Rachel Maddow scared me tonight. I had been celebrating Sotomayer but

[DuaneBidoux]

Rachel almost made it sound like Sotomayer could actually move the court right.

Somebody "talk me down."

[Thrill]

1. Maybe you need to do like several people have been doing. Turn from Rachel

.

Everything has to fit her "Obama made a mistake or is making a mistake" narrative.

[DuaneBidoux]

5. Of course one solution to info you don't like is always not to listen.

Personally, I prefer to understand.

[vaberella]

9. Ain't that the truth. That's what I've done. n/t

[ruggerson]

36. I'm shocked

I tell you. Shocked.

[niceypoo]

57. She speaks her mind...

...quite eloquently. I love that girl.

Spoon feeding is for babies and Limbaugh listeners.

[Teaser]

60. even when it's empty

.

[Overseas]

100. Or you could just have an open mind and watch some stuff you don't always agree with.

I've certainly done that. I've watched CNN, NBC, ABC, and others on MSNBC and the Sunday news chat shows.

And you may find comfort in the fact that President Obama isn't liberal enough for some commentators because that should assure the broad centrist group that he is more balanced than his Republican predecessors.

Even though the right wing Republicans are calling him a scary socialist, he's not liberal enough for the progressive base, so that shows the Republican slander to be ridiculous.

If liberal commentators universally loved him, Republicans could say-- SEE, he's a commie! They all love him! Having him challenged from the left shows that he isn't a leftist.

[Clio the Leo]

2. Well, just watch some clips of Turley from ALL day saying...

.... that's she too dumb to think her way out of a bathtub .... EXCEPT at night when she's rather bright ...... and you'll feel better. :)

[niceypoo]

58. Turley is spewing the RW talking point

[geek tragedy]

3. Maddow is a professional bedwetter.

Progressive lawyers in NYC are ecstatic. They and Obama know her better than Maddow and Turkey.

[scheming daemons]

23. Perfect description of Rachel Maddow.... I liked her show when it started...

But now, they should just call it the "Rachel Maddow/Jonathan Turley Poutrage Hour"

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. It seems more & more people agree with you.....

May 18, 2009
Huffington Post

Rachel Maddow Ratings Hit Series Low With May 15 Program

Much was made last week when Tuesday's broadcast of "The Rachel Maddow Show" drew the smallest audience Maddow had seen since she joined MSNBC last summer, averaging 789,000 total viewers. According to Nielsen Media Research, Friday's (May 15) program drew just 763,000 total viewers, setting a new series low. Friday's program also drew Maddow's smallest Adults 25-54 audience ever, averaging just 163,000 demo viewers. Maddow did, however, beat Larry King on Friday, who averaged just 645,000 total viewers.

Maddow's ratings have cooled since the election frenzy of the fall, where she burst onto the cable news landscape with impressive numbers. In March, she averaged 1.133 million total viewers for her lowest month to date — in April, however, she came just shy of that with 1.042 million total viewers (setting a new monthly low). That said, her April 2009 ratings represented a 98% increase over April 2008, in which Dan Abrams' "Verdict" averaged just 527,000 total viewers in the same 9PM time slot.

Maddow's largest audience came on October 30, 2008, when she averaged 3.041 total viewers.

Friday night in Maddow's timeslot, mothership network NBC aired ratings boon "Farrah's Story," which attracted 9 million viewers and may have taken viewers away from MSNBC.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/18/rachel-maddow-...

[Pirate Smile]

39. I'm not sure how big they think the market is for people on left side of the aisle who don't like

Obama or think he is too much of a RW'er. How big is that market share? I'm just thinking it really isn't that big. It is a decent share of DU perhaps but DU is DU.

[Flying Dream Blues]

128. I've thought the same thing; it just doesn't make sense! nt

[billyoc]

48. Yes, I see that the Nielsen families still overwhelmingly prefer Fox.

[blue_onyx]

70. Her show started during an election period

when many people were watching the news for election coverage. I know I watched MSNBC and CNN a lot more last year than I am now. I bet the ratings are down for news shows.

[Orsino]

124. She was good on the radio.

Now she works for MSNBC, and everything she says must be a little suspect.

[onehandle]

4. Nah. The court isn't moving. Right or Left. It will be in the hands of corporations for decades.

Thank the SCOTUS of 2000, Florida Crooks, and Ralph Nader for that.

[Jennicut]

10. Until Scalia gets to old. Whenever that will be...

[onehandle]

22. Sadly, there's little chance that a righty will step down before Obama's eight years are up.

Let's hope that Rush, Cheney and their ilk are still inflicting the same amount of damage to their party come 2016.

