I want to take the opportunity to say I want Rachel Maddow to run for senate

[izzybeans]

She'd make one hell of a candidate.

In 2012, Happy Trail Brown comes up for reelection. Now is the time to dip the toe in that water, Rachel.

Full Disclosure: I wasn't a fan of the fake stump speech by Maddow last night. But if that were a real speech, by a real politician, I'm behind those words 100%. I also liked Obama's speech for what it said, not what it didn't. So there...;)

I just believe that someone with that amount of talent, shouldn't be reduced to snarky jokes on the TV at night. But more important they should never be put in a position to have to play pretend on serious matters at hand.

So...Please run Rachel...you'd be great. Just don't lose that edge.

[asdjrocky]

1. Won't run.

She cries, and claims to get blotchy. Too bad, because I believe she is one of the few left that tell the truth.

[izzybeans]

2. After last night, I have to see her as having some aspirations.

If she can do it in a dry run like that, she can do it for real.

[spin]

10. She was great last night! (n/t)

[izzybeans]

12. She'd be better if she wasn't playing pretend, IMO.

hence this post.

I thought it was a great speech, if it were real.

I found it odd, actually. But then I thought, if she actually said this for real as a candidate, she'd make a better politician than what she currently does.

[spin]

31. I doubt if she will run for office ...

but in reality she probably does far more good for our country through her program.

[gateley]

3. I think she is more powerful outside reporting on the goings-on inside. It's

become apparent (I think) that many people in the administration listen to what she has to say to get a pulse on what's 'out there'. I often think "I hope Obama is watching this." Same with Anderson Cooper's reporting from the Gulf. It's one thing to hear about it, quite another to actually witness the lack of coordination, clean up efforts, etc.

[izzybeans]

4. True, but the problem we have is that we always say the talented and smart

people are better working from the outside, when all the chance for change is working on the inside. Al Franken is a perfect example. The dude gets it and doesn't mince words. I'm hoping she'd be the same way if not way better.

[gateley]

8. I see your point, but I don't think, once they get into office, we hear more

than soundbites. With her own hour-long platform, she can cover a variety of topics that we need to know.

[izzybeans]

9. I'm of the mind that most talking heads are interchangable. Some have some star power

and others have some real substance to offer beyond reading scripted opinions. She's one of them. Sure there would be a void, but she proved that smart, wonky talk is a good sell. There are plenty of people out there that can do that. A TV show, is a TV show. Her show has been hit or miss with me.

I don't see any politician giving that speech she gave. Maybe Grayson, maybe.

[gateley]

13. And I still think she'd be better utilized where she is, but if you can get her

to run, you can bet I'd vote for her - would even move to the State she'd be representing. I'm serious. I trust her.

[izzybeans]

16. me too.

I just don't think cable news is as influential outside of the beltway as people think. Only rarely do you see anything in Washington change because of it; its more a reflection of Washington.

I know very few people who give a rip about what people say on any of the channels (I may be the only one in my circle of friends, at work or family that watches these shows), but they would love the politician who gave that speech last night.

[gateley]

17. Good point. Stuff that I think will blow the lid off something, my non-political

friends (essentially all of them except for my best friend because I make him listen to me) are "huh?".

My nephew, 20 years old, college student, was only peripherally aware of the spill - same with his parents, whereas I'm consumed by it.

[izzybeans]

19. I can't get people to talk about it.

They are like, where can I send money. It's too depressing.

Tuned out. If I were to show them Maddow's speech from last night they'd be confused and probably think she had lost it, frankly. Out-of-context, it seems like a strange concept.

[gateley]

21. "And I, fake President Obama..." Yeah, they'd have to wonder. nt

[meegbear]

5. RACHEL MADDOW IS THE GREATEST HUMAN BEING ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH SINCE THE BEGINNING TO TIME!!1!

She should Supreme Exalted Ruler of the Universe!!! Anything else is total fucking insult!!

[izzybeans]

7. Not really.

I just think after her "fake speech" last night that its sad that people need to play pretend when they can play for real. :)

In full disclosure here is my take on msnbc and the talking heads: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8578263&mesg_id=8578577

I started thinking and thought "you know, self, if she really wanted a politician to say those things, she should be the one using them as a political platform." So I played my own pretend game and wondered, you know instead of saying I wish Obama would have said this, why not just say it yourself. Which she did in this surreal pretend world. I'm just asking her to play for real, because I think she'd do well, for real.

