What's Rachel's problem?

[jefferson_dem]

Seriously. She's dredging up old clips from the primaries to show how Hillary would really not be a good fit for Secretary of State in an Obama administration. For her, it's all about the gotchas and the conflict among former Democratic rivals. Up next...Obama's over-the-top job questionnaire. Hannity's got nothing on Rachel nowadays.

[Botany]

1. Rachel is being a pro

Those clips will come up and she is in the news biz too.

[jefferson_dem]

9. They just did come up...

On her fucking show. She didn't show them for the purpose of debunking the lie that Barack and Hillary supposedly can't get along or the lie that they supposedly aren't on the same page. She showed them in order to parrot the same simpleton lies you hear from the scumbags on the right.

Maybe it's my own fault for expecting Rachel to be different.

[shirlden]

74. Rachel is different

That is what I love about her..........she makes me think. You need not agree with her but the dems don't need another talking head. Would you have Ko and Rachel become another Hannity?? Bull crappy.
She will keep our feet to the fire and spread a bit of that reality around the dem tent.

[jefferson_dem]

10. They just did come up...

On her fucking show. She didn't show them for the purpose of debunking the lie that Barack and Hillary supposedly can't get along or the lie that they supposedly aren't on the same page. She showed them in order to parrot the same simpleton lies you hear from the scumbags on the right.

Maybe it's my own fault for expecting Rachel to be different.

[Hieronymus]

22. Oh my, you have it bad. You're blaming the messenger.

[jefferson_dem]

26. Perhaps.

I've been unplugged from the news these past few days...a post-election decompression. It's disheartening to tune into what I thought was a friendly channel...for this. I could appreciate a thoughtful discussion about how Barack and Hillary might reconcile past differences in order to work together in the same administration. The way Rachel presented the topic tonight, however, was pedestrian and defeatist. Not good.

[Hieronymus]

35. No one could deny that Rachel is thrilled to see Obama elected.

[Botany]

25. Rachel is good

It is not her job to make one side or a different side look good or bad ...
She is a reporter and she is doing her job.

"All we want are the facts."

[wolfgangmo]

39. Sorry, Rachel is a commentator, not a journalist.

There hasn't been a journalist in America in about 50 years. They are all talking heads.

[Botany]

42. Sorry

Rachel brought up what the other side would.



Journalist

[Bluenorthwest]

73. Excpet that she is not

While I tend to agree with her, it is very clear what her opinion is. Extremely clear at times. And she is a pundit , not a journalist. She does not investigate, uncover details, build and then report a story. Ever. That is not her job, not one she is trained to do, and not one she does. She gives her opinion. Her show is her opinion.

[PBS Poll-435]

30. Oh no. Ayres!!!

Old freaking news.

[Honeycombe8]

63. Agree. Rachel is not on TV just to spew a "message" from Obama supporters.

She's in the news bidness, from the left.

The questions she asks are legitimate. She SHOULD be provocative, ask questions, present different sides.

You have it backwards. If she WERE like Hannity, she wouldn't even ask the question legitimately, unless maybe she were presenting it as, "See what the loons on the other side are trying to say..."

[ben_meyers]

2. Seriously? That's what she's doing? Rachel is dead to me.

nt.

[ecstatic]

lol. Kidding?

[firedupdem]

3. I didn't understand the pulling of the old primary clips...why bring

all that shit up? Glad the next lady on...can't remember her name reminded her of how hard Hillary worked to get Obama elected. I turned it off...

[Honeycombe8]

64. Like you think everyone has forgotten? It was a legitimate point that I was thinking already.

I had been thinking....but could Hillary, who had been critical of Obama's foreign policy while admiring McCain's, be submissive to Obama's foreign policy now? Maybe she could. But I was pondering that already.

If Rachel HADN'T raised the question (that everyone else is raising, btw), why would anyone watch her? Who wants to watch a boring..."we love Obama and will never raise any controversial item up on this show, as long as Obama supporters don't want me to" show? No one.