[ima_sinnic]

47. actually, Nader has been fighting against corporatocracy for decades

but don't let me interrupt your stupidity.

You think if Nader hadn't engaged in his Constitutional right to run as a candidate, Bush would NOT have been president? Everybody who voted for Nader would have automatically voted for Gore? The repukes wouldn't have ensured that Bush still would have won, with the help of Diebold, crooked elections officials, crooked "journalists," and all their other tricks?

The idea that Nader "stole" votes from Gore (as you imply) assumes that those votes "belonged" to the Democrats to begin with. Think again. And educate yourself about Ralph Nader. Long before you were born, he was fighting for YOUR rights and AGAINST the corporations. He still is, and his many many legal and justice organizations are fighting in every state and in many different areas of life.

[olegramps]

54. You must be kidding.

Why didn't Nader run for the Democratic nomination?Every fool in this country realizes that we have a two party system in regard to presidential elections and that the chances of a third party candidate winning the election today are as likely as winning the lotto. Teddy Roosevelt, as tremendously popular as he was couldn't get it done. The fact is he is a narcissistic spoiler who has evolved into a genuine asshole. Rather than supporting a candidate that could actual put some of his reforms into place he wants to bask in the minimal attention that he deserves.

[karynnj]

61. You are misguided

Diebold was not much of an issue in 2000 - that was before HAVA.

Nader did take (not steal) votes from Gore. How many is debatable. Had Nader not been there and had he not poisoned the well with people who admired him (Nader), I assume that few of these people would have voted for Bush and most would have voted. The question is whether that would have pushed enough in FL to make it too hard to steal or if Gore would have won NH - which also without FL would have given him the election.

As to why Nader runs - look at 2004. In 2004, he did not say the same things about Kerry that he did about Gore - he actually said he was Presidential and that he respected him. Kerry, who fought Nixon on Vietnam and who fought BCCI and who wrote a clean elections bill with Wellstone, was as close as Nader could get in terms of a person who could win the Democratic nomination and have really fought some of Nader's issues. Although he did not affect the election, the fact that he ran when even he saw Kerry as a good alternative - shows that he was running for his own ego.

[Phx_Dem]

80. Oh please. Nader said during the 2000 election that if George Bush

gets elected then people will finally realize how horrible the Republicans are (yeah, becuase we didn't already know that). He used the old "things have to get worse before they get better" argument. What an asshole. If not for Ralph Nader, there would have been Florida battle or Bush v Gore case with the Supreme court.

Nader knew he couldn't possibly win and he knew he was taking votes from Al Gore, hence, he's comment above. So next time you're unhappy with a John Roberts or Sam Alita vote, you can thank Ralph Nader.

[demwing]

116. Your rush to insult reveals the weakness of your argument

Nader is not solely to blame for Bush, but partially. If you can't see that, you're not paying attention.

Do you honestly believe Nader was only "engaged in his Constitutional right to run as a candidate" when he claimed that there was no real difference en Gore and Bush? How does that feel now, nearly 9 years later? Would a Gore presidency have taken us down the same disastrous road? Does this not force you to question Nader's judgment?

And if Nader's constant harping on Gore, constant cam paining in key red/blue battleground states, and constant insistence that Bush and Gore were cut from the same cloth did not sway voters away from Gore, then he must have been a damn ineffective candidate, and would have made a damned ineffective President as well.

[firedupdem]

6. That's what she wants you to think. There is nothing about

Sotomayer to warrant that opinion but Rachel shits on all things Obama. Turn her off!

[DuaneBidoux]

8. Do you think she might just be a very dissapointed progressive?

I know I have been.

[Cha]

18. Then she should quit it with

her 1/2 truths..she wouldn't have so much reason to whine.

[firedupdem]

19. She was disappointed prior to the election. Who wants to

hear that everyday? I don't. That's why I don't watch her. Let her keep it up..she better hope the other disappointed people have enough numbers to keep her on the air.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

43. Same here

but I guess shooting the messenger is the order of the day when she questions some of Obama's policy decisions.

[Zodiak]

78. It's become a sport around here

So many liberal media figures under the bus, now, I can't keep track of them all.

But it is nothing more than the politics of celebrity...a playground for the politically immature and a testing ground for DUers to thump their chests publicly and prove how loyal to Obama they are to the loyalists.

It is amusing, but hardly consequential.

[DuaneBidoux]

113. When conservatives are in power they think we just attack them because they are them.

In reality the nature itself of being a progressive means we will rarely gather in a circle with our guns pointed out as the Republicans do (of course they turn them inward every so often too).

