Rachel Maddow got it so right!

[impik]

This is simply beautiful. The professional Left should take a serious notice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8vOQCnuhh4

[jenmito]

1. Wow. Someone canceled out my rec. Whoever unrec'ed your thread can't be a Dem. Rachel

got it EXACTLY right.

[emulatorloo]

3. Hate to tell you this but

There is a apparently a DU contingent who feels that Rachel is "not to be trusted" and is "uninformed".

[jenmito]

5. Oh, I know...

She was also accused by at least one poster to be under the control of the MSNBC corporate masters. :eyes:

[harmonicon]

38. I don't know about trusting her or how informed she is

but I do know that I can't stand her fucking everything-is-comedy morning zoo drive-time radio hour delivery. The fake talk/laugh that she and other tv and radio personalities do makes me want to vomit every time I hear it.

[decidedlyso]

45. I don't know who you are, but I am in full agreement with you. It's

not that I dislike Rachel Maddow or other of these broadcasters, like Stephanie Edwards, who is the worst. It's the continuous stupid humor and laughing all the time about bizarre stuff that I can't stand. There is no music anymore on the radio, so I am forced to either listen to nothing or to a guy like Dennis Praeger, a Repub whose politics I abhor, but his shows on life are fairly entertaining. I'm just not interested in Stephanie and the Mooks discussing toe-jam for an hour or Rhandi Rhodes saying "Oh, my God, I can't believe it" 200 times an hour. But this is simply the way it is anymore. I'm actually thinking of buying one programs to learn a new language while driving. I'll have no use for it, but it will at least give me something to listen to.

[hwmnbn]

48. that's Stephanie MILLER with the mooks

[decidedlyso]

50. Right. Sorry. More coffee.

[liberalmike27]

54. Prefer Thom Hartmann

But I love Stephanie and Randi. But I am a Democrat, and do have a sense of humor.

Perhaps you'd prefer someone who makes fun of a person with an incurable illness, like Rush Limbaugh.

Personally it makes the medicine go down a little better when it is a bit humorous.

[decidedlyso]

56. So because I don't like sneering, farcical humor, I might like

Rush Limbaugh? Yeah, right. We simply discern what is humor differently. I like Thom Hartmann, but not as much as I used to.

[valerief]

60. Stephanie Edwards must be one of the RW talk show hosts you listen to. nt

[decidedlyso]

61. No, she was actually Bob Eubanks cohost for the 2006 Rose

Parade. I do like her better than Stephanie Miller, though. No jokes about chocolate covered turds to laugh about moronically while she interviews a German Sheppard.

[JuniperLea]

80. She's been cohost with many in Los Angeles...

Ralph Story, Regis Philben... and she cohosted the Rose Parade dozens of times. She was on board again this year too. She's old school. Is she on the radio now? I know she's done a lot with PBS.

[decidedlyso]

81. No, I don't think so. I used 2006 because that's the only year I watched

the Rose Parade.

[Cleita]

64. Wow, imagine radio entertainment with a political slant that isn't humorous.

However, if you don't like it, there is Beck and Limbaugh, who are unintentionally funny if you can stand cringing every time they make you laugh.

[The Doctor.]

66. Like South Park; some people can't see past the vulgarity to recognize that the vulgarity

is part of a very sophisticated social commentary.

Stephanie Miller likewise goes right over people's heads.

[decidedlyso]

67. Don't listen to either of them.

[obxhead]

49. Interesting.

I'm guessing you have never listened to a full report of hers. I've enjoyed Rachel for years. She was wonderful on Air America Radio.

Try listening to the CONTENT of one of her detailed reports. She carries a true message that is backed up and well researched. If 1/10th of the news pundits did their job half as well as Rachel we never would have invaded Iraq.

[decidedlyso]

51. I've listened to many of her reports. She is excellent, maybe the

best there is. I simply don't watch MSNBC anymore. If she was still on radio, I would listen to her.

[AlbertCat]

84. She is excellent, maybe the best there is.

Agreed.

And she's not the Daily Show, like her detractors here think she is. Who are these people who want the absolute absurdities of the RW reported with the seriousness they don't deserve???? Let RW pundits get all serious over Sharia Law invading OK. The only thing for an intelligent person to do is make a joke of it!

(There's no music on the radio anymore??? Try getting off the AM dial!)


BTW, the podcast of her show is FREE. I don't watch TV but I stream Rachel.