[firedupdem]

75. There are ways to question whether she would want the job or

not without rehashing primary rhetoric. It's rachel's show and she can do what she wants. I have a remote control and know when to use it. Nobody is asking her not to bring up anything controversial, I choose to concentrate on when Hillary stomped for Obama and helped him get elected. Revisiting the primaries is counterproductive in my opinion.

[Hieronymus]

4. Rachel is bringing up very pertinent facts .. Thank God.

[ecstatic]

7. She does kind of have a point

They fundamentally disagree on how diplomacy should be handled. Add Bill C. to the mix, and things could get ugly. I hope her being SoS wouldn't interfere with Obama's governing.

[Dappleganger]

11. Very true.

[karynnj]

20. Not really - The SoS serves at the pleasure of the President

If she doesn't do things basically as he wants - or if she brings in Bill and it gets worse, she will likely resign in short order. It would be a mess, but better than the President losing control of foreign policy.

Remember Obama, not HRC sat on SFRC and Biden was on it for I think 3 decades. There is no way, that Obama/Biden would let the Clinton run away with foreign policy.

[Medusa]

12. Rachel is a very smart woman.

I may not always agree with her but I appreciate her always and on this one, she's right.

[kid a]

5. she's been like a perky debbie downer...Mayor Begich up next...we'll see how that goes. nt

[glowing]

6. Ahh.. Rachel's having fun.. She lives and breathes this stuff like us.

Are you not interested in the questionaire and the shake out of Clinton being the SOS when they had differing ideas of foreign policy? Why is it bad to discuss this stuff? We do it all day long right here. When you sound like an idiot spouting off, then its spouting off and its spin.

[THUNDER HANDS]

8. psst

rachel doesn't work for obama.

[jefferson_dem]

16. No shit. But the question is...

does she work for FauxNews?

[1corona4u]

69. No shit....

I stopped watching her, and make sure I change the channel when she comes on...don't want her having my rating.....and even KO seems to be covertly questioning Obama lately as well...his tone has kind of changed. For the first time, in a long time, I didn't watch him last night.


If I want that kind of shit, I'd just watch Fox.

[MadBadger]

13. I'm not watching, but O's potential policy of meeting with rogue leaders was slammed as naive by her

That makes me wonder about her for SOS

[ProudDad]

14. Hillary would be as bad as Allbright the kid killer

Remember the one who said that 500,000 Iraqi children dead was "worth it"?

I'd rather see Powell as S.O.S. than Hillary...

I don't think Hillary has the temperament or diplomatic skills.

[peace13]

37. Hill and Bill were so whacked about not getting back into the WH.

I think SOS would put her too close to conflict of interests, possibly deals that Bill cut while he was on the road. I hate to say it but that is my fear.

[fadedrose]

15. During the primary races, many of us

didn't like Hillary Clinton.

After the primary, when Obama won, we were told to keep quiet for the sake of unity because we had the general election coming up.

Well, I for one never uttered an unkind or negative word about Hillary Clinton, for the sake of unity, and also because the OPS (Skinner) told us to put it in a sock. But the election is over, and the muzzle has to come off once in a while, I have to admit that I still don't like HC.

Rachel is right, leave her alone.

[marimour]

24. my feelings exactly.

Plus she is not qualified for this job. Even if she could do it, there are plenty of people that are WAY more qualified, with actual negotiating experience. This reminds me of the ridiculous Supreme Court rumors.

[political_Dem]

31. Bravo. I agree.

[JVS]

36. more agreement here

[4themind]

17. I don't mind her being a critic

Obama will get hit from the right, but maybe she can serve as an independent voice on the left. If the criticism isn't valid then it can be easily rebutted and dismissed. I will say that she brought up some legitamte differences between the two on certain policies. Whether it's enough to say that hillary shouldn't be SoS is up for Obama to decide, but she's just framing the issue in her own way for viewers, and if they don't like that, they can seek out alternative viewpoints. A marketplace of ideas if you will.

[cui bono]

18. I didn't see it but Clinton is a terrible choice for SOS imho.

and her behavior during the primaries and the things she said about Obama and his policies is part of the reason.

Next!

[Life Long Dem]

19. I think someone still has a grip on the media.

[rch35]

21. How DARE Rachel Maddow personally OFFEND your sense of what questions should and shouldn't be asked!

Now that Obama is President, she should just accept every decision he makes! Democrats never make mistakes and no one would EVER wonder how two people who clashed so hard over foreign policy could work together in the area of foreign policy.
Jesus H. Christ.

[jefferson_dem]

34. Nice straw man there.

Rachel can ask whatever questions she wants. But once she does I would appreciate an honest discussion rather than the "he said / she said" pablum she offered up tonight.

[rch35]

40. Without the comments there wouldn't have been the discussion.

its a legitimate concern, even if you dont like it.

[jefferson_dem]

41. Fair enough.

:)

[rch35]

79. thanks

and sorry if i get snippy or sarcastic sometimes
:hi:

[Honeycombe8]

65. I was already wondering about that issue. She just voiced what EVERYONE was already thinking about.

She wouldn't have been doing a good job if she'd disregarded the elephant in the room when reporting that Obama's team might be considering Clinton for SOS.

[kiva]

23. She and Keith were both sniping--

but nothing new there.

[AtomicKitten]

27. She's just defining her point of view.

I'm fascinated to know why showing bits of what really transpired during the primaries makes people uncomfortable. Is it that people don't want to think and therefore believe Hillary did what she did during the primaries? Does it stand in too stark a contrast to the revisionist narrative being floated here at DU?

Rachel has a point of view that is always interesting and worth listening to. There is no gun to anyone's head to consider it anything other than her opinion.

She's doing a great job and I for one am grateful for the 2-hour Keith-Rachel block. They deserve our support.

[AldebTX]

28. I Don't Want A Show that Parrots the "Nice" Dem Talking Points

I want a show that makes me think and question. When I heard Hillary for SoS my first thought was...why?

I voted for Hillary. I think there are many roles she would be a better fit for.

Personally, and I admit its just so I could see my Repug brother's head explode....I would love to see her nominated for the Supreme Court. She certainly has more of a law back ground then Bush's first nominee :-)

[JVS]

29. LOL

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[Doremus]

33. She has been snarky lately.

[Hieronymus]

48. If I said that about Hillary, I'd be called sexist.

[peace13]

38. On a lighter note...

at least she has her undershirt pulled up tonight!

[wisteria]

43. She is right. Tough Democratic love. n/t

[WolverineDG]

44. If Hillary hadn't said it,

Rachel couldn't show it. It's up to Obama to pick his SOS & I doubt very seriously he'll base his decision on Rachel's show.

dg

[nuncvendetta]

45. Hillary didn't have to say those things, and yet she did

I don't care whether she really meant it, or maybe she didn't but wanted to win so badly that she said it anyway. Face it - there's no way to assign any upstanding motive to what she said. It was ugly to attack Obama like that. If we're to take her at her word, then she believed in what she said. If it was to score political points, then we can't believe what she says. Either way, that's not the sort of person who needs to be our Secretary of State/Diplomat in Chief.

Rachel was good to bring it up - one shouldn't be able to say something so outrageous, at any point in time, and have it disappear. Words matter.

[Hieronymus]

46. Well said, thanks.

[Dappleganger]

47. Rachel got Rickrolled tonight!!

:rofl:

[Colobo]

49. Hillary Clinton is competent and capable. Let her have the job.

[baldguy]

50. Oh, stop with the Rachel hate already!

It's boring.

[soleft]

51. Man, are you going to hate Jon Stewart in a few months

[GreenPartyVoter]

54. Yep. Jon, Rachel, KO et al.... will all be "dead" to many DUers. Not me, though. Even when

I disagree with them I still go back for more because overall they are worth my time.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

52. I agree with Rachel. Hillary Clinton is NOT suited for SoS. There are others more deserving and

qualified!

[Awsi Dooger]

53. Rachel probably worries we're going to lose the inauguration

The extended primary will doom us in January

[No Elephants]

55. The first mistake is thinking that MSNBC (or NBC) is friendly to Dems. It is

not. It hired Olberman only as Bush's popularity ratings were tanking. Prior to that, it was all Pub all the time. Unless you count Tweety, who TWICE voted for Dummya, as Dem friendly. Stylistically, MSNBC may try to be tonier than Faux News. Ideologically, they were separated at birth.