Progressives doubt. They question authority. They demand results from their leaders. And being our leaders are no less human than the leaders of conservatives it is inevitable that we start treating ourselves that way. I can't say it "should" or "should not" be that way. It just seems that way.

[bertman]

56. "Rachel shits on all things Obama." That is THE least informed statement I have ever

seen on DU.

Try watching the show without your head up your rectum. You'll hear better.

[Thrill]

62. Her reporting on Obama has Fox Newsque.

Playing snippets of statements. Taking them out of context. Shes been a big disappointment. And its been showing in the ratings

[firedupdem]

66. yeah...and you sound really informed with that comment...

whoa, aren't you tough? Rachel never wanted this guy to be president and she made that clear prior to the election. Let her keep it up...she'll be cancelled soon enough.

[bertman]

74. We finally get a smart,witty, articulate advocate for the Left on the tube and the ninnies

start picking her apart because she isn't marching lockstep with THEIR idea of what a progressive should be. Typical Democratic circular firing squad groupthink.

Rah Rah Obama Bama Rah Rah Obama Bama Go Prez O

Now can I be in your club?

[firedupdem]

94. That's always the comeback... cheerleader?

Well, what's the opposite of a cheerleader? A cheerleader is rooting for their team to succeed right? Even when their is a screwup, cheerleaders don't walk off the field.

So, I'll be a cheerleader then. No Problem...I want our team to win.

So that makes you the opposite?....rooting for a loss? Harping on the perceived mistakes? No, you stay in that club. I'm going to keep cheering and hoping this administration and this president succeeds. Even when I am dissipointed...I'm not walking off the field.

Peace

[bertman]

102. The way I see and remember cheerleaders from my high school and college days is

that they were the people who were supposed to cheer for their team constantly and continuously, regardless of whether the team was getting the crap beat out of them or whether the coach and players were pathetically bad.

While that's an understandable sentiment when you're dealing with teenagers who want to unflinchingly support their schoolmates, it's really a sad comment on any American who feels that s/he is supposed to blindly support his/her President or Congressional reps even when they are going the wrong way on the field.

I watch Rachel Maddow regularly--most nights. She DOES express her frustration with the new administration when she thinks they are off base, but she also gives the President and the administration LOTS of compliments when she feels they are deserved.

Judging from what some people are saying on this thread, it appears that many of them must turn the channel as soon as Rachel says something they disagree with; otherwise, they would see that she is positive about many, if not most, aspects of the administration.

I'm trying to imagine what it would be like if Rachel started reporting only the positive aspects of what the Obama administration is doing. I can't imagine it because, despite a lot of good things they are doing, there are still many policies, failures to act, and stumbles that are not in line with what the President has said he wants to do--or what many Progressives want to do.

Besides, if she started doing that, Robert Gibbs would be out of a job.

[Supersedeas]

127. Pretty much -- no matter how much a commentator substantiates his/her claim

the cheerleaders are ready to silence anyone who even faintly sounds critical of the President.

[Overseas]

99. Here's a clip from a Wall Street Journal Article showing that Sotomayor

is a more moderate choice, which is probably a good thing for President Obama. She doesn't always vote on the liberal side. I would think people would be glad to see that she has shown a balanced voting record, so the right wing trashing of her is ridiculous. If well known liberal commentators say she's not liberal enough, that should be reassuring to others. It shows the president's more moderate approach. He is continuing the bipartisan approach, and that helps reveal the Republicans as the true obstructionists they are. Apparently only they are allowed to appoint extreme ideologues to the court.

The judge has favored corporate defendants in suits that test when cases can be brought as class actions. Judges often must determine whether plaintiffs' claims should be pre-empted by more defense-friendly federal and international laws.

"There is no reason for the business community to be concerned" about Judge Sotomayor, said Lauren Rosenblum Goldman, a partner at Mayer Brown LLP who has represented businesses including Wachovia Corp. and Dow Chemical Co.

In King v. American Airlines Inc., Judge Sotomayor ruled against an African-American couple who claimed they were bumped from a flight because of their race. The judge concluded their case was pre-empted by international law that governs air travel. "We urged a different interpretation, but her decision was in conformity with what other courts were doing," said Robert Isseks, a New York attorney who represented the plaintiffs. "We were paddling upstream."

