PLEASE STOP BOOKING RATHER, why is he even credible? He missed the mark when calling the election last summer, and lost his job because of his Rove baited trap, false reporting on Bush.

Why you guys do a bang up job on just about everything, but leave room for this "crush" by Rachael is beyond me.

I actually turn off the sound now when he's on her air.

At 5:35 Fox's video proves that Crowder touched the union member first. And Crowder punching the union guy (or possible Judo throw because he trains MMA and IDK if a punch would be able to put the man on the ground. (Video stills in comments.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=DPrbbgy3bJY#t=335s

More info and pics:

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/14ta0s/at_535_foxs_video_proves_that_crowder_touched_the/

Rather is right. "Barack the Spineless" strikes again. Meet the next four years folks.

Dan Rather made statements I don't understand.. uhh Did Pres. Obama say HE'S taking her outta the hunt for Sec of State. or , did Rice drop HERSELF out? If she dropped HERSELF out.. why shld this be concidered as a Presidential weakness. Do you think the Pres. asked her to resign??????

May I second Robman - Dan Rather is a complete hack (as is Mrs. Alan Greenspan) and I'm disappointed you had both on your show tonight. I actually left the room rather than listen to either of them.

Love your show, except when you have these two on.

I think you and Rather just spent a segment stuck in 'pundit' talk. The President never nominated her and Rice took herself out. The only thing McCain 'won' was showing the country what a complete and utter sexist, bigoted dick he is. Nobody buys the 'hero' meme anymore. I don't think Obama 'caved'. I think that is projection. I'm not a 'bot. I am a THINKER and outside the cable channels and the Beltway...

Examples of JOB CREATORS

In NYC there are 2 apartments for sale with asking prices of $95 million. How many jobs does this support? It is an example of what job creators do with there money and one can imagine the hardship owners of these spartan accomodations will have if their tax rates go up. See link

http://www.theredpin.com/blog/time-out/pics-of-a-stunning-95-million-nyc-apartment

Dan Rather's only purpose tonight was to undercut the President. A man who has taken everything the House Republicans, tea party and others have thrown at him...And He won, America elected him for their President. Not all Americans but more than enough to make him the Winner. Nothing weak or soft about this President.

And Dan Rather sickens me with his weak spineless remarks. Rachel you should watch this interview again and you will see what a lot of us saw in Dan Rathers pointless remarks tonight against the President. Dan is a real snake in the grass.

Your expert news guests tonight have lost their d — — m minds ! It appears that they are playing into the "blame Obama" game right along with other people of non-color (not trying to play the race card). The President is damed if he does, and damed if he doesnt !!!! He backed Susan Rice but s h e made the decision to withdraw herself from contention for the position of Sec'ry of State not the President. He is not even ready to make appointments at this time because he's busy trying to save the country from fiscal hell ! Give the man a break !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Every time I see Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw et al; they never disappoint me at being utterly disappointing. Let the tired, old white male anchors who are totally caught up in their own hype and completely disconnected from reality (proven over and over again with the help of Rachel and the debates only 2 months ago) plod off into obscurity (and yes, it's OK to take Mrs Greenspan too). They have nothing insightful to offer the viewers.

To think I was on Rather's side when CBS fired him, only to realize that CBS saw an opportunity and took it. Now each time I see/ hear Rather, I ask myself "What's the frequency Kenneth?"

There are serious battles to be fought on Capitol Hill right now. Unfortunately for Susan Rice, the President had to concede this one. Instead of attacking the President for his perceived lack of loyalty, perhaps is is better to commend Amb. Rice for hers.

I understand where Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Rather are coming from, but I think it looks different outside the beltway. Where exactly does "political loyalty" rank in public opinion nowadays? This situation would have looked far worse had President Obama used his time, energy, and political capital to secure a promotion for a friend. It would have played into the false "Obama crony" narrative, the news coverage would have weakened the President's image, and it would have poisoned the atmosphere for potential negotiation on the critical issues the nation currently faces. His role as the nation's President greatly outweighs his role as friend, or even as party leader.

For the sliver of the population who even knows the name Susan Rice, it should be clear that her treatment by Sens. McCain et al was greatly unjust. It should also be clear there was no way that the alleged minds of those opposed to her nomination would have been changed. The "reasonable" Sen. Collins showed that option was off the table. Better for the President to fight the battles he can win than try to debate those who choose to blithely ignore reality.

Ambassador Rice is unimpeachable, and one assumes will become a powerful international player. But she is arguably not that player yet. Few would hold she wields anything like the personal weight acquired by Secretary of State Clinton over very many years. (Everything tells us that one can do the “very many years” without acquiring anything like it. But the inverse is probably not true.) In times of powder keg international tensions, perceived heft becomes a critical consideration. The United Nations is a structured, relatively well-groomed forum; our relations with individual nations and the egos of tetchy leaders in volatile regions occur in no such frame.

The Republicans have been ignoble in using Ambassador Rice as a pawn in their fit of pique. It’s thoroughly to their discredit, and the longer they persist, the more discredit they will accrue. Bless’em.

So does that mean the Republicans are calling Obama’s tune? That’s the line you seem to legitimize for three segments of your December 13 show.

Suddenly the President must select Rice to affirm himself?

Not selecting her diminishes him?

They can snigger? (Of course they can, do, may and will snigger. But as in “a palpable hit”?)

I think in your handling of this decision, a life and death one for countless lives around the world, you buy into the Republican food fight... and afford them some palpable snigger room.

(The recent Michigan and Wisconsin segments were really fab. Thanks)

I'm late to the party, but last night was the first night in over 4 years that I didn't watch TRMS. I knew what the topic would be: outrage over Susan Rice's decision to withdraw her name from consideration as SOS. Rachel would launch into her theories about Scott Brown, McCain/Graham but for whatever reason, she wouldn't mention Rice's own record as a hawk. In fact, I've always been surprised that McCain and Graham aren't head over heels in love with her since she was such a strong supporter of Bush's wars. Rice actually articulates McCain's positions better than he does. A sample of her claims prior to the Iraq invasion:

“I think he (Colin Powell) has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them, and I don’t think many informed people doubted that.” (NPR, Feb. 6, 2003)

“We need to be ready for the possibility that the attack against the U.S. could come in some form against the homeland, not necessarily on the battlefield against our forces. And I think there, too, is an area where the American people need to be better prepared by our leadership. … It’s clear that Iraq poses a major threat. It’s clear that its weapons of mass destruction need to be dealt with forcefully, and that’s the path we’re on. I think the question becomes whether we can keep the diplomatic balls in the air and not drop any, even as we move forward, as we must, on the military side.” (NPR, Dec. 20, 2002)

“I think the United States government has been clear since the first Bush administration about the threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein poses. The United States policy has been regime change for many, many years, going well back into the Clinton administration. So it’s a question of timing and tactics. … We do not necessarily need a further Council resolution before we can enforce this and previous resolutions. (NPR, Nov. 11, 2002)

Susan Rice also advocated the US stay in Iraq “for many years to come” (04/03) She is not the person to stand up to, or at least slow down, the killing machine. Too many lives have been lost in Bush's wars.

I was kind of astonished by both Mitchell and Rather last night. Both of them made it sound like Susan Rice has no agency, that it's impossible that she decided to fall on her sword. Or maybe, as I suspected when I first heard, she realized that IF she made it through the confirmation process, she could look forward to dealing with John McCain as the head of the Foreign Relations Committee for four more years. Maybe she decided that she didn't want to deal with it. To assume that the decision wasn't hers implies that she can't make that choice on her own.