[harmonicon]

65. I'm not criticizing the content, but I can get the content other places.

The internet is great, so I don't understand why so many people here gush over these for-profit network news personalities. I'm not interested in news being combined with entertainment - I guess I'm just old fashioned that way.

[October]

52. Morning zoo? No.

I don't get that.

And this piece is not like that. It's informative and clearly delivered.

Yes, sometimes she's flabbergasted -- as am I -- but morning zoo comedy routine? No.

[comtec]

73. You disgrace The Doctor with your BS

What exactly would you prefer to see?
I see only a professional show, that is informative, and just entertaining enough to make even the driest of topics dead interesting.

She isn't just talking to us Liberals who know the score, but to the moderates, and undecideds, and yes, even the conservatives.

so what exactly is your suggestion?
Please lets hear it!
Lets hear your suggestion for a formula better than a BETTER-THAT-HANITY RATED SHOW

[harmonicon]

93. NEWS

I prefer to get my news from news sources, not from opinion driven, for-profit, info-tainment. I would like to think we as a culture could set the bar higher than "better than hanity", but I guess not.

[jeremyfive]

78. Interesting

I find Rachel Maddow charming, intelligent, with an earnest desire to educate. He has few rivals for incisive content. Her self-effacing use of props and gags keep things lively and illustrate that she does not take the trappings of sets and props too seriously. On meaty matters, Rachel is usually on fire, and dead on.

[Stuckinthebush]

79. Seriously?

Wow. Woo woo!

[hlthe2b]

12. I rec'd it, but not sure the unrec came from Rachel detractors

I adore Rachel Maddow, but I too thought about doing so, simply because I find posts with links to video that don't tell you anything about the content to be very annoying to those of us who don't have the most blazingly fast internet connections. I use wireless for everything and thus have to pre-load most youtube videos. Certainly not as bad as dial up, but that does make me more picky about what I click on. This is a 13 minute video... If you are on the equivalent of a T-1 line, you don't realize what a pain that is to watch on much slower connections.

Granted the OP at least tells us enough to suggest it is a RM video and I appreciate that, but not what it is about. So, yes, for one moment, I too was tempted to unrec and I adore Rachel Maddow. Just sayin....

Take the time to briefly describe what is in your links, please. It will be greatly appreciated.

[jenmito]

20. Then before unrec'ing, why doesn't the person ask what it's about? n/t

[hlthe2b]

25. How many posts have you seen where a stream of responses

do just that? Nicely, civilly and respectfully, Yet, the same people seem to continue the practice and these aren't "newbies".

I think a lot of people find it rude to post just a link, especially after this has been brought up nicely and politely as an issue time and time again. This particular post is a bit different, because they at least did identify the content as somehow related to Rachel Maddow.


You can be angry about unrecs, which I personally rarely use (and am glad we are discontinuing them in DU3). But, I'm, just saying sometimes they come as a result of the post itself and not the content. Twitter type formats with their 140 character limits have their place--on twitter. I think most Duers still want this to be a discussion board, where some thought is put into what one posts and you, thus, have to "earn" those recommendations.

[Myrina]

47. +1 million

Thank you! :applause:

[harmonicon]

39. here are just a few reasons:

1. The post contains no information but a link to another website. That doesn't really add anything to DU. If we want content from other websites, we can go to those other websites.
2. When going into the replies and seeing that the first one is about a feature of DU and has nothing to do with the content of the link, it makes discussion about anything else impossible and is incredibly irritating.

[xxqqqzme]

40. I'm w/ you 100%.

I see 13 minutes and move on. And how many times, I cannot count, have DUers w/ impaired hearing asked, not DEMANDED but asked, that some content or basic explanation be provided so they may share the experience?

I am sorry this was not addressed in the DU Survey as it is a problem.

[tpsbmam]

87. The same goes for DUers with hearing challenges, who've repeatedly requested

written descriptions. I can't always produce a transcript but I try. If not, I do my best to provide a good summary of the video. It's a simple courtesy. Not doing that really disrespects DUers with slow connections or hearing challenges IMO.

[emulatorloo]

2. She did, It was an excellent analysis. n/t

[phantom power]

4. That is really something.

[jenmito]

6. Cenk comes to mind, for one. n/t

[mistertrickster]

7. Absolutely brilliant . . . must see. k' & r'd nt

[hedgehog]

8. Thank you!

[Whisp]

9. wow. so rich with info. Rachel is heads and shoulders above the rest of the so called journalists.

*claps

[elleng]

28. Yes, she is, always has been, does her homework.

Rhodes Scholar, you know.