The second mistake is worrying about whom Obama appoints. He's got this, just like he had the campaign, only more so. Maybe he promised Hillary something. Maybe not. Either way, he's cool folks. Don't sweat it.

[MadBadger]

56. I disagree with you on ur analysis of MSNBC

First, I know Tweety voted for Bush in 2000, but I dont think its on record that he did in 2004. In fact, I wouldnt be surprised if he was a Kerry guy in 04.

Second, Rachel made not do or say things that everbody agrees with, but she is on our side. People have to understand though that her along with KO will hold the Dems feet to the fire if they fuck up

Third, its pretty clear whose side Tweey is on at this point, and its ours. Its pretty clear that from 7-10, MSNBC's lineup is pretty friendly to dems.

And Finally you look at the cast of characters on election night. Can it get any better for the dems then having KO, Rachel, Tweety, and Eugene Robinson? I dont think so.

[nugzie]

68. Eugene's voice

is so soothing. he's like the Barry White of political analysis

[Catsbrains]

60. Yea......Obama's got this!!!!!!

[last_texas_dem]

77. Yeah

I remember when "MSRNC" (as many DUers called it back in the day) was Jerry Nachman, Deborah Norville, Tucker Carlson, Alan Keyes- ALAN KEYES?!?- and other such "luminaries." It wasn't *that* long ago, really. I remember, it was a big deal when they gave Phil Donahue a show for, like, half a year, and pushed him towards "human interest" topics rather than political because he was anti-Iraq War and that was when everyone was mindlessly waving their flags and yelling, "USA!"

Certainly, I enjoy Olbermann's and Maddow's shows, and can even stomach (and often enjoy) Tweety's these days. But it *is* worth noting that MSNBC's "liberal" tilt has coincided with Bush's plunging popularity, and the Dems taking back Congress and, now, the Presidency. An objective observer would certainly note that, during primetime, MSNBC shows liberal and liberal-leaning shows. But, as you note, No Elephants, MSNBC is not ideologically liberal in the way that FAUX is ideologically conservative. FAUX will be spewing right-wing spew regardless of the mood of the country. All it will take is a shift in public opinion and MSNBC will be making a similar shift.

[travelingtypist]

57. She needs to tone down the cutesy faces and the eyerolls.

Don't get me wrong, I never miss her show. But she's starting to remind me of that old
story told about Rosie O'Donnell who when she was a kid it's said she used to stand in
her bathroom with a hairbrush as a microphone performing for herself in the mirror. Too
annoying by half.

[WinkyDink]

59. And the laughing.

[nugzie]

70. I think she's just being herself

i've seen clips of her radio show on youtube and she's the same way. infact, she tones it down for tv. like she said the other day, she's a blogger with a tv show. she's not some serious stuffy journalist.

[WinkyDink]

58. Ratings? Trying to survive in Show-biz?

[cooolandrew]

61. Another article says there has been no communication on the SoS and Hillary anyway.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

62. Diplomacy is not Hillary's strength. That's not a criticism, just a fact.

[Jawja]

66. Rachel has a right to

bring this up on her show and present facts/opinion any way she wishes to.

I have the right to turn Rachel's show OFF, like I did last night when she launched into the Primary election rehash between Obama and Hillary.

[jefferson_dem]

67. That's it.

In a nutshell. Nicely framed.

[Lumpsum]

71. Rachel is right. Hillary would be a terrible choice. nt

[kasjaws2]

72. Geez.......give Rachel a break

She is a radio personality moving to the tube. She is only beginning with the "physical" aspects of what she does. She is used to not being seen.
And I disagreed with her last night as well but I still love her and I will always watch her. From Hardball (where Mathews fawns over Obama) to Rachel, MSNBC IS on our side.

[jobycom]

76. Being uppity and independent-minded and strong-willed and stuff.

How dare her give her honest political analysis when we need a media cheerleader! She's DTM!!!!

(And btw, I disagree with her, but I love hearing her analysis).

[amborin]

78. power corrupts, being a media personality can corrupt nt