In the window of Guild Art Supply on Main Street in Northampton. (Photo by Michael Kusek)
I asked Rachel Maddow about this picture from Massachusetts. "Very kind, very flattering!" Maddow said in a written statement. "Also, I'm very much really never running for anything ever."
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Video: US failure to maintain infrastructure betrays national legacy
Video: Foolhardy budget cuts cripple government operations
Video: Canada, home of many nice things
Video: Social conservative extremists fill Virginia GOP slate
Video: Rare confirmation of Obama pick prompts Supreme Court talk
Video: Crack smoking video claim dogs Toronto mayor
Video: A genuine Maddow show
Leave a Comment:
But, are you running? I've heard you are running.
:D
Does this woman look like she's running? LOL
http://bgalrstate.blogspot.com/2010/05/has-scott-brown-opened-his-mouth-lately.html
Hmmm...Didn't really answer the question, did she?
If you were elected, would you run away from your constituents in a cowardly fashion? *add sinister eyebrow raising here*
"Also, I'm very much really never running for anything ever."
Meaning, she isn't running.
Maybe someone should start one of those facebook petitions like they did for Bettye White.
Dude...your confusing Racael with Palin!
Rachael answers questions and finds out things...
Palin lives in fear of questions and doesn't look for answers....thats why she's mostly always wrong and always shallow and boring!
Three sentences sum up Palins thoughts?
Reason with no study of facts = propaganda and nonthink.
Being stupid makes you money from stupid people ( Sucker born every minute...or born again)
Hate for anything representin progress....unless paid to say otherwise.
I dismiss her out of hand as unqualified to even be asked any question for any solutions on any problem.
Rachael on the other hand can be counted on for research....she thinks before she talks.
i run 190 balls on a pool table and I know when I'm being conned and when I'm not. Palins an easily spotted innept con....Rachael is not....not at all...I know!
So I shouldn't write you in for president?
No. But Kent's available.
For Rachel to be Rachel she needs to be independent, Let her do what she does, the very best, she can be. If she ever chose to run, I would endorse, but for now leave her to do her good work.
ps: the staff is the very best of support troops.....stay strong.
Sherrod Brown in 2016!
Amen to THAT ! He's my Senator and is totally amazing !!!
Mr. Brown actually wrote me back, and not in a form letter like everyone else. He reminds me of Tony Hall. Bush knew how to get rid of him didn't he.
I Understand Rachel!!! but you can't blame us for wanting you!!!
Thank you for all your good work! It means a lot to us and our country!!! Thank you, Thank you, Thank YOU!!! : )
I heard she was running, too.
Yeah, Yeah, yeah ... we know you are not running...but we know that you are going to walk into office cuz you've got such wide support ..and .... we wud luv ta have ya in DC kinda thingee
peace
farid alan
My husband thinks that Rachel has one of the most expressive smiles ever. Isn't that qualification enough to run for something?
"If elected she will run."
Isn't that kind of redundant?
I mean, if you're elected to a position, you kind of HAVE to run...
Maybe it was a joke? That if they elected her she'd run away?
OK Rachel. You're going to make us start a Facebook page to draft you into running for the Senate--or higher. Do I hear a second? If we can get Betty White onto SNL, surely we can get you up onto Capitol Hill to kick some ASS!!
We tried with John Mellencamp on TPM but that dwindled fast...
I LOVE Rachel, but I do wish the people trying to push, pull, cajole and wheedle her into running would stop and I wish this for one reason only: Rachel has made a very pointed effort to say she's not running. Were she to now do so, she would lose all credibility. As a journalist I greatly respect, I'd prefer she maintain that.
leave Rachel alone! She's doin' what she loves and we love what she does!
Here Here....well said!
Glad you're not running ever Rachel! WE (I) Need you Right where You ARE ~ staying informed and Helping Me Stay informed ~ where to Direct OUR anger and resources with your MSNBC platform. You Rock!
Political office is for the savvy game-players ~ THAT--You are Not!! You are a truth teller! ~and angry - looks good on you! (...besides 'they' would make you settle down and tell you not to 'get so angry')
Rachel Maddow for Not-Senate!
I second that!!!! :-)
Senator Brown SAID you were running and he'd NEVER lie, right?
Believe me, you do NOT want Rachel to run for elected office. Politics = the art of compromise, which means its the art of sacrificing your principles and trying to make it look like you didn't. Do we want Rachel to sacrifice any of her principles? AND take a cut in pay? No, thanks. Politicians are a dime a dozen. Journalists like Rachel are one in a million - and "a national treasure"!
Yes YES!
And in a time when journalism is dying--in myriad ways--we need the watchdog type that Rachel (and her support staff) is. I agree that she needs to stay right where she is, holding toes on both sides of the aisle to the fire and offering little quarter to hypocrisy. Keep it up, Rachel!!
I want you to be our benevolent dictator
I am really confused here....So you aren't running for senate....oh wait you are? Oh ok. LOL.
Is she running?
All Rachel had to do is say she doesn't like softball. I think. I'm confused.
But Rachel has already said she doesn't like softball.
http://issuu.com/pridemagazine/docs/pride_09
Yes, but I will be trotting you out and attacking you in order to raise money off of irrational fears and distortions featuring you.
Your check is in the mail. . . .
Finally!
RM
With the standard donation to Freedomworks deducted of course!
Would it help if I said, "awe, c'mon!"? It would be great to have someone with your common sense in office.
Rachel for Queen!
Never is a very long time. I don't want to lose Rachel's perspective. But I hope at some point in her life, maybe when she's in her fifties, she'll change her mind. I think we need more really intelligent people in public office. I, for one, want people smarter than me making laws and policy. It's one of the many resons I supported and voted for President Obama.
Maybe not in this generation, but when she's ready to run, I'm gonna be she'd give ANYONE a good run for the Senate Seat from MA.
Now here's a notion; if Rachel were to be written in in 2012, and were actually ELECTED president, against her will, then what????
Nobody can be forced to serve as president, but the winner is the winner and what I think what would happen is that she'd refuse to be sworn in and so whoever was written in for VP (there'd have to be one) would be sworn in. And if the VP write-in wouldn't serve, then perhaps the whole line-of-succession thing would kick in but it'd actually be up to Congress. The losers of the election wouldn't figure into it at all. See the 20th Amendment, sections 3 and 4.
There. That's a nicely serious answer to a patently silly question. You're welcome.