Is it like some hazing thing to come in here and immediately proclaim how much you hate Maddow?

[Zuiderelle]

Give it a break already. I love Rachel. And this is a great interview.

I'm not sure I understand the logic behind criticizing her.

[Thrill]

1. I think people are getting sick of her negative tone to everything

Seriously. I know I've stopped listening to her radio show because she insists everyday that McCain is going to win. Shes negative about even the positive things. Like Obama had 100,000 in Denver, but none of them went to vote after the rally. It gets annoying.

[woolldog]

3. Exactly.

[GrizzlyMan]

6. Today it's changed from tone to just plain getting facts wrong.

People aren't turning out for early voting....bleachers empty at Sarasota rally.

[Youphemism]

13. I think she leans toward depression and she wants to energize the vote...

Despite her bubbly personality, Rachel admits she tends to see the negative side of most things. She did the same thing during the primaries, thinking Democrats were destined for a fight at the convention.

She also (and rightly so) worries about Democrat complacency, so she's working to keep folks energized by describing the downside of being ahead in the polls.

While she might handle this better, it's hard to imagine a more avid advocate for Obama, and smart and funny on top of that. You have to take the good with the bad.

On the other hand, if she bums you out, it's probably better to take a break from her. I'm sure that's not the intended reaction.

[Thrill]

28. It doesn't energize the Democrats

If anything it hurts their enthusiasm.

[Stand and Fight]

37. Considering your avatar of Larry David, I love this coming from you.

And I totally agree.

[JackBeck]

17. What gets annoying is people who prefer hyperbole over facts.

She never said "none of them went to vote".

[KittyWampus]

22. Odd you don't then comment on the hyperbole in the thread title. No one hates Rachel

commenting on her mistaken facts, erroneous conjecture and negativity isn't hating her.

[JackBeck]

39. Interpreted the OP's hyperbole as playful ribbing of those

That jump immediately to the conclusion that some of the things Rachel says automatically translates into the Democrats being undermined.

I get the nuance of her statements and don't feel the need to throw-up a doomsday post on DU anytime she acts the contrarian.

But if you would prefer to support the misstatement above that Rachel said no one went to vote after the Obama rally in Colorado, go for it. Have a blast. She never said what was posted above.

[hlthe2b]

27. I went to that rally and when asked most of the crowd answered

that they has already voted. Of the rest, there seemed to be many, like me, who were waiting for the 18,000 mail-in ballots Sequoia managed to "misplace" or fail to print on behalf of Denver Elections.... SO, there actally were few among the crowd eligible to go early vote, as a result...:shrug:

[Guava Jelly]

2. Me either

I think people are just on pins and needles here

[firedupdem]

4. I just don't watch her right now...can't handle it. n/t

[knowbody0]

5. the best defense on that crap is IGNORE

there is no logic. it's as if she's been placed in a mold or something and better just stay there.

I love her and her opinions. Only the paranoid succeed.

[TheDonkey]

7. She's a concern troll. If Rachel came on DU posting the same things she says on TV

she'd be shouted down. I'm not saying she is EVIL but her pessimism, concern, and negativity towards Obama can be tiring.

[pnwmom]

12. And that says more about DUers intolerance than it does about her. n/t

[Orsino]

74. Not at all.

It's easy to criticize Maddow, even when one does realize that she's the only lefty on TV. It's perhaps because she is a lefty, and constantly mutes that message to preserve her corporate pulpit.

I think she's making a good trade, myself, and I wish her well, but she has little to say to me in this context. I'll still listen to her on the radio.

[melody]

8. I ask again -- you can't love someone and disagree with them?

I adore Rachel -- I have immense respect for her (I have for a long time) but I disagree with her negativity. You don't have to walk lockstep with someone to admire them otherwise.

[givemebackmycountry]

9. RCT's

Rachel
Concern
Trolls

They are legion, and they are powerful, and they are irrelevant.

Tell me Katie Couric and Campbell Brown and Norah O'Donnell wouldn't slit their wrists to be where she is right now.
60 minutes every night.
And she got Barack.

That should tell you everything you need to know.

[annabanana]

24. RCTs, indeed.. . .

It smacks of a concerted effort.

[The Wielding Truth]

10. Who's giving Rachel grief? Let me at 'em. I love Rachel,too!

[Connie_Corleone]

11. Who said they "hated" Rachel?

[notaboutus]

14. No I have never cared for her but she was intelligent so I

watched. Now I don't. I listened to her and personally feel like she is more opinionated as where Keith backs his up with FACTS. Maddow is more from an intellectual perspective and she can tend to over analyze. I am entitled to my opinion as she is hers and neither of us should be put down for expressing them.

[JackBeck]

15. Every progressive talker gets ridiculed here.

One of the reasons why I joined years ago was because of the immense support given to our community, even when we disagreed with something they said or did.

Sadly, that's hard to find anymore. Posters are too quick to toss away those they disagree with, and then back-slap their cheerleaders that pile-on, instead of having a nuanced debate about either what was just said or what could possibly be the future game plan.

Too many playing checkers, not enough playing chess.

[Native]

40. Glad someone else has noticed how things have changed in here!

[Zuiderelle]

42. "Too many playing checkers, not enough playing chess."

:patriot:

You got that right.

[bdamomma]

16. I am sure she will receive alot of disgruntled e-mails tomorrow

from some disgruntled viewers.

[anonymous171]

18. If Obama is elected she will help us to prevent him from going full DLC on us.

[litlady]

19. I've liked her since the first guest appearance! nt

[KittyWampus]

20. links to DU'ers who "hate" Rachel? I love her but don't need her relentless negative vibes

[IndianaJones]

21. shes much better than the scripted sportscenter guy. nt.

[TheKentuckian]

23. Is their no gray area between worship and disdain?

Maddow is maybe my favorite person that I don't know in real life, certainly one of them but I'm weary of her handwringing and daily need to be talked down.

It comes off as lame to me because she also comes off as way too bright and much too strong a woman to be on semi-suicide watch five days a week.

Still, I can also see the point of others because its not THAT bad at least on TV but I wish the worry warts would allow some positive energy. Its like some are so afraid of failing that they must plan on it and hope to be pleasantly surprised. I don't believe it works like that. Winning follows winners and if you lose then you deal with it then. Preparing to lose doesn't help you to either claim victory or to deal with defeat. It simply prepares you TO lose.

There's nothing good about having a loser's mentality. Jordan didn't suit up everyday expecting a loss. You play to win and you damn well should expect to win, while having the maturity and sense of been there done that to know you have to earn it everyday.

All through history people have faced much longer odds than we do. Stand up and bring home the wins all across this country and if it is stolen then we'll have to figure out how to go from there but THIS IS OUR TIME. Lets take it to the bastards and bring it home!

Fear is the mindkiller, we will bring them down!

[poetsdream]

38. I agree: A winner has to think like a winner

I agree that to win, you have to think like a winner. A winner keeps the 'eye on the prize,' and does now allow himself or herself to be side-tracked by the acts of others. Yes, you make a reality-based assessment of what you are up against. Then you turn to your natural talents, your creativity and your connections with other people and you set your goal to be a winner.

I like Rachel, she's smart, thoughtful and certainly, compared to most of what passes as cable 'news', plesant to listen to and watch. However, I feel that all this week especially, she has been too much of a handwringer, worrywart and all-around downer. She is alsays wanting someone to 'talk her down' when, personally, I don't think she should be 'up there' in the first place!

Some people may view Obama as being overconfident. But it may be that he is drawing on something deeper that cannot be seen or understood by someone who is being overly 'rational', and it is that 'something deeper' that is the source of his confidence.

As you say, people in the past have faced much longer odds and triumphed even when the 'evidence' showed that it was "impossible."

[Hokie]

25. MSNBC could always bring Bow tie Tucker Carlson back

He could suck in the ratings again and be smarmy all the time.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[namahage]

29. "Leftie boys"?

First off, please show this poor noob where there is ANY sexism expressed here. As I see it, the main complaint about Rachel is her tendency ON HER SHOW to accentuate the negative.

NOT because she's a woman.

If KO went "Debbie Downer" on us I bet there'd be much grumbling about him, too.

[femrap]

43. How dare a woman, as you

called KO 'a Debbie,' ever be negative! They are the nurturers, the uplifters, the ones who must always have a snappy little smile on their face who will boost the little egos of the males.

Understand now? It does take a bit of consciousness raising and a look at one's deeply held attitudes toward the 'weaker sex.'

BTW...with the world economy, global warming, Darfur, Iraq, and very little Justice for the neocons (ie rich white boys) who put us in this mess, who wouldn't be negative???

Haven't you been paying attention? You think BO is going to solve are of these problems for you? Sooner or later heroes only break hearts. You are your own hero...act like it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. You're requesting to see sexism against Maddow?

OK.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=341x13499#13515

[Forkboy]

34. What are the woman who don't like her?

[Lilith Velkor]

55. Possibly homophobes

More likely idiots who don't know how to change the channel or turn the TV off (which also applies to the men).

[Forkboy]

56. ....

"More likely idiots who don't know how to change the channel or turn the TV off (which also applies to the men)."

