted about a lawsuit filed by the FL Democrats about voting, and it would be on page 2 or 2 if I hadn't kicked it...in fact it just about is there with my kicking.

I have always watched her faithfully until this week. Now I won't for a while. Yet my eyes are wide open and aware that we could lose.

[jpgray]

74. I say questioning things can be positive, and I'm accused of telling people to "never question"

DU makes my head spin sometimes. Question her all you want, just don't expect me to agree with your opinion. I might even post a thread about it. And please, let's not take disagreement as a peremptory call for every dissenting opinion to shut up. If I meant that, I would have said it. No reason to be obscure about it. :)

[bridgit]

71. Some people aren't able to process unless or until they hear exactly what they want to hear

I am just a poor boy and my story's seldom told
I've squandered my resistance for a pocketful of mumbles, such are promises
All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest, hmmmm - Simon

[Lucy Goosey]

72. I love Rachel.

I really, really don't think she is under any obligation to be super optimistic all the time. I think she's being herself. Not to mention that she's not a paid Dem spokesperson. She's allowed to question anything she thinks needs questioning.

[Norrin Radd]

73. kr

[grantcart]

75. ironically I was disappointed in her ham handed attempt to try and paint

Obama as an ideological light weight. While I normally like her, her question to Obama, that essentially was a patronizing lecture point in the form of a question, that he should have been engaging in a more direct confrontational ideological war with the conservatives was a laughable misstep considering that in 4 days we are facing a major restructuring of our body politic and at this time we want as many reasonable moderates and conservatives to join us.

KO response that defeating a conservative at the polls is the best way to defeat conservatism left a blister.

It was a rookie mistake and she is a rookie. I love her and she will learn but she will not look back at this interview as a particularly bright spot in her career.

[last_texas_dem]

78. I love Rachel

Perhaps she's more pessimistic re: this election than indications warrant, but I'm quite the pessimist by nature so I guess I like having someone in the media that's smart and clever and whose nature I can relate to. Hell, after the '00, '02, and '04 elections, I don't see how more people aren't wary about every little possible negative thing that could happen; I like to think Democrats and liberals have longer attention spans than the general American public, but perhaps I'm wrong...

>>>>I don't want a 47 minute infomercial telling me Obama is wholly good and his opponents are wholly bad. I don't want someone to tell me that any and all concerns and criticisms of his candidacy are false and overstated, whereas any and all concerns and criticisms of McCain are fair and justified.>>>>

Amen, and I'm hopeful that the idea of turning DU into a speak-no-ill-of-my-party's-candidate, rah-rah, la-la-land that many have tried to force this place to be will die with the election over in a few days. That kind of bullshit helps no one.

[KalicoKitty]

80. I love Rachel!

She is very intelligent, charismatic and a big hit on MSNBC! Seems to me she is very, very well liked!

[styersc]

81. I'm disappointed you're diappointment by our disappointment.

Perhaps those who appointed you to the Committee on Disaapointment should consider reappointment.

[Greyskye]

82. Preach it!

I've always liked Olbermann, but I really appreciate Rachel's approach to journalism. She comes across as being more evenhanded, even as she applies devastating surgical strikes to the right-wing talking points.

We love her in our house! Although my 10 year old son still likes Keith better. :D

[femrap]

83. Great Post...thx. nt