[Cali_Democrat]

10. Who's the professional left?

[jonnyblitz]

14. anybody who isn't an Obama toadie. nt

[emulatorloo]

15. Don't be ridiculous. The term "Professsional" should clue you in. People with TV shows

or appear on TV as paid commentators. People who get paid to write Op-Eds. People who support themselves with High Profile Blogs. In other words people who are paid to express their opinions.

[Phx_Dem]

18. It's so clear what the term means. It's laughable how many clueless and random

people assume they are the "professional left." Posting on DU or some of other forum, does not a professional make.

The stupidity of some people scares me. Speaking of which, Palin thinks the Russians won the space race and it was so expensive it caused the collapse of the Soviet Union . . . 30+ years later.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[tallahasseedem]

24. I wish I could recommend this post!

So, so true!

[tavalon]

Nope, I'm the fringe left

Or the far left. I'm about as far left as you get without running into libertarian. but the only professional title I have is Registered Nurse.

[tavalon]

41. Nope, I'm the fringe left

Or the far left. I'm about as far left as you get without running into libertarian. but the only professional title I have is Registered Nurse.

[stevenleser]

36. Some folks on DU are so determined to be angry at Obama they will refuse to see this

I wish it weren`t so but there it is.

[great white snark]

11. Thanks for being a voice of reason Rachel.

Recced.

[japple]

13. Thanks, impik, for posting this clip. Gotta agree with Rachel.

She got it right!

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zeos3]

17. Excellent!

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[jenmito]

22. If you didn't see it, RACHEL is the one praising Obama's speech. So take it up with HER. n/t

[DrDan]

21. she is, without a doubt, one very bright, articulate person

[Enthusiast]

43. Rachel's mind is like a steel trap.

Welcome to the B1O.

[tnlurker]

23. For later

[jenmito]

26. Here's the transcript of the whole show yesterday:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41297216/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/ The part shown in the OP is at the beginning.

[nenagh]

27. Rachel giving us historical context,

Great reporting Rachel, and thanks so much for posting this..

[Enthusiast]

44. And we could sure use some historical perspective.

This is what is missing from the national dialog. But, as long as greedy corporations can do anything they want to cloud the discussion we don't have a chance.

[Kber]

29. Lordy I hope she's right!

And, I think she just might me.

[rug]

30. Finally, a 2012 slgan! "I Like Ike!"

[yodermon]

31. DAMN. Best clip of her's that I've seen in a while.

How can GEMSNBCOMCAST possibly let her say such things?

[OhioBlue]

32. awesome analysis by Rachel

I remember during the '08 election, Senator Sherrod Brown told me that if we get then Senator Obama elected, it could start a movement much like that of conservative movement under Reagan. I think that is what Rachel is pointing toward... We have to stop the bleeding and reclaim the center before we can ever have a progressive movement that gains any traction. President Obama is doing what he can as a leader and spokesperson to stop the bleeding, we have to help with the movement.

Some like to criticize the Pres for studying Reagan... but I think he does it to imitate him... only on the opposite side of things. The conservative movement had Reagan's back and took the baton to push the Country to the Right. Do the or can the progressives in our Country match the conservative movement?

[Pirate Smile]

33. Interesting point someone made that FDR was an inflection point which turned things to the left.

Ike was a confirmation point - he confirmed that even the opposing party now agreed with the changes implemented by FDR - we have all kinds of quotes from Ike saying how no one was getting rid of Social Security, labor protections, etc. He confirmed that FDR's shift of the country to the left was now accepted by all as the accepted norm of government.

Reagan was an inflection point to the right. Clinton was a confirmation point of this shift to the right just like Ike had been a confirmation point of FDR's shift to the left. Clinton accepted the new rightward shift as the norm and played on that field - just like Ike had done on FDR's leftward shifted field. Welfare Reform and "the era of big government is over", etc. show how Clinton accepted and played on that rightward field.

President Obama wants to be an inflection point shifting back to the left - correcting the shift Reagan did.

It fits with Obama's 2008 statement that he saw Reagan as changing the "trajectory" of the Country in a way that neither Clinton nor Nixon did (Nixon continued with the confirmation that even Republicans were playing on FDR's leftward field - his healthcare and environmental proposals would be seen as quite liberal today). Douglas Brinkley or Scherer pointed out on Hardball today that Obama spent the 80's and 90's fighting against Reagan's rightward shift even back to his Occidental College days when he was protesting apartheid. You can recognize the shifts without approving of any of the policies - and in fact spend your time and energy fighting those policies.

I thought it was an interesting point.

