Attagirl, Rachel!

Always so diplomatic, never an ad hominem attack on anyone-very classy chick.

Agreed. Great job! Let FOX pander to the lowest common denominator, it's what they are best at.

Here, here! I second that!

I beg to differ: Rachel is SO much smarter than the rest of us; she is certainly NOT the average American. And, really, isn't that the point of watching her? To get her better educated view? This is one of the things that annoys me about Americans: if you are smart (President Clinton, VP Gore, President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, etc.) you are an elitist. Personally, I'd rather see the smartest person in the room running the country. Isn't that the point of the American dream? Isn't that why we want all of our kids to get college educations? We really need to value education more.

And, Fred, you are right: the woman is HOT! =)

Education helps one be smart, but smart is born, not made. Yes, I agree, she's hot and smart!

No. Smart is a learned activity. Genetics and family can give you easier access to a good education, but even someone with a severe learning disability can end up smarter than the average person if they study people, places, and things in great detail.

Natural genuises are rare, but can be intellectually outpased by a "normal" person who spends a lot of time trying to figure out how the world actually works. It is intellectual curiousity that determines who is actually "smart".

A little off-topic, but WWF WWE isn't entirely "fake." Yes, the outcomes are scripted, but the matches generally are not...they're improvised. And real-world stuff interferes in the fiction all the time.

...not to mention when reality hits a little too close to home, like the accidental death of Owen Hart....

I produce a news talk radio program out of Cleveland, Ohio (not left or right leaning), and my host who is a few years my senior has always touted Glenn Beck's original radio precense as bold and artful. At 26, I've only known the crazy one, whose boldness is wasted on "Obama is Hitler" story arcs and gold-pushing. My host doesn't ascribe to his ideals, but he respects the classics. It seems like Rachel does as well.

-Annie, Ohio

Yes. It's great to have perspective. It's like Brian Lamb noting a few years back that he enjoyed listening to right wing talk radio. There is something there beyond the craziness. It is successful for more than ideological echo chamber reasons.

I can not tolerate the lies manufactured by the right wing media. But I enjoy engaging right-wingers on right-wing blogs. It's educational to learn how they think.

For example, what does it mean- "our rights come from God"? It means the divine rights of kings. And "our" is the king's aristocratic minions, the aristocracy. Read the Declaration of Independence. Wingers are the Loyalists, liberals are the Patriots who overthrew aristocratic privilege. Divine right of kings is directly opposed to rule of law. Aristocratic privilege is opposed to equality of birth.

I, apparently, missed out on the good Beck. If Rachel says there was a time when he was
worth listening to, then, of course, I trust her judgment . But, in my experience he has
always been insane, and, as time passed, it became more and more obvious how far
off the rails he was.

Neither Glandular Beck nor Lush Rumballs are nice people. They are in it for the money.
They will say or do whatever it takes to keep the shtick rolling along. Glandular, however,
may actually be certifiable. In his head-long attempt to keep pace with his idol, Rumballs,
he seems to have crossed a threshold that he can't return to. Lush, on the other hand,
knows its all just 'chicken crap'.

I dunno, but Rachel had on her Awesome Shoes! (we could see them)

dave's shoe is hanging off his toes, but it's still there!

Very good explanation. I like the image of the Rabbit hole.

Reality is a left-wing plot.

Much of the content of right-wing news is "projection". Attacks on Soros mentioned above are psychological projections of Murdoch. That is, what wingers say about Soros is true of Murdoch. Other projections are President Obama's birth certificate compensating for Bush's illegitimacy, his having lost the popular vote in 2000 and barely won in 2004 and fixating on Obama's teleprompter, compensating for Bush's miserable elocution.

Since July, I believe.

Top three ring theories I have seen on other blogs:

1. Maddow and Mikula got married but have not told anyone yet

2. The ring is a family heirloom, possibly from her grandmother

3. The ring is a souvenir from Afghanistan (more portable than the gun rug)

I think the feelings of 'heroism' are at least somewhat justified when the most powerful government on Earth had made you their public enemy #1.

Umm...Anton, you might want to take a step back and re-examine your definition of "hero." If your definition is merely, "Well, you're public enemy #1 to America, so you must be a hero," then also on that list is:

1. Osama bin Laden

2. Hitler

3. 9/11 hijackers

4. Timothy McVeigh

See where that particular path of logic is taking you? Now, am I equating Assange to any of the names listed above? No. Of course not. What Assange did was the equivalent of a high school prank compared to the crimes of those on the list. I'm just saying that maybe defining a hero as someone who is hated by the government isn't really a good idea.

I read these comments by Michael Moore a couple of days before seeing the Letterman show:

"Some in the corporate-owned press have dismissed the importance of Wikileaks ("they've released little that's new").

It was sad to see Maddow jump on the mainstream bandwagon.

Um...Eric, if you bothered to watch the interview, Rachel did say that many of the people on MSNBC are more liberal and progressive. However, Rachel (and others) hold that MSNBC is not the equivalent of FOX because they don't just make stuff up and then run with the story. They don't just spew Democratic talking points like good little puppets.

Therein lies the difference.

Um, ....Cora, if you look at Maddow's recent rant on Bohner's 5% cuts, she spins it as if it's a bad thing...just like a good puppet.

To say something you believe after you have researched it is to be intellectually honest. This is true regardless of left or right leanings. You say spin, I say "to-maaa-to".

To make something up because you have an agenda that your made up story supports and you really want others to believe you, is to lie.

Therein lies the difference. ;)

Boehner's 5% cuts? You mean his 5% allowance cuts. The equivalent of not buying that extra box of rubber bands. She didn't spin it "like it's a bad thing", she presented it as symbolic, something that doesn't really help anyone but can be trotted out at the appropriate time so that Boehner can be like "Hey! Remember when I cut spending that one time?"

"And MSNBC news shows are news shows to the extent anything on cable is) and are not used to transmit partisan stories and promote partisan ideas."

Really? Are you kidding? Oberman and Maddow shows are so predictable, comment on a story, then have a guest (99% of time a Democratic politician or "journalist" from some left website) and then agree with Rachael or Oberman (even better is when they are "guests" on each others shows). 1% when the moon is full and stars are aligned have a point of view that is opposing their idea.....cut them off. I'm not saying it doesn't happen at Fox, but it happens a LOT less.

Eric, you are absolutely right. It does happen a LOT less at Fox that Democratic politicians, or any journalists, or any left-leaning bloggers are guests.

Conversely, Rachel literally begs interesting or controversial conservatives to come on her show all the time. Check out Rand Paul's interview. Her recent trip to cover the hot senate races comes to mind too. She went all the way to Alaska for time with Joe Miller and Lisa Murkowski. Miller was utterly contemptible to her. She aired it anyway. In Nevada, Sharron Angle wouldn't talk to her at all. Conservatives seem to find her frightening. Boo.

For the record, I don't like it when anyone cuts anyone else off. Rachel does it less than most in the genre, but it bugs me on those occasions when she gets frustrated enough to do it. Normally she is very level headed. Chris Matthews is the worst with that annoying habit. It crosses all party lines though. Can you say John McLaughlin? "Wrong!"

Finally, If they guest on one another's shows, it's usually for the specific reason of adding to a topic, and it's not all that often, either. Frankly, I don't care about that at all. Why do you?

Meh. The glasses rock.

I don't think it was a matter of her refusing to do it...I just don't think slamming people is in her personal makeup. She is just not a mean person.

I get that feeling about her, too.

Sorry Eli. Just another advantage of being a lesbian! Life is good, and I've got a dvr so I never miss the show.

People want to make the case that MSNBC is the lefty version of Fox. Rachel refutes that effectively. How can any thinking person think that? Stupid question, Dave.

Actually, it also allows her to refute the mainstream media and Fox meme that MSNBC is Fox for the left.

LOL Being a lesbian doesn't give you a much better chance at being with Ms. Maddow! This is kind of like when my friend laments the fact that Neil Patrick Harris is gay, and then I gleefully remind her that he is, and even if he wasn't, she wouldn't have a significantly better chance at getting with him.

Will not watch O'Donnell after that shameful interview when he disrespected Alan Greyson, screaming and interrupting ala Hannity.

I am really kind of taken aback by that comment, though I guess everyone sees things differently. RM wears her bias on her sleeve. Her show is biased in so obvious a fashion that it impossible not to see it - and I like her show and respect her opinions because she does try to explain them. I do not mean that her bias makes the show bad. It is an opinion show and she is of a far left opinion (at least on tv) and the show follows that bias. Same with KO but he is clownish where she isn't.

The thing about LO and the reason he gets angry and yells at people - mostly Democrats because he allies himself with them - is that he actually knows when they are lying or making stuff up because he, like CM, has actually worked in the field and are not taking other people's word on it as KO and RM must. He was completely on the money about the tax compromise because he knew that the noise the Dems were making was just that, noise. He knew more about writing tax law than the people (elected officials) with whom he was speaking and he is very respectful when he sees that the person is legitimate or just doesn't understand.

No disrespect intended.

I do not think Greyson was "lying and making stuff up"- but that's irrelevant. You do not invite someone with an opposing viewpoint on your show and rudely interrupt and raise your voice.

It wasn't constructive. I was so shocked that I didn't even listen to the point LO was trying to make.

See Rachel's interview with Mr. Bahati. The guy was a dangerous nutjob, but she let him speak to his position before she called him out on it.

Hi Chris, I don't think Grayson was doing that. He simply didn't know what he was talking about and was upset (maybe rightfully) and LO could not have known that he would be opining on things he didn't understand. LO pointed out to him that there is no estate tax now (none) and that failure to accept the deal meant no deal which, in turn, meant no estate tax at all. Otherwise it would be left to the Republicans next year, which is tantamount to the same thing. You also don't write tax laws retroactively and Grayson was disperteruting that fact - and it is a fact that no law meant that the old withholding would kick in on January 1 for everyone.

I actually did see RM's interview with Bahati but he isn't American, has nothing to do with America and I couldn't care less what they do in their country. I also saw the original piece that led to him being on the show. Yes, she was cordial, but why have him on in the first place? I assume that in reporting the story she wanted to say she offered the other side a chance to speak, as she is fair-minded, and I would bet my life on it that she was shocked when he chose to take the offer. I don't think it helped anything to have him on or served any purpose whatsoever. I respect that others may not agree with that.

I have been having problems posting. Driving me nuts. If this posts 5 times, please excuse me.

Yeah, I think that a big, huge, ginormous, epically large difference between FOX and the Rachel Maddow Show is the tone towards interviewees. If a Democrat or liberal goes on FOX, they get attacked, are barely allowed to speak, and are generally treated like dirt. When guests with opposing views appear on TRMS, she is respectful and generally doesn't interrupt, (or at least not rudely) and she lets them finish their comments.

I mean, this is the woman who respectfully interviewed the "kill the gays" guy. A man who would see her dead, and she was not rude or mean-spirited. Can you picture anyone on FOX exhibiting that kind of iron control? I mean, FOX hosts shout down people who just have opposite political views. These aren't even people who would seek to harm them.

Now, I can't say that this courteous treatment of guests is consistent for all the show hosts at MSNBC, but it definitely is true for Dr. Rachel Maddow.

I'm not sure if you are speaking about a specific show but I see liberal Democrats on Fox News all the time and I do not see them treated like that. Hannity may well do that, I don't know but it would fit the fool. I saw O'Reilly get into it with Barney Frank once, but I'm no fan of Frank.

I absolutely agree that RM tries to be respectful when speaking to people to their faces - and that is a good thing most of the time. I think that is one of the reasons I enjoy her show. She is, though I often see things her way, thoughtful and reasoned and can be joking without sounding like a child or a clown (like KO).

I recommend her show to people all the time.

Fox News is fundamentally dishonest. For example, for years they were attacking Democrats as traitors for daring to question the president while the country was at war. Suddenly with a different president and same war they attack the president with every delicious lie they can make up.

"Honestly, if you don't like Fox News (or CNN or MSNBC or whatever) do not watch it." -- It's not dislike, it's concern over the lies Fox News promulgates. Just not watching Fox, won't deter the lies. I'm hoping that calling them on their lies might deter them.

If you don't flip to Fox occasionally for their take on an issue, you are no better than the lemmings that say "I get all my news from Fox-don't need anything else".

I'm lucky that I live in Canada; practically no one watches FOX news, and even fewer people take it seriously. But the reason people criticize FOX is not because they personally watch it all the time like masochists; but because so many of the people around them watch it and then come to them spewing bull@!$%# like "Obama is like Hitler!" and "Obamacare has death panels in it!" or "ACORN is stealing the election!" You can see how FOX might become problematic and unavoidable to some people.

If you don't flip to Fox occasionally for their take on an issue, you are no better than...

We already know what Fox News says. What's important is to take the fight to the enemy, to go to and debate on right-wing blogs. Challenge them and try to puncture their hermetic universe. And it's educational for you, too. For example, wingers say Obama promised to keep unemployment under eight percent and since unemployment has risen well above that Obama's stimulus failed. But Obama never promised that. Christina Romer did. Once you know this you can identify right-wing half-truths, such as Boehner stating that the Obama administration promised...