Rachel Maddow confronts Clinton over Sanders attack: You’re ‘casting aspersions on his character’

[geek tragedy]

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/rachel-maddow-confronts-clinton-over-sanders-attack-youre-casting-aspersions-on-his-character/

“Senator Sanders is obviously your opponent,” Maddow challenged. “Nobody expects you guys to walk hand-in-hand and come to consensus on who ought to be the nominee. But he also doesn’t have an enemy in the world in the Democratic party… He’s a very well respected figure. Your campaign is essentially fighting with him now in a way that is casting aspersions on his character, calling him dishonest.”

From way back in ... January. This would be the same Rachel Maddow subject to the daily hate today, and who has been declared a person without integrity, principle or worth as a human being. Because she said Bernie Sanders is a politician (as if non-politicians get elected President).

[Katashi_itto]

1. K&R

[CentralMass]

2. So got off script for moment. I'm sure that her management will flog her for it.

[geek tragedy]

3. or maybe she's the one being rational and hyperpartisan supporters

of primary candidates are the ones who have lost the plot

[Kelvin Mace]

10. Yep.

Really dismayed by these attacks on Rachel.

[mythology]

4. Stop trying to introduce facts

It won't stop the conspiracy nonsense.

[Cheese Sandwich]

5. "daily hate"

[geek tragedy]

7. yes, hate. personal hatred. From today alone:

1.

Maddow (aka Mrs. Selective Outrage) is a LIAR

2.

There are a shitload of Neville Chamberlains in this world.

3.

I think she craves being close to power.

4.

Sellout" is now the fitting term for her

5.

She has now stepped firmly into the arena of corporate prostitution

6.

We know she sold out

7.

I have lost all respect for Maddow...she has become a total shill.

[Cheese Sandwich]

9. In my opinion Maddow is a paid shill for the corporate state.

She doesn't care about me and I don't care about her. Simple as that. Fuck MSNBC.

[geek tragedy]

11. Congratulations, you've stumbled upon the fact that Rachel Maddow

does not work for free.

Apparently anyone who gets paid money for anything is untrustworthy.

[Cheese Sandwich]

12. How many oil company commercials do you even think I can sit through?

That's what most of her show is anyway. Oil company commercials and condescending lectures.

If she wasn't towing the party line she would have been fired long ago. She doesn't challenge power. She's the mouthpiece of power.

[geek tragedy]

20. "She doesn't challenge power." She's challenging power in the OP.

Open your eyes.

[Cheese Sandwich]

25. Not buying it. They have to ask a few "challenging" questions to keep up appearances

MSNBC is biased toward Clinton but more importantly biased toward the money establishment.

They don't talk about the suffering in America. We need jobs that pay enough to live on, access to food, housing, and medical care.

We don't exist to them. We're invisible. Anyone who speaks up on MSNBC about what's really happening in the country and they'll be fired. They led us to war in Iraq. They ignore the TPP which is going to be the nail in the coffin for the US working class. They sat silent while oil companies started fracking a huge part of the country putting our water at risk.

MSNBC is Fox News for liberals. Turn that shit off.

[geek tragedy]

37. so you would prefer that her voice on television be silenced and be seen by

far fewer viewers?

[Cheese Sandwich]

43. So you would prefer to watch 5 drug company commercials just for the privilege of hearing

1 condescending lecture?

[geek tragedy]

44. I don't watch live cable news television. nt

[Cheese Sandwich]

53. I don't feel well informed after watching MSNBC

[SheenaR]

6. But but..

Endorsements something something....

He is well respected as he as caucused with Dems since he arrived in DC.

Check out the dates on most of the endorsements. They mostly came when she had supposedly no viable opponent and the campaign had just begun.

Other than her diehards who stand to gain. no Democrat in Congress will have an issue with Bernie being President.

My Senator Jack Reed endorsed Hillary early on. He has had GLOWING things to say about Bernie for years.

She needs to lay off the Democrat attack because it's not working.

[Nyan]

8. I don't appreciate character assassination against Maddow as well.

And I'm pretty sure she likes Bernie on personal level (and policy-wise as well).
I wanna say though, after that particular moment where she confronted Hillary herself, it looks like she's trying to be more cautious.
Remember, Comcast contributed to Hillary campaign. And Maddow has been around long enough to see her colleagues get fired for not toeing the line.
I like Maddow and she's been on the right side for many issues, but at the same time, I don't have any illusion about her or any other media personnel on MSM.
MSM is dying and we ought to learn to not rely on talking heads.