[Cleita]

14. Well maybe we should just go back to not having any talking heads on

progressive issues, like it was back when Bush was elected and most of the progressive people in the media where fired. All you got everywhere was how wonderful President Bush was and why we had to go to war in Iraq, with the likes of Paula Zahn waxing romantically about the "winds of war" in the air. There were no voices of dissension, truth or common sense when you get right down to it until Air America was founded. Later KO started doing politics on his show. Now we have our voices in the wilderness, even though Air America no longer exists, and you come along and want to trash them. You don't have to agree with them 100%, but at least show some support or we will be back to where we were in 2000.

On edit: Sorry I didn't mean this for you but the post you answered to.

[izzybeans]

18. No bigee. I gotta think there are plenty of other people who could

step in, though.

There also has to be room for more in-depth reporting, and higher level discussion. Rachel flirts with the type of show I would truly enjoy, but backs down the level of discourse once she gets too close to the ubber-wonky line.

I grew tired of shows that focused on political moves, opinion polls, and election consequences of decisions/actions a long time ago. MSNBC seems to have slipped further into that mode once Obama came into office. To this day, I have seen no thorough attempt to understand the healthcare law, for example. No one really knows how it will work yet, because only small non-profits like the one I work for have been digging through the details. The big broadcasters should be doing that. Not us.

[Cleita]

20. Neither she nor Keith are completely free to do what they want.

Remember they work for GE and the boss has a final say on content. She was far more open on her radio show as Ed Schultz is on his. Ed is still on radio. Catch Ed on radio sometime and then his TV show and you will see that he is far more restrained in his opinion on TV. Still I'm grateful that we have them as voices and they are able to get more progressive guests on their shows who aren't being shouted down by the RW filibusterers on other shows and can get some information out. And Ed Schultz went through the health care thing in detail while it was in Congress. He was very much on top of it. I know because I've been studying health care since Hillarycare bombed. I'm hoping one of these days that we will get anti-trust laws in that will break up these monopolies so these affiliates of huge corporations can break off and become strictly media and GE is going to have to go back to being a manufacturer. Hopefully, we can ship Ruppert Murdoch back to Australia one of these days too.

[izzybeans]

22. Her show was my introduction to progressive radio.

Ed did do a good job on our preferred alternative(s), but once Congress got through with it the complexity of the thing is enormous. We need more "how will this impact me" bits (I say that admitting I don't watch TV but a few times per week, so maybe I'm out of the loop). If you want to impact the political process, this is the biggest worry out there outside of the economy.

Republicans are running on this thing being a disaster and no one is explaining how the exchanges will actually operate and serve consumers. My organization focuses on smaller stuff like the CLASS Act provisions that provide cash benefits for home and community based elder care. That's some awesome stuff, actually. But few people understand that it was even in there or that it was one of the last things Ted Kennedy ever did. When you do hear anyone talk about it, its rightwingers warning us that it will be a bad thing. it's not a bad thing, its just not as efficient as a single-payer, comprehensive service system. It's a patchwork tent pitched over a political mine-field and its confused the hell out of everyone we work with.

[Cleita]

26. Well, where this plan has been tried, like Mass. it's proven to be very costly.

Also, it doesn't accomplish the main task of removing health care from employment like Medicare would and that's what we need to bring jobs back to the USA. We need to have Medicare available as part of the exchange as a choice to buy into, not a fall back on for the poor, or all we will have is a huge bureaucratic bloated pig that could break the bank.

[Cleita]

6. She's openly gay. She probably wouldn't win for that reason.

She's probably more effective right where she is. I know she rattles a lot of Washington cages when she puts their feet to the fire.

[soleft]

24. Um......Barney Frank

[Cleita]

25. Barney Frank became a Senator before he admitted he was gay.

So he had already proved his effectiveness as a politician. Also, he's a guy. Prejudice against women is always greater no matter what their sex orientation.

[provis99]

11. Won't work. DU already threw her under the bus.

[izzybeans]

15. I sorta did too, but...

then I thought she'd be a way better politician. One I'd trust.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

23. I don't live in Mass, so I don't really have a say. But I agree she'd be awesome.

Unfortunately she said she never wants to run. I can believe that...I don't think she wants to put up with the bullshit and the higher the office, the more bullshit you have to put up with.

[Radical Activist]

27. What state is she from?

I'd be thrilled to see her run.

Personally, I think the difference between the two speeches was in style. They made the same points but some people need it shoved in their face. The media is cherry-picking what parts of the speech to highlight.

[Arkana]

29. She'd run against Senator Softcore (R-Occupying Ted Kennedy's Seat)

[Arkana]

28. She won't.

Even though she'd ride to election fairly easily in MA (she's brilliant and would run circles around Snotty Scotty in debates), she's got a good gig at MSNBC.

[HipChick]

30. I don't want her running for anything...

She's more effective exactly where she is..

[Karenina]

32. HALLO!

:hi: