Maddow Mind Reads Motive

[springhill]

From the Daily Howler:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/

A mind-reader could have attributed “motive” to either Clinton or Obama. You could say that Obama was kissing up to Hispanic voters, for example, or that Clinton was courting African-Americans. But in the world of people like Maddow, “motive” is typically dumped on the head on the candidate who is disfavored. In saying that Clinton was driving a “wedge,” Maddow engaged in some ugly race-baiting—and she said that Clinton had a motive for her remarks. Obama’s “motives” were never considered, as was completely appropriate.

By the way: It’s widely held that Clinton needs major support from Hispanic voters next Tuesday. Why would she want to “drive a wedge” in a way which might offend these voters? To us, Maddow’s “analysis” didn’t even make sense. But so what? Typically, pundits like Maddow will mind-read and trash the “motives” of those they disfavor.

Sometimes a disagreement is just a disagreement. In assessing a disagreement like this, decent people will typically start with the thought that candidates may simply believe what they’ve said. But Rachel Maddow adores Chris Matthews—and she repeatedly, nastily said that Clinton was driving a wedge.

Good girl!

It would be hard to convey the contempt we hold for this brilliant young mind-reading pundit, who lied in your faces a few weeks ago to get the media spot she wanted. And yes, we’re mind-reading motive here. Sometimes (not often), conduct is so baldly transparent that motive becomes quite hard to miss.

[Dogmudgeon]

1. That was a truly weird leap of -- faith? logic?

Rachel is usually excellent on analysis. This is an odd happening. It would be a shame if she's simply trying to curry favor with Tweety.

--p!

[Hieronymus]

4. Totally....

[rodeodance]

2. I was beyond disappointed when I heard her comments that night.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

3. Ouch

The Howler makes her the scapegoat to illustrate what they then explain is a more pervasive problem. Not to let her off the hook; just to put it in context. I wonder what she is supposed to have lied about. Anybody know?

[chascarrillo]

5. "Good girl!" How patronizing. How sexist.

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

7. How reaching, how proving their point

Assigning negative motive to people you disagree with is a cheap shot.

[chascarrillo]

8. You mean to say that was a POSITIVE artcle about Rachael Maddow?

Damn!

C'mon, "good girl!" is clearly sexist and demeaning.

[tishaLA]

6. I can easily surmise the motive for Bob's conduct...

because, you know, "Sometimes (not often), conduct is so baldly transparent that motive becomes quite hard to miss."

[springhill]

9. Did you even read what happened?

The analysis of the two candidates positions, and the fact that like Matthews, Maddow just...oh never mind.