:thumbsup:

For the record, I don't watch much tv (especially talking head shows, our side or theirs), but the few times I've seen and heard her she has impressed me immensely. I don't get the criticisms. As you say, just change the damn channel.

[Lilith Velkor]

59. I loves me some Rachel

Keef, not so much. So when I'm over at the BF's we watch Daily/Report reruns and he downloads Keef to watch later.

He likes Tweety, too, and I don't but I'll deal with it until the election's over.

[MelSC]

57. Give me a break...

I mean seriously...homophobes? Wow!

[Lilith Velkor]

58. Oh yeah, everybody knows homophobia doesn't exist.

Gosh, what was I thinking? :eyes:

[Curtland1015]

36. No offense meant... but what the f*ck are you talking about?

Seriously...

[femrap]

45. Go see my response

to namahage...if you don't have an iota of a clue, I don't it's worth my time to explain. You'd have to read a book or attend my seminar.

Good luck.

[Forkboy]

46. Could you answer my question, too?

What are women who don't like Rachel called?

[femrap]

49. I love Rachel as much as I do the Ignore Function. nt

[Forkboy]

53. No answer?

[crazy_vanilla]

30. people should be able to express their opinions of Rachel and any other topic

as they see fit

Like or dislike, this is not the point. Being free to state your opinion in a free country on a progressive democratic blog is.

[BlooInBloo]

31. (shrug) If she insists on being a doom-and-gloomer, she deserves the flak.

[Arkana]

32. I like her.

She basically is my inner monologue--that's why I like her "Talk Me Down" segments.

She says that there's something she's worried about, then has someone on who can put her fears to rest--and it helps neurotics like me.

I'm the ultimate concern troll--I just have enough sense not to post about it.

[bluedawg12]

33. She's a liiberal and a thoughtful one-- we need people like her

and I disagree she is a downer- that's an ad hominem attack- disagree with what she say and explain why- that's one thing- but it slips right over to pitch fork time in a heart beat.

[apnu]

35. I love Rachel (nt)

[mwb970]

41. Well, *I* think she's great!

I watch Keith and her just about every night. It's great TV.

[MelSC]

47. b/c she criticized Obama for ridiculous reasons...

She got annoyed that he was too calm, confident and bipartisan, she also put Obama in an awkward position. I'm glad he stood his ground!

I have no problems with criticizing Obama, that is if he has done something wrong...but he hasn't. I think Rachel was acting silly and childish.

When Obama wins, he will be the President of the United States...not the President of the Liberals who hate Conservatives of the United States.

[Zuiderelle]

51. Congratulations and Welcome to DU.

You have completed this portion of your entrance exam.


:eyes:

[MelSC]

52. Thanks!

and btw I don't hate Rachel, she's just not my favorite pundit...is that okay?

[riverdeep]

69. She wasn't 'annoyed', she was surprised.

When Kent Jones asked her at the end what the most surprising thing about the interview was, it was that he was so calm. She said he was the calmest guy in the room. It was meant as a good thing.

[Chloroplast]

48. How about she's being criticized because not everyone agrees with her delivery.

Jeez, what's wrong with some of you? :eyes: I like Rachel but her doom and gloom attitude gets on my nerves at times. Am I not allowed to find her pessimism irritating at times? Seriously, the policing needs to fucking stop.

[Zuiderelle]

50. Go ahead and let her get on your nerves, or turn the fucking channel

Who cares? Police yourself.

[Shakespeare]

54. I'm with you.

There's just no sense of moderation in here lately. Either too much cheerleading, or too much doom and gloom.

The fact is, we're doing really well, but we all remember 2000 and 2004, so a little apprehension is expected (see: Rachel, and I think she's doing just fine). The polls have tightened slightly, but they're mostly stable (so feel good about it, but don't get complacent).

Rachel's not evil or wrong. Neither are Olbermann, Matthews or Todd. Or Schuster. Or Norah O'Donnell.

1. Stop freaking out.

Or, alternatively:

1(a). Stop expecting everybody to blow rainbows and sunshine up your ass.

[SlowDownFast]

60. Coming from someone who thinks Pelosi

has done a good job....

I won't say the rest.

[Zuiderelle]

61. Coming from someone who thinks a user name I created two years ago

means that I think something about what job she's done since then, and someone who uses such a silly thing like my username to insult me, well, I won't say the rest.

[SlowDownFast]

62. Bullshit. Here's a thread you posted just 2 months ago:

"Sorry all you haters, but I still adore Madam Speaker Pelosi."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3857981&mesg_id=3857981

[Zuiderelle]

63. Go read my reply to you again.

You said "Coming from someone who thinks Pelosi has done a good job" and I said "Coming from someone who thinks a user name I created two years ago means that I think something about what job she's done since then, and someone who uses such a silly thing like my username to insult me..."

My assumption, since I have no idea who you are, is that you were making fun of my user name. Implying somehow that a name I chose 2 years ago has anything to do whatsoever with that I think of the job Pelosi is doing today, which of course, makes no sense. And which definitely has nothing at all to do with this thread.

The name I chose two years ago is not the same name I would choose today, because of people like you who can't come up with anything else to say other than remarking on my user name.

It's tiresome.

[SlowDownFast]

65. I don't need to read it again. It's still bullshit.

You wrote:

Implying somehow that a name I chose 2 years ago has anything to do whatsoever with that I think of the job Pelosi is doing today, which of course, makes no sense...

The name I chose two years ago is not the same name I would choose today....

Makes plenty of sense considering this thread - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3857981&mesg_id=3857981 - that you posted ONLY 2 MONTHS AGO.

After the last 2 years, what has Pelosi done in just the last 2 months to cause you to be finally convinced how awful/ineffective she is as a leader?

You're just backpedaling and trying to obfuscate your *very* recent ADORATION, as you put it, of Nancy Pelosi.

Just calling a spade a spade.

[Zuiderelle]

66. Yes, I admire Nancy Pelosi very much. I never said I didn't.

Sorry that it's so hard for you to understand that my user name has nothing to do with how I feel about her now, since it was created two years ago. If you are attempting to say that you somehow remember me writing that and that you weren't just reacting to my user name and only afterward looked it up, I don't believe you. But the point remains, that, just as I already said, my user name has nothing to do with how I feel about Pelosi now.

Is English your first language?

[SlowDownFast]

67. So lemme get this straight...

Your username, PelosiFan (Fan of Pelosi), which you created 2 years ago, has nothing to do with how you feel about Pelosi NOW.

A rational person would conclude from this that once upon a time (2 years ago), you were a "Fan of Pelosi".

However, now you maintain the sentiment you had when you first created your username has changed...

Again, any rational person would conclude from this statement that you now are no longer a "Fan of Pelosi".

Yet, in the SAME post you state that you "admire" her, "very much".

Sorry, I didn't realize you were schizophrenic.

My apologies.

I hope you're getting the help you need, and I'll stop pressing the issue.

[Zuiderelle]

73. Not that it's worth responding to this but...

I never said that my opinion of Pelosi had changed. I said that I would not choose the name now because of people like you who use my name to insult me.

Since you are clearing trying to insinuate that I am flip-flopping, let me quote my entire sentence that you cut off above after the first part...

"The name I chose two years ago is not the same name I would choose today, because of people like you who can't come up with anything else to say other than remarking on my user name."

Nowhere in any of the posts above did I once say that I did not admire Pelosi still or that my opinion of her has changed.

Now, I'm out of this thread. Go ahead and respond. You won't get another response from me. I've repeated myself enough times now.

[Awsi Dooger]

64. Olbermann's weakness is primaries, Rachel's weakness is elections

She'll move up on my list once there's no outcome to improperly handicap

[maladjusted]

68. I think Rachel really wants Obama to win

And like so many of us, she is terrified that it won't happen. We all want to be positive, to look at the polls and say that Obama has got this one, but it's not over yet. The Obama campaign has been saying this for days. They aren't being complacent, so neither should we.

I do believe that Obama is likely to win - I just won't be able to get rid of this knot in my stomach until I hear Keith or Rachel or Chris (please, not that schmuck Gregory) say "President Obama".

[riverdeep]

70. I sometimes wonder if part of the reason we don't have more

progressive voices in the mainstream is not JUST because of ownership pressures driving voices like this out, it's also our own impossibly high standards. Rachel has a pessimistic streak, that's who she is, it's not personal. She's not trying to 'sink' anything. But if you're the kind of person who's highly suggestible, and someone else's moments of concern drive you nuts, then you really shouldn't be watching. No single personality is going to appeal to every progressive.

For the rest of us, she can be a warning sign to shore up areas we might not have considered before.

[Borgnine]

71. I love Maddow.

I'm probably the most cynical, doom-and-gloom liberal you'll ever meet. I assume that if something can go wrong, it will (and it usually does). So Maddow's "talk me down" segments and what not speak to me.

[knixphan]

72. Rachel will feel better on the 5th.

We will feel better on the 5th.

[madrchsod]

75. she`s is the best female tv and radio political commentator

why in the hell would anyone want to break bad on her.... what the hell do people want? i guess there`s a lot of people out there that likes what she says cause she`s kick`n ass...