[OhioBlue]

34. interesting indeed

and you post illustrates what I perceive as Obama's intended imitation of Reagan as an "inflection point". Thank you for posting a much better and thoughtful analysis than I could have. I agree completely with your post.

[Pirate Smile]

35. The new part was the presidencies that followed that acted as confirmation points of the shift.

Everyone has heard of the presidencies of FDR & Reagan as important ideological points but it was the first time I heard someone really explain how the opposing parties presidencies served to truly ratify the ideological shift.

People need to stop acting like Obama is approving of Reagan's policies when he makes this point. That is not what he is talking about.

[gateley]

37. Rachel always gets it right, IMO. nt

[Enthusiast]

42. K&R

If for no other reason that she informed her viewers about the drastic right moving nature of American politics. Imagine the shock of a Glenn Beck or Limbaugh listener hearing Eisenhower's words.

But, I think she gives the current President far too much credit. I didn't see his speech as three dimensional chess as she did. I'll be happy to be proven wrong by his actions.

[ThomThom]

46. That was very nice commentary but

to think it was more than a speech is naive at best. It was just talk and he is still leaning way to far to the right for me. I will believe it when I see actions not just words.

[olegramps]

53. I posted the 1956 Republican Platform here several times.

It is difficult for many to realize how liberal the Republican Party was during the 1950s compared to not only today's Republicans, but also the DLC Democrats who dominate party policy. One of the major factors has been the ability of management to demonize unions. As union membership fell there was no organized voice to prevent the systematic out-sourcing of jobs. The working class became their own worst enemy when they bought the swill that management would take good care of them. Younger workers refuses to join since they could get the same wages and benefits without paying union dues. Without any effective opposition representatives in congress became little more than enablers of corporation policy to maximize profits at the expense of the working class. Bye-bye health care, bye-bye pensions, and bye-bye your jobs suckers.

Obama has said on several occasions that the jobs aren't going to come back. Well, the hemorrhaging will continue as long as there are no effective tariffs to level the playing field. Wages will continue to drop until Americans workers will be living in abject poverty that was the plight of the workers until FDR came to their rescue. Obama received thunderous applause when he stated that no one would trade their citizenship to live in any other country. That may very well apply to those in congress who have awarded themselves generous benefits that no working class citizen now enjoys. They are only enjoying the same benefits that the working class screwed themselves out of when they deserted organized labor.

[Dover]

59. ..."the jobs aren't going to come back". True. Nor will the overseas untaxed money of the wealthy

and the funds lost in innumerable scams by the banks and Wall St. Nor the taxes on estates (the death tax). In other words, the vast majority of taxing income is squeezed from those who can least afford it. Corporations and the very wealthy don't operate like a democracy. It's not their style. As they see it, the rules aren't for 'them'.

But I'm not telling you anything you and most in this forum don't know. Thanks for your prescient posts on the drift to the right that were finally voiced by Maddow.

[Jennicut]

55. I know some are sad Olbermann is gone but Rachel has always been more

thoughtful and is an incredible journalist. She just gives us the history perfectly.

[Atypical Liberal]

57. Amazing!

It's amazing that the Republicans of old would be considered leftists today.

[Armstead]

58. It was a good analysis -- Except for one thing.....

I would love to agree with Rachek 100 percent. But it'll have to be about 65 or 70 percent.

I agree with the analysis of people like Bernie Sanders, who said it was basically a good speech, but with some disturbing omissions and a little too much reinforcing of right-wing ideology and talking points.

The omissions included a failure to acknowledge a core truth of our problems. That is both the abandonment of regulatory restraints that have led to I creased concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a few mega corporations and the uber wealthy.

A related omission was a call for a restoration of humanistic values of corporate responsibility, both on the part of business, and what we as a society expect and demand of them.

Obama has been avoiding even the level of honesty that Ike used to characterize things which she cited in the beginning of the segment.

if Obama ignores these, and pretends that simply with a little innovation and incentives this drift towards an oligarchy with no moral compass, then he will reinforce the core cancer he claims he is trying to treat.

[bbgrunt]

63. I'm with you. I'd sure like to entirely agree with

Rachel----BUT: when I see almost all key appointments being filled by the foxes, I shudder. When the FCC allows the comcast/GE merger I wonder how the hell having a dem in power has helped us.

When I hear the president make pronouncement after pronouncement about things like holding BP to account, not allowing the tax cuts for the rich to continue and then making deals to let them continue, promising not to sign a health care bill unless it contains a public option, etc, etc., etc., I wonder how we who love to believe can really believe him this time when his signals are so much more muted.