In 2006, the judge was part of a Second Circuit panel that ruled investors couldn't proceed with a class-action suit accusing Wall Street banks of fraudulently pricing initial public offerings. The ruling negated settlements that would have yielded investors more than $1 billion. "That ruling demonstrated that in securities litigation, she is in the judicial mainstream," said Barry Ostrager, a partner at Simpson Thacher LLP who represented a unit of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. in the matter.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124338260937756559.html

[Orangepeel]

7. Eh. Rachel is incredibly smart and on the correct side of every issue. But she's a big worrywart

She sees the black cloud inside every silver lining. Do you remember how pessimistic she was during the campaign? She made it seem like Obama was blowing it more and more every day.

[nevergiveup]

12. Yep, the glass is always half empty

with Rachel. I like her but sometimes she a little much with her pessimism.

[Honeycombe8]

38. No one is ALWAYS right. Even Rachel (much as I like her). nt

[Orangepeel]

68. of course. obvious hyberbole

or, at least I thought it was.

[Pirate Smile]

40. Right. Wasn't Hillary not going to drop out or blow up the party or something like that?

She is definitely a glass a quarter full girl which drives those of us who are glass half full people insane.

[O is 44]

11. I wish.....

you would have stayed and listened to the women from Slate, sorry I don't remember her name but she kind of refuted some of Rachel's talking points and she stated she had spent all day going over Ms. Sotomayer's opinions.

[mucifer]

13. did she refute Rachel on her own show? That sounds interesting. I might

have to download that. I don't have cable tv.

[O is 44]

21. You need to also catch

Rachel's lead in to the guest she went through about 3 to 4 cases where she pointed out in her opinion, these were not so liberal decisions, but the guest came on and refuted this to a point. She outlined her case and at the end she stated she would be a Justice more in the mold of who she would be replacing and that is Justice Souter (sp?), (Moderate liberal). I also like the fact that the guest stated she had spent all day reading her opinions, love the background research.

[DuaneBidoux]

16. You're right. I didn't stay...I was frustrated 'cause I wanted to hear more on Ca prop 8 bs.

[Jane Austin]

31. Was that Dahlia Lithwick?

She's brilliant, and Rachel used to have her on her radio show all the time as I recall.

[jefferson_dem]

14. Two words: "It's Rachel".

This is her routine - pretend like she's offering some really special unique perspective while it's really just bogus, wild-eyed bluster. Per usual, Rachel is trying to be too cute for her own good. Dismiss.

[Raine1967]

15. I love Rach-- BUT

In this case, she read the WH Talking points. The talking points are purely political, not unlike the RW talking points.

I don't believe for a minute that the WH believes that Sotamayor is conservative. Something else Rach failed to mention is that 2 of the 3 *liberal Judges* were appointed by Republicans. If you need talking down, go back, and watch what Boxer said after that portion of the show. She nailed it.

[Dinger]

17. I Saw Part Of Her Show. What Scared Me Was When It Said Sotomayor Voted

with republican appointees 95% of the time. If that is not correct, please talk me down or correct me.

[geek tragedy]

20. Obama said that 95% of cases are not

in doubt but the remaining 5% are incredibly important.

[DuaneBidoux]

27. I just know realized that. thanks. that does help a bit.

[Occam Bandage]

28. 95% of cases have obvious conclusions. It isn't like politics. Most are cut-and-dried. nt

[Raine1967]

30. Go back and watch that part.

There were a lot of clarifications. She voted 95% of the time when she was on a panel of 3 or more judges.( It's fuzzy math. )

That says not so much about her record, it may actually say something about the cases themselves.

I may be very wrong here, but this does not a conservative make.

I really like that she was the dissenting voice in the TWA crash -- that should count for something,

[CTLawGuy]

50. John Paul Stevens is a republican appointee

David Souter HIMSELF is a Republican appointee. It's a meaningless stat.

[HamdenRice]

76. On the Second Circuit, one of the "Republicans" is an African American woman, Amalya Kearse

who is an old fashioned New York "center-left," "Rockefeller Republican" (yes, they used to exist; think former Mayor John Lindsay and Senator Jacob Javits). You could do worse that vote with Judge Kearse 95% of the time.

[CTLawGuy]

109. yeah

good point!

[grantcart]

64. In the NE 2nd circuit where there are no Republicans left in Congress

I think it can be safe to say that the one Republican that she was referring to voted with us 95% of the time.

Exactly which of these hundreds and hundreds of decisions was Rachel upset about? One or two that had to be decided because other issues in the case made that decision necessary.

Here is a real clue. Turley who has been preening for months couldn't cite a simple bad decision and simply said "She isn't as awsomely brilliant as I am'".

Clue number two; the Republican nutjobs are going crazy over this appointment.


Its unfortunate but Rachel is taking a similar line to Rush.

[quakerboy]

119. Not to be contrarian

But RW Nut Jobs would be going crazy if Obama had nominated Carl Rove for SCOTUS. The talking points wouldn't even change much. So their reaction doesn't really tell us much about the nominee.

[Nancy Waterman]

67. Lithwick responded to that

Those 95% of cases were in NY, and Republican judges there are quite moderate, not like the southern GOP we tend to think of.

[vaberella]

106. It sounds like a liberal twist to get rid of her.

Most of the cases from my knowledge all had one conclusion. So it was just common sense.

[jenmito]

24. From your comments on this thread, I'm not sure you WANT to be "talked down."

:shrug:

[DuaneBidoux]

29. Okay, please explain, because I don't get it.

but wanna'

[jenmito]

88. Your post #8 answers your own question in your OP.

[angee_is_mad]

25. she's a bullshitter

that's a conclusion I have come too. She also has serious issues with Obama that seaks out now and then. Probably why her ratings are going down.

[Lost-in-FL]

26. Maybe she is using reverse psychology.

If is bad for Rachel is good for the GOP. Or at least that is what i like to think.

[mucifer]

32. I'm very curious about her corporate law experience. What was she fighting for?

Why did she leave that job? It must have been more profitable for her than being on the courts. I'm curious. Did her conscience tell her to move on? That's what I'm hoping.

[HamdenRice]

49. Contrary to what most people think, >90% of corporate litigation is "corporation vs corporation"

Iirc, she did intellectual property -- corporations fighting other corporations over trademarks, patents and licenses.

[oldtime dfl_er]

34. Everyone is acting under the assumption that Souter was a raving liberal

Justice Souter is not a "liberal", he's pretty middle of the road. It's just that he's got a heart and a conscience, and that's what I think Sotomayor has, as well.

[AlexanderProgressive]

35. I'd have to see the transcript of her show

Before I make an informed critique.

[quakerboy]

120. Hi there

That was perhaps the most intelligent comment in the whole thread.

[DerekJ]

37. To those who are bashing Rachel; Go ahead and see the show here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#30951352

She has a very good point.

[leftstreet]

45. Thanks for posting that

:thumbsup:

[Political Tiger]

41. Rachel likes playing the fear card

and she plays it too often, which is why I am losing respect for her.

[alcibiades_mystery]

42. Rachel Maddow speaks 90% nonsenses in a foolish attempt to be edgy and "oppositional"

It's the usual sign of a smart person who was told too many times that she was smart, and hasn't had the life experience to know that her ideas are not always made of gold.

She's also still smarting from being so wrong, in her paranoid zeal, about Obama's election chances. She's like an embarrassing advanced graduate student, all destruction all the time. Maybe one day she'll find something to actually contribute.

[PretzelWarrior]

44. she has contributed a lot. I listened to her a lot on Air America

after Sam Seder and Al Franken were gone, she was the best thing on that station. SHe really does come up with some great research and observations as well as connecting the dots.

HOWEVER, her cable persona ESPECIALLLY since Obama won has been tough to take. She is always looking for downer stuff which I can't stand. For a supposedly progressive version of FoxNews, MSNBC has screwy programming. Can you imagine FoxNews having some commentator do nothing but worry and dither over everything the Bushies had been doing?

[spiritual_gunfighter]

46. Yeah she was so great when

Bush was president and she was speaking truth to power but now that Obama is president and she has policy differences with the administration, e.g. torture prosecutions, military tribunals, wall street bailouts, indefiniate detention, warrantless wiretapping etc, she is being negative, and she is a Rhodes scholar with no life experience, as if you know her life experience in the first place. It is no big secret that she never really supported Obama in the first place. But I guess it was cool when she was going after Bush. I get it now, thanks for the clairification.

[alcibiades_mystery]

53. She was never great to me

And anyone who uses the term "speaking truth to power" is a clown.

Hey, I said nshe was like an embarrassing advanced graduate student. And she is.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

87. I am impressed with your lack of substance in your reply

Just call someone a clown for using a certain phrase, then repost what you said in the last post. Wow EPIC FAIL (or do you hate that phrase as well)

[alcibiades_mystery]

92. I don't hate it

It's just played out.

:rofl:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

104. So is your weak reply

just to let you know.

[bertman]

59. Thank you, spritual_gunfighter.

The no-one-must-question-our-hallowed-leader contingent is out in full force on this one.

So much for actual debate about the merits of our President's policies and appointments. I'm thrilled that Rachel isn't just another Rah Rah cheerleader for President Obama and is willing to question. The nerve of her bringing on a couple of right-wingers like Barbara Boxer and Dahlia Lithwick to bring clarity to an issue that was troubling Rachel. What a whiny baby she is.

[Bluenorthwest]

63. What you tellingly left off your list of 'policy differences':

Obama preaches that people like me and Rachel are not deserving of equal rights under the law because of his religion. Obama says her family is not a family, her household is not a household, that her spouse is just a stranger to her under the law.
Has Rachel ever said anything like that about Obama? No. So she's treating him better than he treats her. Just saying.
Considering all the facts of yesterday, I thought Rachel was restrained and kind. The various guests had some interesting stuff to say about Sotomayor, and I thought Rachel was mostly saying that the GOP has no leg to stand on in calling her a lefty, as she is clearly a moderate, or as one might say, she tries to use the law to make decisions, as opposed to her own bias. Rachel's show made me feel much better about Sotomayor. And about her chances of confirmation. Funny that others saw it as an attack on her, I saw a balanced look at the Judges history, with a few points of view being spoken. Hearing someone tell me she's great does not cut it. The analysis was very good. No career in any field is all of one lovely piece of cloth.

[Neecy]

75. bingo

Thanks for bringing this up - interesting how the fanboys tend to overlook it.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

86. It made me feel better about Sotomayor as well

and you are absolutely right. Dan Savage was interviewed on MSNBC last week and he said he would give Obama an F for LGBT issues so far. So take that for what it's worth.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

89. But since I overlooked one of many policy differences I have with Obama

I am a gay basher, okay I get it. Thank you.

[HamdenRice]

51. Rachel continues her forced march from merely uninteresting through annoying to downright idiotic nt

[Bluenorthwest]

65. Rhodes scholars with world wide acclaim = iditotic

Great response to the various points of view on the show, and to Rachel's conclusion that the GOP will fail in painting Sotomayor as too liberal. Which was her conclusion. Most people saw last night's show as positive toward Sotomayor.

Headline from another website, for example, reads "Watch: Maddow debunks GOP spin on Sotomayor." Which is what she did, and did very well.

[blue_onyx]

71. I agree...I don't think Rachel was negative

People on DU can be as bad the freepers when it comes to criticizing or even questioning Obama.

[HamdenRice]

72. I've met many people with degrees from elite universities who are, frankly, stupid

and Rachel ("Bush, I mean, Obama") Maddow is rapidly proving herself to be one.

At this point, she's averaging one irredeemably idiotic comment a day.

If she thinks that Judge Sotomayor's appointment could move the Court to the right, there is only one accurate word for her and her analysis: foolish.

As for her "world wide acclaim," -- uh, she's a minor cable tv host, who does opinion and shtick rather than reporting, with ratings that are falling off a cliff.

On her 15 minutes of fame clock, the minute hand is pointing at "13."

[ErinBerin84]

52. have you read about Sotomayor's cases?

That is where you should start. Rachel usually raises valid points, but sometimes lets those points override points that would um, talk her down. She's smart, but the worrywart shtick can get a bit much. And it is not just on policy, as other's said, she was like this during the election. She thought that Jerome Corsi, the bullshit "Bradley effect", etc, would bring down Obama, and was assuming that old man McCain would win a lot of the time. Again, Rachel is very smart, but you should investigate for yourself if something that she says makes your ears perk up.

[calico1]

98. I thought her "cocktail" comparison was pretty

silly.

Every time I decide to watch her again I am reminded of why I don't.

[stray cat]

55. On this one I disagree with Maddow - she has her own opinions and its her opinion show

[LaydeeBug]

69. I didn't see Rachel, but have the concern that she is NOT pro-choice.

and if she is not, there will be no coming back for me. It *WILL* be third party time. And, yes, I expect him to know better.

[Uzybone]

81. why the concern?

is there any basis for it are are you always concerned that people are not pro choice?

FWIW NOW, NARAL and PP are all in support.

[LaydeeBug]

111. We share the same faith, and she upheld Bush's worldwide abortion ban

or whatever the hell that thing was he did.

I am Catholic, and I know that a lot of women in my faith are anti-choice, but pretend to be otherwise.

I also did not know that NARAL was in strong support. It was my understanding that it is lukewarm at best. I would love to see anything she has done or said that shows she is pro-choice, however. :hi:

[Uzybone]

118. No she did not uphold any abortion ban

The case was about equal protection, not abortion.

"Abortion
In Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush,<55> Sotomayor upheld the Bush administration's implementation of the Mexico City Policy which requires foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds to "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations". Sotomayor held that the policy did not constitute a violation of equal protection, as the government "is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds".<56>
"

A decision I totally agree with, because I like my elected officials to favor the pro choice position.

