Glenn hearts Rachel

Glenn quotes one Sacha Zimmerman:

I really like Maddow and have found her thoroughly compelling throughout this latest campaign season, but I am not so thrilled about this trend toward partisan networks and news.

"This trend...." Wow.

Then again, as VastLeft astutely points out, Maddow is FITH on Obama's RFK smear, so no wonder the vacuous Zimmerman "really likes" here. What a surprise. The memory hole is operating faster and faster these days, isn't it? Thrift, thrift, Horatio! The funeral baked meats did coldly furnish forth the marriage table...

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Let's move away from having so many news shows that are really propaganda pieces and have news shows that investigate the news and report the facts.

I guess if I have to have the news delivered by biased people, I'd rather Maddow than Beck and Glenn is right to point out that the press is happy to complain about Maddow's bias, but not the converative hosts. But what nobody seems to get is that our news "reporting" has basically become news "opining." We get very little original journalism these days because that costs money. So instead we get pundits talking about the one AP wire story or 24/7 reports about the poor missing little white girl somewhere (usually provided by the local news).

And it's not the absence of spin that's killing progressives (although it certainly doesn't help), it's the absence of factual reporting and information. People base their decisions on lies and spin and info vaccuums. As one very astute person once said "reality has a liberal bias." It would be nice if we could get the media to give us a little more reality and a little less bias.

Impressively, he convinced the commenter that mentioning the H-word may have been a “mistake.” Move along, folks. Nothing to see here. Move along.

I don't think you got the tone in which the word "mistake" was used....

I think Ms Maddow ought to damp down her bubbly upbeat mode and ratchet up her sober thoughtful mode. But then, she might be horrified at the prospect of O as president, and then msnbc wouldn't want her. What's a girl to do.

It's like a game I suppose. One evening, they ask you on TV and you go and you're frothy and funny and snarky and you get to bat a catch phrase around and give zingers to wingers.. you give good face as they say.

And you think.. "well, that's kind of fun... I think he likes me.. I hope he asks me back!"

And he DOES! And so you go back again..

And it's even better this time, cuz he cuts off the winger and asks your opinion (nobody ever asked your opinion about such trivia before!!) and you get lot's of air time.

Next day, your Aunt Minnie calls and says, "oh, Rachel, honey, you were so wonderful! All the girls down at the center saw you and loved you! I feel like a celebrity for being your Aunt!"

At Starbucks and on the street, people who never knew who the hell you were before suddenly come up to you, screaming, "oh.my. GOD!! RACHEL MADDOW!!! You were so good last night! Yer so nice looking on the Teevee!"

And then He asks you back again!

And this time you're the ONLY guest!! You are just SO good, he tells you after, so funny and snappy.. viewers LOVE you..

Next morning.. your AGENT who never calls you, calls you. The network wants to twalk.

"hey, Rach, we can parlay this into a TV career for you!"

And you go, "oh no! I'm pure! I'm honest! this was just a fun game I was playing. I'm a RHODES scholar for god's sake and I'm too intelligent for TV!"

Then the agent says, "but you come across so well! and you know, Rachel, Progressives aren't going to get anywhere unless they can play on TV with the wingers"

Hmmmm.. you think, "well, darn, he has a point.. I mean, look at Stephanie Miller, she'd kill to have an agent and a show on the teevee and not have to do stupid radio that no one listens to... and really, once I have the show I can go back to saying what I really think. The stuff with integrity and honesty and intelligence."

So maybe she had good intentions, but to get her gig, Maddow had to mouth stupidities when called upon and to stifle herself when she heard woman-denigrating crap from Olberman, Matthews, and Abrams, et al. Whether she did it consciously or not, it was and is obvious she knew what she was doing.

All progressives and women can hold her up as a role model, I guess.
<>

dupager

Compromising principles is like compromising virtue.

The rest is just haggling over the price.

------------------------------------------------
“When someone engages in divisive behavior, any resulting division is their responsibility” - Melissa McEwan

UPDATE #1: Another comment I posted, in response to a request for examples.

UPDATE #2: Glenn responds. And my reply back.

UPDATE #3: Glenn again. And yours truly again

In case you haven't noticed, Greenwald NEVER NOTICED that Maddow was part of the constant trashing of Hillary Clinton by Keith Olbermann and other hosts at MSNBC.

He doesn't consider the RFK thing to be signficant, rather it was just a tad 'over the top' -- and clearly unworthy of his attention at the time.

What is most telling is that rather than acknowledge what actually happened, he belittles Maddow's critics by saying that they are mad at Maddow for being 'insufficiently supportive' of Clinton.

Like I told Greenwald directly, he is simply useless as a media critic. His political biases have completely swamped whatever critical faculties he may have once had, and he's essentially another Oborg now.

I kid you not

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2008/08/m...

------------------------------------------------
“When someone engages in divisive behavior, any resulting division is their responsibility” - Melissa McEwan

Speaking only for myself....

I don't see MSNBC becoming the "Democrat" station as evdenced by Maddow, or Greenwald's supporting her as a putative "Democrat on our side" or "Progressive" as anyone "betraying" me. I am right now taking the babysteps to get where I am ending my days of eating shit. There is a telling quote there:

"Any individual who rises to the national political level is, of necessity and by definition, committed to the authoritarian-corporatist state. The current system will not allow anyone to be elected from either of the two major parties who is determined to dismantle even one part of that system."

That quote could be made more broad by changing the last sentence: "The current system will not allow anyone to be in ANY position of power who is likely to help dismantle even one part of that system."

MSNBC is part of the system, it is corporate media, its interests are served by the corporate political structure and it will not tolerate any voice which does not buy into the narrative. Maddow buys the narrative, so does Greenwald apparently. It's in their best interests.

I'm starting to come around to Silber's point of view, party invariance isn't an attitude one takes, it is a reality we merely choose to avoid until we choose not to. IOW, Party Invariance is actually Party Interchangeable, or Party Immaterial. So I hope this other post is actually just all snark (I suspect it is). Of course they will use religion to further power, they will use whatever tool they can. They are "Principal Invariant", and Maddow is just one more cog in the machine.

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

Good for her, good for Progressivism and good for America, and some serious kudos to the powers at MSNBC for taking what is in their world a very big chance.

What a bunch of whiny-butt party poopers here though. First open lesbian host of a hour-long political/news commentary show on a major TV outlet, and a progressive to boot. In my world, this is a happy day; too bad you all can't share in it.

I don't agree with Maddow on everything she's ever said or done, but then I don't expect to. I certainly don't expect her to follow my lead on everything, because I would seriously hate it if other people tried to force me to comport 100% with their desires. On balance, Maddow and I agree on probably 90% of topics and for me, that makes her an ally. A precious ally, since only about 15-20% of Americans are committed progressives and we need all of them we can muster to speak up and advance the cause.

As for those who find her too flirty, WTF? She does act like a human being sometimes, what a crime there. I'm a straight guy and I flirt with lesbians, and with gays, because flirting is fun and sometimes it is ironic and humorous and brings a layer of nuance and cleverness and among intelligent adults it adds to the quality and enjoyment of communication in an otherwise drab and boring existence - so shoot me. Sounds to me like somebody's jealous.

What a crowd; pissing all over Maddow and Digby and Greenwald as unacceptable because they are speaking their minds; "stick to his knitting" indeed. So much for cherishing diversity of opinion, and so much for any claims to a liberal philosophy. Everyone get back into their pre-assigned compartment immediately and parrot the approved talking points, now, or get called out as being not good enough. Oh, yeah, nearly forgot; not good enough and willfully stupid.

Talk about your bucket full of hubris.

Had several commentors, and a general attitude, to cover.

When what I say doesn't apply to you, then don't sweat it. Even though I am willfully stupid I do still have decent reading comprehension skills and yes you do defend Greenwald and Digby, although to my taste a little too hesitantly; I don't think ill of you for that, just a difference in emphasis is all.

There are other voices here though, and I am not content to let them castigate people who are just as smart, just as clever, just as informed and just as worthy as any of us here simply because on one issue or another they have a different perspective. It is exactly this personalized petty bickering bullshit that has crippled the progressive movement for the past 40 years, and on and on it still goes no end in sight.

What ticks me off, and what is both highly destructive and unacceptable, is the personalization of dissent. Instead of a perfectly reasonable and highly desirable debate on positions, the disagreement is made personal and the entire individual is debased. Instead of “I disagree with Digby on such-and-such and here are the reasons why” it is twisted into “Digby is wrong on one specific position and therefore Digby as a whole is a bad person, someone to be vilified and demonized.” It is a petty, childish, unsophisticated and lazy approach to discourse, and guarantees that other, less incoherent political movements will dominate.

We can learn to accept that human beings are imperfect (where “imperfect” means “doesn’t agree with me”) and accept that they will have flaws (where “flaws” means “does not agree with me”) and still cooperate and collaborate and support them for the 90% of areas in which we do agree, or we can spend our time beating on each other over the differences and get crushed by the much more focused and tolerant VRWC; the choice is up to you, but I am heartily sick of being crushed.

My take on the new Rachel Maddow show is that it is a good thing, actually a great thing, and I wish her all the best and hope it is a full-on success. Will she have to tread lightly and not push as hard on some topics as we – you and I – might like? Yes, she will. Will she sometimes make mistakes and take positions not fully in agreement with ours or even in contradistinction? Yes, she will, and when she does I will not hesitate to take up the debate and condemn the error.

What I will not do is dismiss the entirety of Rachel Maddow out of hand because on some things we disagree. For me it is a baby/bathwater kind of thing, as well as a tactical decision; if what it takes to get an out lesbian and an open progressive accepted as an equal for political and news commentary on national television is a measure of prudence on her part and a degree of difference with me on some subjects, that is a tradeoff I will accept not just gladly but with great rejoicing. This event is a huge step forward for equal rights, for equality of recognition of our common humanity, an enormous opportunity for the airing of progressive points of view, and in general a wonderful thing that I would not have thought possible 10 years ago.

I am very happy with this development, on balance, and not at all happy with the demonization of Maddow in her entirety over a difference in POV on one topic area. This is a classic example of the perfect being the enemy of the good, and it is a bad thing for progressive interests.

I cannot agree with you that there is any equivalence between the claims of BushCo regarding Iraq’s threat to the US and the media frenzy over Clinton’s RFK comment; how many people died as a result of each performance? I know a lot of people think the world of Hillary and as well I am second to no one in condemning bigotry of any kind including sexism, but what we have here in its essence are two right-of-center political hacks who don’t give a rat’s ass about either you or me and never will unless we find a way to press a dagger to their necks. I need people to help forge and mount and sharpen and position that dagger, and if some of them are slightly less than perfect (where perfect is “always agrees with me”) I can live with that. What I can’t abide is continuing to fail because we spend all our effort bickering amongst ourselves over our relative perfection, perfection that none of us will ever reach.

VastLeft, my dear fellow; I know you want to campaign for the truth; I don’t doubt that in the least, never have. I, too, want the truth and yet here we are again, in disagreement; what a very odd thing. Perhaps neither of us has a corner on The Truth, but only our interpretation of what it might be; chances are, in reality, that neither one of us is entirely correct on anything and probably wrong about most of it – or so history would teach if we would only remember to listen.

I would gladly stand beside you to battle the greater demons of our existence if only you wouldn’t call me names and denigrate me when we disagree; I find that intensely annoying. Similarly with Ms. Maddow; I see no evidence that she was lying about her impression of the Clinton/RFK comment and, therefore, it is entirely out of line to call her a liar. Was she mistaken on this matter? Yes, indeed, in my view, she was, but she could have been earnestly mistaken and until there is evidence that she was deliberately deceiving on her opinion I will grant her the tolerance I would hope to receive from others for my own errors. Of course, I could be mistaken; if you have evidence that she was lying, please put it up.

To condemn her for not speaking out against every instance of what you see as sexist/misogynist behavior on Olbermann and MSNBC, well, we all whore ourselves to one degree or another don’t we? I certainly have on occasion kept my mouth shut to keep the money coming when I wanted to speak in opposition, and in retrospect I would have been far more successful financially if I had just kept silent more often, gone along to get along, shifted the blame and cashed the checks. On the other hand, I sleep well at night.

I am not in her shoes, and it is IMHO not my place to judge too harshly what she felt she had to do to get this show. Her speaking forcefully against KO and Tweety and dead Punkinhead would have kept her from getting this opportunity but it would have had zero zip-all no effect whatsoever on the media-pumped Hillary Hate, so wherein lies the greater good? I couldn’t have done it, kept my mouth shut, but then maybe that’s why I am just a lowly commentor (on a very fine blog, to be sure) while she has a whole hour of MSM TV time to espouse her views – just sayin’, we all make choices.

As to pedestals, we shouldn’t put anyone up on them; all of us are human, all of us are flawed, and all of us should be very careful about holding anyone up as being free from reproach. It only sets us up for disappointment when people show their human frailties, and places an undue burden on them to try and achieve what no human being can ever accomplish. I don’t have Maddow on a pedestal but I will reach out to embrace her as I would embrace you, flaws (does not always agree with me) and all.

I just don't have your mad mind-reading skilz, is all, and so I have to decide whether or not to give people the benefit of the doubt on whether or not they are acting from some degree of honesty. Maybe Maddow is a nefarious nasty lying scheming bitch minx clawing her way to the middle; maybe not. We'll have plenty of opportunity now to see what she can do with a contract under her belt and the radio show to fall back on if she goes thud. All Maddow now, so whatever happens will be on her.

Of the many lessons learned from this campaign, hopefully we are all clear on the magnitude of both sexism and racism still operating within what has been mistakenly characterized as the uniformly "liberal" Democratic Party. There are a lot of both, and the R side of the field is much, much worse; the country as a whole has a long ways to go and until this winter I think there was more than a little denial about how deep those prejudices run. Now we all know, and maybe now we can begin to address them in realistic and meaningful ways.

On my list of posts to write is one on perception, but I keep putting it off for fear that it will just devolve into another angry exchange and the main thrust will end up being wasted. I remember the conversations here around Obama dusting himself off and scratching his cheek with a middle finger; many here saw those gestures as horribly demeaning to Clinton, while I did not. I did not think then, nor do I now, that your outrage was insincere; I just thought you were honestly mistaken regarding their intent.

Similarly, a number of times comments from the Clintons and their advocates were called out by Obama's supporters as racist and neither you nor I saw them that way. Again, though, I didn't view the accusers as being disingenuous or deliberately deceitful; I saw them as honestly mistaken. Until there is evidence, not supposition, that Maddow was other than honestly mistaken I will give her the same courtesy and tolerance for her views that I have extended to all of you regarding your mistakes. I think that's only fair; no need to thank me.

L: When she wants to move up another level, what lie will she tell then? WMDs, like Judy Miller?
While I too like to make little predictions, fortune-telling with that level of specificity is, ah jeeze, above my pay grade. Looking back though, comparing Maddow - how ever low you think she sank - to Judy Miller is a stretch too far; again, how many people died as a result of their decisions? Worst case for Miller, more than a million dead. Worst case for Maddow, assuming she was deceitful and assuming her participation had any effect, is that one center-right career politician lost a primary battle to another career center-right politician, both of whom are documentably nearly indistinguishable in their policy positions and likely - IMNSHO - to be very close in their eventual governance. Not to be dismissive of the very real and very disgusting bigotry directed at each of them, but net-net for me the Democratic primary outcome is a Big Whoop.

Across the way, while an argument festers over which of two far-less-than-perfect Democratic candidates was the rudest, are the Republicans who plan to destroy democracy, civilization and human life on the planet as we know it. My focus is putting some brakes on the latter, now, and coming back in three months to have a go at the former. You'll just have to forgive me my priorities, impending universal death and destruction vs. undertaking a reform of human bigotry, as well as my prolix vaporousness - or not.

Oh, and Lambert; please, when you have the time, advise me on the Corrente comment word-count guidelines and/or policy. I have read through the existing publically available blog statements but remain unaware of just how many words are allowed by your fiat to make a complex point before the “prolix” penalty is invoked. Thanks in advance.

Rachel Maddow is just another in a long line of hacks in the mold of Keith Olbermann (another great development I'm sure), sorry, can't get any kind of tingle going up my leg for it, but YMMV. Certainly (to debunk BIO's strawman) we cannot either read her mind, or predict to 100% accuracy what she will do in the future, but her elevation to "her own show" status is neither something to cheer, nor something to make me rend my garments. Based on past performance - and trust me, her corporate media bosses at MSNBC went through those with a fine-toothed comb to ensure this, and if you think they aren't predicting her future performances based on that then there is no easy way to tell you how stupid that thought is - she is not likely to offend her constituents (i.e. advertisers).

But hark, I do hear another strawwman approacheth! With an hour of cable teebee to fill, would I rather see Tucker Carlson there again? Oh sir, you do cut me to the quick! Nay, for this, 2% less drivel would suffice, but hossanahs I will not give for eating it!

In short, Rachel Maddow is not a "voice for diversity" just because of her "background" (see first paragraph), nor is she a "progressive voice" (see first paragraph). She is a "diverse, progressive" voice, in the same way a Subway Spicy Italian submarine sandwich is spicy and Italian. That doesn't mean they might not seem yummy to you.

Just another product.

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites