A Lord Hee Haw reference! Very good comparison!

Jamie- Just hearing something mentioned does not automatically equate with acceptance, approval, support or purchase. I've also heard plenty about tofu. I tried it once. No amount of endorsement of it, even by Rachel Maddow (or condemnation of it by Rush Limbaugh) will ever get me to try it again. This idea of ignoring something and it will go away... not a great one. Staying aware of those people or things that might harm you somehow- Priceless.

Actually, the Tea Party HAS become the kingmakers of the GOP, along with people like Limbaugh and Drudge. While you're right that they're not traditional conservatives, they ARE what controls the "conservative" party in our system. By worldwide standards, the Democrats are not leftists, but centrists; that's a good indication of how far right the GOP has veered.

As for fitness for the office, you're half-right. Obama has proven his fitness, and claiming otherwise just means you haven't been playing attention.

It is thoroughly disingenuous to accuse Maddow of using "the same tricks" as Limbaugh. Limbaugh is not leashed to logic nor beholden to truth. I doubt seriously you can point to one thing Maddow has said that stretches the truth. As to Limbaugh, other than his name and broadcast affiliation, there are few truthful words spoken on his program.

The real problem is that there are too many people willing to get their news and information from Fox/Limbaugh and not do any critical thinking. Maddow at least points out when McCain does the honorable thing. Limbaugh can't conceive of Obama doing anything right.

The reason people shun politics is not because of talking puppets, as you suggest, but rather, because the media has polarized itself into two camps, with two competing agendas, and there are few voices of reason. Rachel Maddow and Paul Krugman are only two of them, but they should not be lumped in as a counterpoint to a vicious extremist like Limbaugh.

Michah, you seem unaware that "real conservatives" support Rush Limbaugh in droves. (Over 15 million people listen to his radio show each week and 1.2 million people per month visit his Web site. I doubt many liberals are among them.)

Not only do huge numbers tune in to his show each week, but Republican politicians regularly court him -- and some are even compelled to apologize when they disagree with him.

The real difference between Maddow, O'Donnell and Mathews is that they allow facts to determine what they report and how they report it while organizations like Fox News, the Drudge Report and the Tea Party just make things up to be consistent with their ideological predispositions -- or paranoias.

To follow-up on my last point, what is it about Obama that you think makes him unfit to be President?

I would say it's more of a matter of my not being ideologically synchronized with you, than a matter of my not paying attention. If by "worldwide" you mean modern Europe, that might also be an indication that that region has "veered" far to the left, that could a possibility, couldn't it? I would hardly call the Tea Party "kingmakers", however I would say that they do have the potential to sway the GOP primaries due to the fact that few people actually vote in primaries. I view Obama as a middling president thus far. Romney himself will be a disaster and I think the Republicans would be wise to nominate someone else, otherwise I think we could be looking at a Reagan style electoral landslide in Obama's favor come November.

To be honest, Obama may not be unfit for the office, but as a politician he hasn't impressed me with his leadership skills, nor his constant blaming of his predecessor for the economy one on hand, and then taking credit every and any time the economy shows slight improvement or unemployment numbers rise slightly. He shows himself for what he really is: an articulate but callow Chicago pol who rose to 'rock star' status on the basis of his 2004 speech to the Democratic convention and a sentimental book he wrote. I fear that what his happened is that now there is no real leader that would want to run for the presidency due to the incredible amount of scrutiny of one's personal life, lack of privacy and other such pressures that we now produce mediocre candidates who are short on experience such as G.W. Bush, Obama and Romney. The best I can say about Obama is that he is, at best, an adequate president. I've watched MSNBC regularly for hours each day and I'm sorry, it's a incredibly biased and non stop barrage of talking points that is much more overtly biased than Fox News. Id you watch Matthews, Maddow, Sharpton, O'Donnell on any given day, they come off as trained parakeets. All I seem to hear is ..."Sqwak...Bain...Sqwak..."mean spirited"..Sqwak.. Rove".....or pretty dam close to that.

No, I mean worldwide as in the whole world, including Asia, Africa, Australia, and all the little bits in between. What our wingnuts call communism, the rest of the world calls middle-of-the-road. The Tea Party ARE kingmakers, since they have made it plain that they will put up their own person to push out a member of the GOP who displeases them by doing something so heinous as their job as an elected representative of not-just-wingnuts. They've done it plenty this year, and in 2010, and they'll keep doing it as long as the Kochs keep supplying money and operatives to run their little herds. Obama's EFFORST have been top-notch, so in that respect he's a great president; his results, well, he's no Reagan, to go around the law and structure of government whenever he feels like it to do what he likes. Of course, he couldn't convincingly fake Alzheimer's like Reagan did, either.

How is blaming the bad behaviors of the past inappropriate? HE didn't cause this mess, so why should he own it? Similarly, the improvements HAVE been on his watch, so how is it wrong for him to claim them? If he was taking credit for measures Bush enacted before he left, then you might have a point; if he'd been in a position to enact the policies that made such a mess, you might have a point. As it is, all you're saying is "I don't like him just because."

You must be watching different shows than I, then. When Obama and the Dems do wrong, or act stupid, at the very least Matthews and O'Donnell call them on it, hard. Yes there is a bias, but it's plain, not hidden behind the "fair and balanced', we're-the-only-ones-who-don't-lie-to-you BS that FOX shovels. FOX claims not to be biased; what's worse, overt bias or shrouded lies? I think the problem you're having is that you want the liberal side to unilaterally disarm against the crap spewing forth from FOX, to give them yet another outlet by showing both sides. I'm sorry, but their side already has plenty of outlets; it's not MSNBC's job to give their crap credence.

Of course, he couldn't convincingly fake Alzheimer's like Reagan did, either.

I'm confident that he could, if he applied himself.

I think the problem you're having is that you want the liberal side to unilaterally disarm against the crap spewing forth from FOX, to give them yet another outlet by showing both sides.

You think that's the "problem" I'm having? Well, honestly that's not it at all, I'm simply pointing out they are disingenuous in stating that Fox News is an ideologically slanted outlet, while they are not! That's simply bull@!$%#! On any given day, Sharpton, Matthews, Maddow and O' Donnell are clearly all reading their talking points from the same memo, they say it in their own words, but they are parakeets. If they actually were speaking in their own voices, that may be an alternative to Fox News, but their poor ratings suggest that they bore their own target audience who are probably sticking with mainstream news or going over to Current who are clearly left of center, but actually have some original thoughts.

all you're saying is "I don't like him just because

I never said anything of the sort. You must be confusing my posts with something else you read, or if you believe that I did say something of that nature, cut and paste the text where I did! I said, and I will say again that he is a poor politician, that he is a product of the corrupt Chicago Democratic political machine that produced the Daleys, Blagojevich, Jesse Jackson jr and many other crooked politicians. The man's sole achievements appear to be a speech and a ghost written book (Chris Matthews himself posed the questions as to what he actually accomplished in his life to an Obama surrogate back during the 2008 campaign. The surrogate fell comically silent, or babbled as Matthews asked him the question repeatedly. Look for it on YouTube). I'm sorry but that is nothing! So Gumpy, it's not a simple matter of "I don't like him just because", I simply point out that outside of two uneventful years in the US Senate followed by two years of campaigning for the presidency, a brief stint as a state senator in Illinois, and a overly sentimental mediocre book, he had done nothing up until that point to distinguish himself to the point that the presidency was the next logical step. The fact that someone was even elected president after a mere four years in the US Senate amazes me! I thought GWB's six years as Texas Governor was an anemic resume for leader of the free world, but Obama's resume made him look like FDR. I do give Obama credit for growing into the role over the last two years or so, but his experience prior to being elected was frankly laughable, as Romney's is now. And when did I ever say I disliked the man? Can you point that out as well, since you are making that claim as well? As a matter of fact, I met the man when he was studying at Harvard over twenty years ago and he struck me as a nice enough guy, what I recall is that he was very well spoken, intelligent and probably the most immaculate person I ever met in my life, so please don't words in my posts! I would love to see an intelligent conservative television network, as well as a liberal one that were geared towards people who are not zealots or imbeciles, but Fox News and especially MSNBC are propaganda dispensaries and essentially talk down to the lowest common denominators in their audiences. All I hear is new talking points each day on MSNBC coming from sqwaking parakeets such as Maddow. I never agreed with Keith Olbermann, but even when he was spewing invective, I never doubted that he was both sincere and speaking in his own voice unlike say Ed Schultz who was for many years an arch conservative Rush Limbaugh clone of similar girth who like others like Arianna Huffington and David Brock turned liberal overnight when it was clear to them that they could be bigger fishes in smaller ponds. It's still propaganda even if you agree with it.

I KNOW - I've been following this blog for a couple of years and this is at most the second time I've see a post by Rachel herself. Damn the luck...oh well, Itchy is probably off somewhere scratching by now anyway.