When his economic advisors all come from wall street, I really wonder. When he continues to make free trade deals, I wonder. When his justice department does not hold anyone accountable, I wonder.

In fact, I wonder if this isn't just the last gasp of hope in the face of certain doom.

[Armstead]

68. If people get too let down, it would do more harm than good

Obama injected some hope and optimism into the zeitgeist, at a time when as a nation we had become demoralized, fatalistic and cynical.

He raised hopes that the destructive and entrenched elite status quo could begin to be loosened and opened up.

But too many things like you cited will ultimately drive people further to fatalistic cynicis, which is the last thing that should happen.

[mochajava666]

75. +1

Well said.

[swilton]

62. I find that her arguments are circular

She uses the approval rate (92%) as a standard for the strength of Obama's proposals - yet at the same time she notes that the country as a whole has moved to the right - as a function of the Republican zealots.

Furthermore, use of the popularity of his speech as a litmus test is very weak measuring tool - no one can argue that Obama is a good orator...his election in 2008 was validation of his skills as a campaigner which were in fact a function of his gifts as a public speakers. The proof would be in his delivery of what he promises - as his behavior in office over the past two years has shown, what he says and what he does are mutually exclusive.

[decidedlyso]

69. That is the way I saw it too. I would have rather the speech got

a 60% and reflected a more liberal stance. Another Reagan we do not need.

[liberation]

76. After Olbermann got the boot, both Maddow and Schultz got the memo loud and clear

It has been hilarious to witness actually.

I agree with the circular logic, by that measuring stick Bush's SOTU after 9/11 polled specially high. Therefore Bush's policies were totally justified. In fact most SOTUs for the past couple of decades have become more of a pep rally by the president to cheer up the nation, than the honest appraisal of our nation's current state by the executive branch of the government they were supposed to be. So they tend to poll very high, because... well, if one thing Americans love to hear is someone telling them how great they are ;-)

Furthermore, Obama is a great orator no question about that.

[AlbertCat]

86. It has been hilarious to witness actually.

I don't see any great change in either show.

Examples of the hilarity, please......

[AlbertCat]

85. use of the popularity of his speech as a litmus test is very weak measuring tool

I think Rachel would agree with you. You did see, did you not, how she points out the HUGE approval is almost unbelievable, and this is the important point? Not just that folks approve.... but like 90% or so! She's using the outrageously huge approval as a litmus test, and not just the approval.


"The proof would be in his delivery of what he promises"

Something Rachel points out all the time.

[swilton]

88. But as Cenk noted

(as I paraphrase his assessment of the SOTU) Obama's prior performance suggests that President Obama will more than likely cave to the conservatives and follow-through on the right-of-center policies of this master plan, and fold or ignore the left-of-center initiatives.

[Skittles]

92. CORRECT

[StallionLeft62]

70. Good Going

Rachel hit it right on!

[Hutzpa]

71. At the time when Eisenhower made

that speech, it was during the time when statistics shows White as the majority, today that statistics has
changed, it's easy to see the real motive behind eradicating Social Security because the next 25 - 30 years
shows that Whites will be the minority in this Country.

IMO there is a malicious intent behind destroying Social Security, which is-- if Whites are going to be the minority
why not destroy it completely, it's the same attitude that drives the Health Care debate.

[defendandprotect]

72. Good for Rachel -- but these are only new words from Obama -

we need to see that backed by performance by Obama --

Meanwhile, as for "unions"-- isn't that Obama and Duncan attacking teachers and their

union - pushing Charter schools at the expense of public education?

[Doctor_J]

89. You didn't watch long enough

[RATM435]

74. yeah RIGHT Rachel

Rachel maddow is comcastic.

[femrap]

77. No wonder his campaign

phrase was 'I like Ike.' I really like Ike, too. Just look at what has happened to this nation since 1956.

Game Over....as that one protester's sign in Egypt read.

[mzmolly]

82. VERY well done Rachel!

:toast:

[colsohlibgal]

83. He's Talked The Talk Before

If he does not walk the walk, just as he hasn't before, this is empty rhetoric. So many of us have him on double secret probation after his first two years.

The phrase "talk is cheap" has stood the test of time for a reason.

In the end I see the center as still screwing people over for corporations, just not quite as much.

[quaker bill]

90. agreed

The pro left needs to figure this out. The point is to reframe the argument as opposed to making the same losing argument over and over.

[AtomicKitten]

91. * Rachel *