[TDale313]

13. I think the attacks on Rachel Maddow are wrong.

And yeah, I'm a Sanders supporter.

[H2O Man]

14. Recommended.

Rachel is one of my favorite journalists on television. I've grown to admire and respect her over the years. I support Sanders; she supports Clinton: it doesn't change the way I view her.

[geek tragedy]

16. I don't think she's a Clinton supporter, it seems pretty clear she's more of a Bernie person.

She's not Ezra Klein.

Partisans of both candidates will disagree with some of her comments. That is how it should be. She's not always right, of course.

[Gregorian]

31. I would love to know how it doesn't change your view of her.

I can't help but ask what kind of political scientist she is if she doesn't make the distinction between these two vastly different candidates.

I thought principles were the only legitimate way of judging a candidate.

I'm actually curious how you process this. And I ask for reasons that go beyond politics.

[H2O Man]

51. Sure.

I suppose a factor is that I'm an old person, viewing a young person who I consider a "political science student/journalist," rather than a "political scientist." For years, she had hoped to get Hillary Clinton to interview on her show. Despite her active pursuit, it wasn't happening. Until now, that is, that as a presidential candidate, it benefits Hillary (and that is part of campaigning).

Meeting Hillary Clinton has clearly made an impression on Rachel. I understand this: I've met Hillary, and in person, she makes a much better impression -- in my opinion -- than when speaking to a large group.

Since gaining access to Ms. Clinton, it is evident that Rachel supports her candidacy. I respect her right to do so. I trust that she is using what is her best judgment. It's different than mine, but that's not a problem for me.

There was a time when a female college student approached Minister Malcolm X, and said that she was very impressed with his speech at her school. She noted that she didn't agree with him on everything. Malcolm smiled, and said, "You will, Sister. In time, you will."

[Gregorian]

57. Thanks!

It feels foreign, but I think I see. I do see. I have to fight what is inside of me in order to see it without judgment.

I'm part of the problem. I get in my own way of experiencing without clouding what I am seeing.

[H2O Man]

58. We're all human.

Each one of us is perfection, trapped inside an imperfect vessel. Thus, we're part of the situation, part of a process.

[Gregorian]

60. That is brilliant. It willl require some practice.

I know that, yet I don't apply it to people. I apply it to the natural world, but have excluded humans. I see the truth in it.

I will keep trying to see this as I go through life.

[H2O Man]

61. Rubin used to remind me

that with patience, even the smallest snail can climb to the peak of the highest mountain. And that we need to have that exact same patience, with both others, and ourselves.

[myrna minx]

15. Thank you - these attacks on Rachel are very bothersome.

I'm a Bernie Supporter and I think she tried very hard to stay neutral.

She's a nerd and will drill down into policy and process - that's where she thrives. I don't think she's in the tank for Clinton - I think she tries very hard to walk the line of fairness.

[bbgrunt]

17. Maddow is in the bubble. If she had any integrity she

would refuse to be a hack for corporate power.

[geek tragedy]

18. that's puritanical horseshit. she's not one of the CNBC hacks.

the problem with the mainstream media is that there aren't enough Rachel Maddows, not that there are too many.

[bbgrunt]

22. no, the problem with corporate media is that they don't keep people who

don't do their bidding.

[geek tragedy]

23. circular reasoning is a logical fallacy. you ought to avoid it nt

[bbgrunt]

24. cheap tactics to avoid the truth is a form of cognitive dissonance.

[geek tragedy]

30. you're not offering truth, just ugly personal attacks on Rachel Maddow based on

your own emotional state, rather than providing a single fact to support your smears

[bbgrunt]

38. okay, then. what "facts" have you offered in your emotional state?

[geek tragedy]

41. the fact that Maddow directly challenged Hillary Clinton when Clinton

tried to bullshit her.

And told Clinton, to her face:

But he also doesn’t have an enemy in the world in the Democratic party… [Bernie Sanders is] a very well respected figure. Your campaign is essentially fighting with him now in a way that is casting aspersions on his character, calling him dishonest.”

She said that. To Hillary Clinton. On live television.

This is a fact.

[bbgrunt]

47. that was then. this is now. I reserve my right to have my own opinion. done.