As for NARALs statement: yeah it is pretty lukewarm...you are right about that. NOW and PP were very strong.

[LaydeeBug]

123. "The government is free to favor an anti-abortion policy over the pro-choice position"

even though we favor the pro choice position, there isn't a whole lot of indication that she *IS* pro-choice.

So, I've showed where my concern lies (I am not alone, my concern is not unfounded) can you show me, in this woman's entire judicial career ANYTHING that indicates she *IS* pro-choice?

[MadBadger]

97. And this concern comes from where?

The Magical Concern tree?

Anything you've seen that she isnt pro-choice?

[LaydeeBug]

110. Magical concern tree? wow. just wow.

[solstice]

121. She upheld the gag rule - playing with women's health and lives.

She upheld the goverment's right to censor complete health information that women NEED.

How can any Democrat spin that as being pro-choice? It's unbelievable to me how many people I see doing that here.

[jonestonesusa]

73. Why all the misplaced hate against Maddow on this thread?

I thought it was a balanced discussion of the justice nominee. Barbara Boxer was very good in explaining some of the reasons she is excited about the nomination and what it means to nominate a Hispanic justice and a justice with a disability. It was pointed out that the nominee has a great deal of experience on the federal bench, more than any candidate in recent memory. I think that the affirmation that comes from being picked for the Supreme Court will free her to use her judgment as informed by life experience in addition to interpreting legal precedent. The President himself has affirmed in public that he chose her both because of her judicial experience and because of his confidence that her personal perspective will be an asset in debates over constitutional law.

It's certainly fair for Obama's staff to point out that the justice nominee was originally a Bush appointee to the bench, undermining the predictable fact-free allegations that she's unqualified or a liberal Trojan horse that ignores the Constitution. On the other hand, like Maddow I do get weary of President Obama's use of politically cautious talking points to try and mollify conservatives who trash him constantly, while liberals get treated like the barfly you bring home for a romp but don't introduce to your friends. But what else is new for the national Democratic party? I would like for this political approach to be rethought - based on the fact that there is progressive majority in this country and we have historic opportunities to get sensible legislation passed. But I guess that's a battle for another day. Kudos for the nomination!

Edited to add the link to the Maddow show video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfnE3nEaTKU

[Zodiak]

79. Apparently she is the liberal under the bus du jour

Pilloried and drawn and quartered for not being sufficiently Obamariffic!

It is a tiring exercise that the same 20 people on this site do every time a liberal media figure dares criticize the President. First the media person says it, then 5 minutes later there are 5-10 threads on DU about it, all with the same characters, all substanceless personality-based criticisms and pseudo-psychoanalyses.

[ErinBerin84]

84. You make some good points

I like Rachel, but she does annoy me sometimes. It's more like her immediate cynical responses to most everything , or omitting facts to make a situation more dire. That said, I'm really glad she's on tv and she has a strong liberal voice that's important. I don't think it's so much the "liberal du jour" under the bus thing the poster above me claims, since people have specific criticisms of Rachel . I still think she's working her show format out, it's been less than a year. But you do bring up the important part that often she HAS people "talk her down" (as corny as it is). Even in my critique of her (during the election, she obsessed about Jerome Corsi/Bradley effect), I failed to mention that she DID have guests on these topics to "talk her down". And even though I did not watch her show last night, it does sound like having Boxer on presented a more balanced case for Sotomayor. I think a lot of the responses on this board also have to do with the fact that the OP did NOT stick around to be "talked down" about this subject, and just tuned out of the show. Also, I often fear that some people will take what Rachel says as gospel and not allow themselves to be talked down (even though on many subjects, she thanks the guests for successfully talking her down). It's good that Rachel even has people on who "talk her down" or "disagree with her", so I give her major credit for that.

[jonestonesusa]

125. I agree that Maddow is still working out the format.

I think Democrats get nervous with criticism like Maddow's due to the MSM's usual ham-handed attempts at "balance" by over-representing the Republican point of view, acting as though Move On is the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, and generally bashing liberals. That's why I hope that Obama uses his presidency to shift the political debate back to the kind of balance we had in the 1970s, when Republicans could support the Clean Water Act and Roe v. Wade and by judged by all of their positions collectively. Maybe the gentle push that Obama offers toward the center-left side of things will succeed. I guess it's easy to underestimate his political instincts, but I'd just like to see him and other top Democrats be more forthright in supporting liberal policies.

Thanks for responding!

