Oh goodness, now I can't wait. Professor Perry from Tooooooooooolane telling the Maddow audience how America reacted in typical racist fashion in response to 9-11 Cool. Hopefully african americans around NY City won't suffer PTSD since the Supreme Court decision on Affordable Health Care by wearing NYPD logo's on their hats. Instead Nike should come out with a side logo hat which has BFD across the front!

Great that Ms Maddow has such high profile experts on her show. I can hardly wait.

Please ask Ms Perry if it's ok to discriminate against "white hispanics"? That way you can justify vilifying Marco Rubio! He was raised a Morman, converted Catholic (very very bad) AND he's a "white hispanic" Sounds like grounds for discriminatory commentary to me.

Rachel! You blew it! On the Rubio statement that Mass. citizens who did not like Romneycare, could leave the state. You should have pointed out that this is an obvious support of Mitt's SELF DEPORT policy for undocumented immkigrants--and would have just about the same response! Bxluddite

No! No! No! Chief Justice Roberts sided with America!
Three times now today I've heard this. Newscasters, stop saying Roberts was on Obama's side, please. Roberts' decision was primarily based on him as a conscience, sentient, intelligence and empathic being, and secondly for America and its citizens. Stop saying he took Obama's side, he took no sides.

Did no one pick up on Romney stating that with the ruling by the scotus on heath care the goverment is coming between you and your doctor. Isn't that what abortion laws are doing. Can he use that excuse? Shouldn't someone be calling him out of that?

i hope you post tonite's show quickly, we lost cable tv from the wind in this huge storm, please post it quickly

Well look at that. The Maddow show is over and only 6 of her 10 total viewers actually stayed around to post anything. Where are the other 4.. Was Rachels' harshest critic right? She ONLY has 10 regular viewers?

I agree with Carolyn. You missed a good change to point out that the GOP doesn't mind interfering with a person's medical decisions if it furthers their agenda. Also, you put up a printed comment from a past Romney aide talking about how closely the two healthcare bills are and how Romney is just lying, ect. Who was that and where can I find that statement?

One down, three more left. Now we have heard from 7 of the 10. Maybe the other 3 are in some OWS camp or a real campground vacationing?

Oh heck no, there they are. Over at the This week we hate God blog. Sharing how they hate God, religion, people who share a faith, or anyone who uses the name Jesus Christ in a loving manner. All the God hating mongers gathered around Maddow's alter of "hummmm, what can we lie about on our show next week?"

And yet, with the exception of the blog's producer, there are still only 10!

There may be more to the Roberts ruling then meets the eye. The issue should have been whether Congress has the authority under Article I of the Constitution, MCulloch v Maryland, the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper provision of Article I-Section 8, the General Welfare provision, to enact a law for the common welfare of the people. MCulloch gave the Congress both enumerated and implied rights (necessary and proper). Robert's ruling said Congress has only enumerated or express rights. He eliminated the commerce clause as well as he did other legal theories. Ruling on the narrow issue of the taxing power, allowed him to preserve his legacy while narrowing the powers of Congress. This case will never be precedent for future cases as well. This will be the same judge who gave us Citizens United once this is all over. He preserved the Court but severely limited the powers of our Congress to enact legislation for the welfare and well-being of its citizens.

I usually listen to the TRMS audio podcast, but for Friday's show, when I heard the piece about Pakistan, I knew I had to see it. I just finished watching the whole show, and I'm still trying to figure out what to make of it -- that is, what to make of the reporting from Pakistan.

So many questions ... is no one else asking them at all?

1. Why is this "exclusive" report exclusive to TRMS? It's the ONLY existing footage of the results of US drone strikes, and it's stuck 2/3 of the way into a Friday night TRMS? You'd think NBC would lead with this on the nightly news, wouldn't you? And if not, you'd think MSNBC would lead with it ... or if not, then you'd think AT LEAST Rachel Maddow would lead with it! But there it is, not starting until minute 26. Is this significant, or am I crazy?

2. Why is this piece followed immediately by a feel-good military piece? That can't be a coincidence, can it? It's like TRMS said, okay, we don't want to be giving off any negative vibes about any military matters, so let's cushion the blow after talking about Obama's secret war. And so we get the big stars-and-stripes and sports hoe-down.

3. Rachel does talk about Obama's secret war: good! It's not discussed much on TRMS, but I was glad to see it happen Friday. And the report even dared to mention -- and this was really shocking, since mainstream US journalism does it so rarely -- that the drone strikes result in normal people walking around picking up body parts of, well, someone. Or a bunch of someones. Or rather, make that a bunch of nobodies. But here's my question: where is Rachel's shock? Where is her outrage? Where is her desire to hammer home the TRUTH about what all this means? The show opened with a lengthy rundown of some Mitt-related nonsense, most of it repetitions from past shows, and Rachel's attitude of derision was unmistakable. The Rolling Stone article says she doesn't want to come across as angry on the show, which is fine. So she often uses astonishment and factual repetition to make her points: that's great; it's one of the things that makes TRMS so good. But it didn't happen with the story about the drone strikes. Why not? Why does Rachel seem to be handling the story with kid gloves?

4. Is this piece from Friday the only time we'll get to hear Rachel dealing with this issue? Is it here today, gone tomorrow? Or will it be like the Mitt's conference calls story, or the vets parade story, repeated with variations for months to come? I'm kind of afraid that it will be the former: it depresses me, but I suspect it will be the case that Rachel will never deal with this in a serious, in-depth way again.

Prove me wrong, TRMS. Please prove me wrong.

And I'm still thinking about this.

I forgot to mention that I thought the segment on Pakistan was just superb, apart from the end of the interview, where Rachel seemed to be avoiding saying anything that might be controversial. But the set-up was great, and the report by Amna Nawaz was awesome.

You know what they say about politicians, that when they want to do something and have it noticed as little as possible, they do it on a Friday evening?

That's pretty much what the Pakistan story felt like to me: TRMS broadcasting this hugely important story, but hoping nobody will see it or spend too much time thinking about it.

And oh! I just noticed -- in sequencing the clips on the blog here, you've put the Pakistan story DEAD LAST!

Wow. Just wow. Are you hoping viewers won't notice they missed something when the gin sling piece starts?

Damn, I'm getting paranoid, aren't I?