[geek tragedy]

48. Okay, but be sure to read these links:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280117465

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280115634

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280113256

[restorefreedom]

19. i have no doubt she is under enormous pressure

to go the way of matthews, kornacki, etc. even chris hayes has been trying to walk the line. their corporate overlords want to destroy bernie. they want to, i believe, be fair (well not matthews). when a paycheck is at stake, i have some empathy. and it is really the big m$m conglomerates that nees to be broken up.

otoh, msnbc is not her only option. cenk has been very successful with tyt. and there are other options.

no doubt it is a tough position to be in. on the other other hand, my sympathy for someone who makes several million a year is very limited.

[geek tragedy]

21. Except she's not doing anything to knock Sanders down. She's covering him

as a journalist. And doing so generally from a very positive point of view.

People act like she's supposed to be a function of his campaign.

[restorefreedom]

27. as of late, she seems to be much more pro hillary

i don't doubt that that is the default position of her network, and like i said, she is for sure swimming upstream if she is trying to be evenhanded.

i do think that the big media needs to be broken up the same way big banks and big comm needs to be.

more diversity and competition, and not this, will help tremendously.

[geek tragedy]

34. to me, seems pretty clear she is a lot more favorably disposed towards

Bernie than towards Clinton.

[restorefreedom]

56. interesting. same painting, different interpretations :) nt

[mcar]

26. K&R

It is actually possible to criticize a politician now and again without being a "shill" or "bought."

[cantbeserious]

28. She Remembered Her Roots - Before Remembering Her Corporate Paymasters - A Momentary Lapse

eom

[geek tragedy]

32. why, because she doesn't rename her program "Bernie Sanders is the Messiah?"

she's a journalist. it's not her job to promote Bernie Sanders 24/7

[cantbeserious]

35. Guess One Did Not Notice That This Citizen Is A Bernie Supporter - Are You One Citizen?

eom

[geek tragedy]

36. I'm sorry, comrade, I do not have my papers with me nt

[cantbeserious]

39. Great - No Need To Fight - One Another

eom

[ladjf]

29. Rachel's turn toward the Establishment has been one of my

big disappointments in American journalism. She's a very intelligent person. What has happened to her logic?

[geek tragedy]

33. do you have multiple examples of her being illogical? nt

[ladjf]

40. Yes. She has definitely supported Clinton during the past few weeks.

That, IMO, is illogical behavior.

I've read some of your posts supporting Rachel. I sincerely hope that I'm wrong and that you are correct with regard to Rachel's support. Basically, journalist shouldn't show favoritism in either direction. (There used to be a law requiring that.)

[geek tragedy]

42. that may be your honest impression, but it's not a fact

I'm more than willing to consider the argument if you have specific quotes or actions by Ms. Maddow to cite to support that general proposition.

[ladjf]

45. I edited my previous post to make my position

clearer about Rachel. I've been a fan of hers for years.

[geek tragedy]

46. I'm a fan of hers as well.

yes she appears on a network owned by corporate news, but I consider it a minor miracle that someone like that gets such a platform

[ladjf]

49. I could tell that we weren't too far apart.

I must admit that sometimes I'm harder on my heroes than I am with people of less standing.

I started watching her back when MS-NBC was allowing some liberal journalism in the Keith Obermann days. And there were times even then that I didn't think she had the courage to step up and say what she thought. She has come out of nowhere to being a front line TV personality, probably making lots of money. I certainly can't read her mind.

I'm going to pull for your argument and back off of mine.

[EndElectoral]

55. I get she doesn't want to lose her job, but there is a bias emerging

[jillan]

50. Was that during her 1 hr Hillary Infomercial the nite before the NH primaries?

[geek tragedy]

52. since it was in January, probably not nt

[tularetom]

54. You could see it coming a year ago

Maddox began to subtly change the tone of her comments about the time that the pogroms began at MSNBC. Sure, she wants to keep her job and who can blame her for that? Sure, she is still several orders of magnitude less an obnoxious establishment toady that Droolin' Chris Matthews, but that's a fairly low bar.

It is her prerogative to adapt to changing conditions at her place of employment. Just as it is my prerogative to stop listening to her. Which I did, the minute I discovered I could stream Free Speech TV on my Roku box. That was the day I told DirectTV to come and disconnect their dish. I haven't regretted it once.

[beltanefauve]

59. She's definitely changed her tone

And there is definitely a Hillary bias, IMHO.

Worse, the last few times I bothered watching her show, she had devoted WAY too much time to the antics of Donald Trump. ALL the media outlets give Trump free infomercials, and its more than dissapointing to see Rachel do it. I just can't watch her anymore.