[book_worm]

77. She is right sometimes and wrong sometimes. She was wrong many times in the '08 race

I don't put all my ducks in a row based only on what Rachel or even Keith say. I like this nominee and I doubt she will be more conservative than the man she is replacing who is considered one of the courts liberals.

[Uzybone]

82. Rachel is MSM, good MSM but MSM all the same

I take all her shit with a grain of salt. There is no reason she is anymore trustworthy than any one else because she is in it for ratings.

[digidigido]

85. I sometimes think the right wing gets on here to trash the courageous people on the left

I also think there are a lot of people who long for the days of Walter Cronkite,
when the media was a sort of warm fuzzy slightly left of center father figure
who you could sort of trust.
Rachel is more progressive then moderate, and I suspect that there are posts
here that are plants that trash her because she has the courage to think and
speak her mind and challenge power and conventional wisdom.
The other issue is that yes, she is a progressive, and while progressives are
often proved to be prescient on issues, their opinions may not be mainstream
at the moment.
For me, Rachel is still the best anchor on TV, I could lose Kent Jones, but Rachel
rocks

[Arugula Latte]

83. Debbie Downer strikes again. nt

[CreekDog]

90. Rachel frequently removes needed context to make her points

and this renders her points totally unreliable.

it's one of the most maddening things about her and quite a surprising bad habit from a generally reliable and savvy media person.

i saw her report and what she did was cherry pick decisions to make Sotomayor sound like a conservative without even reviewing what the cases were, or even a detail about them (for example, were they good cases?)

if you bring a bad case in favor of civil rights and you lose, does that mean the judge is against civil rights? this is the key information that Rachel, quite irresponsibly, left out.

[quiller4]

95. You are right. I really like Rachel but this tendency of hers is really

frustrating and it makes her less reliable a source.

[marshall]

91. Sotomayer is left of center, but not far left

Those who want a far left appointee will probably be disappointed with anybody Obama is likely to pick.

[DuaneBidoux]

114. I'm progressive and I'll settling for a judge that helps stop all the advances since FDR of going...

away. I don't know how far left a judge must be but right now as a "progressive" I am trying to hang on to what have gained since FDR.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

93. Rachel is not alone. A lot of people choose to prepare and brace for the worst.

That way they are never disappointed.

My mom is one of these people. She had a hard life. I think people that are constantly disappointed over and over again tend to build up a wall of cynicism around their hearts.

I love Rachel. I can get a little annoyed with her "talk me down" segments, but they speak to me. They remind me of conversations with my mom.

[QC]

96. Maddow is an enemy of the people. n/t

[Cha]

103. Rachel is acting like a tool

by leaving out context and going with 1/2 truths.

She's doing it to herself.

[ShortnFiery]

107. Rachael is honest and non-partisan. Well, she's a LIBERAL first like myself.

We have far too many "corporate democrats" in our party.

[Cha]

108. I like her but not when she's not

giving the whole picture ..to make her points.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

101. Rachel really is getting on my fucking nerves. Her negativity has turned me off so much

so that I cannot stomach watching her anymore.

[vaberella]

105. Nothing she said actually pushed that. RM's argument was weak. n/t

[Pushed To The Left]

112. Well, even if she was slightly to the right of Souter, she would still be to the left of Thomas,

Alito, Scalia and Roberts. I think the balance of the Court will stay about the same. If McCain had won, it would be a right winger replacing Souter. Thank goodness we won!!

[DuaneBidoux]

115. I do agree with the McCain remark. It could have been a lot worse.

I really don't care about a big move left but I certainly don't want her to be right of Souter or, obviously, the center of gravity moves right.

[kitfalbo]

117. Hate

I have to wonder how many center right democrats are on here. They exist because republican brand is trash and all far right. Those are the ones that dislike Maddow. I'm not saying they are not democrats, but they are certainly not progressive liberals. Obama was always a strict centrist, I feel we should question him when he fails on his promises on don't ask don't tell or with true health care reform, or with his undefined detentions.

From the look of this thread they are a-lot. If the republicans ever become center right, I'll be expecting a lot of the Rachel haters to switch to the republican party to go where their heart is.

[From The Left]

122. Stopped Watching Keith's Protege on Inaugural Day

When she joined the GE boys and became a good corporate toadie, admonishing the thousands who dared to "boo" for president Bush, gathered to see Obama sworn-in.

Her cries of, "That's just not right," and, "this is disrespectful," and, "show some respect to the man," made me realize Rachel is just another well-paid, corporate media zombie. A bit smarter and a bit cooler, but a wholly-owned subsidiary of General Electric.

[jillan]

126. Thank you for reminding me why I no longer watch her show.