Rachel Maddow Without the Sound
She actually looks good on the screen and seems like she’s having a lot of fun, in marked contrast to her fellow MSNBC host, Keith Olbermann, who always looks angry and unhappy.
For some reason, the closed captioning wasn’t working for her show while I was pounding away on the Stairmaster today, so I couldn’t follow the program so well. Through the graphics and tags, I knew at one point she was peddling the fabulist Seymour Hersh’s latest lies about former Vice President Cheney. Trusting this guy for honest information on Republicans is like looking to Paul Cameron for accurate studies of gay people.
All that said, despite her left-wing bias, I think Maddow’s show is going to have some staying power. But, for MSNBC (yet not for FoxNews), Olbermann has some pretty good numbers, so anger does seem to sell to a certain segment of our population.
She looks like she’s a nice gal, someone with whom, if the convesation turned away from politics, you could actually have an interesting exchange. And unlike Olbermann, she looks like she doesn’t take herself (or her show) too seriously. That’s not a bad quality to have.
12 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
ahh, if only you had audio too. they were questioning the authenticity of parts of the report as well.
Comment by Scottland — March 31, 2009 @ 1:45 am - March 31, 2009
Scottland, really? Kudos to Maddow then for questioning a left-wing conspiracy theorist! She does strike me as more sensible than some of the angrier left-wingers. Or maybe it’s just that she doesn’t seem strike me as angry.
Doubt Olbermann would question the authenticity of a Bush-basher.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — March 31, 2009 @ 2:00 am - March 31, 2009
“I knew at one point she was peddling the fabulist Seymour Hersh’s latest lies about former Vice President Cheney.”
I’m not sure when Hersh started this nonsense, but Kucinich was spouting off about the Dick Cheney assassination ring back when he was allegedly a contender. Of course it caused him to lose all credibility, but now…here come the rest, to peddle it some more.
I’ve said it before – I hope the Cheney Assassination squads ride dinosaurs equipped with laser beams. Robots would be cool, too, but putting a robot on a dinosaur is just asking for trouble.
Comment by Anniee451 — March 31, 2009 @ 2:03 am - March 31, 2009
Hopefully, she will get a clue about the real Obama before her co-workers ever catch on.
Comment by Libby — March 31, 2009 @ 3:05 am - March 31, 2009
It would seem that anger (and stupidity) IS a certain segment of our population.
#3 I call shenanigans. When did Kucinich have any credibility? The ghost chasing Roto-Rooter guys are more believable than that ass clown.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 31, 2009 @ 5:22 am - March 31, 2009
#3 – How about robot dinosaurs?
Anyway, back to the topic. Rachel Madcow is slightly more sane than Olbermann. Slightly.
Comment by Vic — March 31, 2009 @ 9:01 am - March 31, 2009
A good friend, who is totally in the tank for Obama, was scolding me about Rush. So, we made a friendly agreement. I would watch Maddow for a week and he would listen to Rush for a week.
I reported that I could find no real comparison between Rush and Maddow, because Maddow is short topic consumed with no thread(s) of principle to weave the tapestry.
My friend said that Rush is also short topic consumed, but he keeps pounding on the same tired old conservative boilerplate.
So, there you have it. I was looking for Maddow’s principles and my friend thought Rush was less effective because he was chained to his principles. I guess Rush doesn’t “think outside the box.”
My friend also thinks Kucinich is a political marvel.
Until Maddow, Overbite, Matthews and the MSM develop principles and a philosophy for their world of “feeling” and “fairness,” there is really nothing to talk to them about. I feel it would be fair if the government gave me a really huge, impressive, all the bells and whistles Lionel train set.
Comment by heliotrope — March 31, 2009 @ 11:06 am - March 31, 2009
I still can’t get over the fact that Rachel Madcow looks like Ferris Bueller.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 31, 2009 @ 11:27 am - March 31, 2009
Dan, you should turn up the volume and listen to her before passing any judgment. She’s quite a package.
As a gay journalist, Maddow is perfectly in-sync with the conventional gay mindset of liberals. She’s got more than enough of her own hate ruminating below the surface of that impeccable makeup. She does a fair amont of sneers and snarks like the Left’s best cynics but without KeithO’s bloated, sportsbased, hyper-alliterative double-speak that leaves most listeners puzzled.
She is still hammering W even as we approach Obama’s 100th day and that will be her STAYING power at MSNBC. She still wonders aloud if anyone at the Hague is looking into Cheney, Blackwater, Halliburton, rightwinged conspiracies and the internl arms merchant cabal (which Maddow seems to think is synonymous with the RNC). And every chance she gets, it’s a zinger fired at anything GOPish –even those wrongly confused as such on talk/entertainment shows.
When KeithO tosses the Baton of Hate to her at the blessed end of his “show”, she rarely lets it cool.
She might be a good looking dyke; but she is all venom below that $500 haircut and the impeccable makeup. Just like we can’t take the sports newsreader out of KeithO; one can’t take the venom out of Rachel, either. She speaks the “truth” to MSNBC listeners (just like Matthews and HerrOlbermann) and that’s why she’ll last. She says it with a smile, but the smile is made up of barracuda-like teeth clenched onto some GOPer’s backside.
Like JonStewart, BillMaher, StevenColbert, Janeane Garofalo or Lewis Black (well, maybe not Black, he does look mad) and tons of other voices on the farLeft, Maddow shouldn’t be mistaken for a soft peddle of her Hate just because she smiles. People did that with JonStewart for years and paid royally.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 31, 2009 @ 2:56 pm - March 31, 2009
#9 – Lewis Black IS a paragon of vitriol and anger. And unlike Sam Kinison, I don’t think it’s an act. (PS – I couldn’t stand Kinison either, but at least he got my respect for not being a hypocrite about his personal views.)
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 31, 2009 @ 3:08 pm - March 31, 2009
rachel can out-debate any conservative on television (or radio).
Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 1, 2009 @ 8:56 pm - April 1, 2009
#11 – Really? Name one. I double-dog-dare you.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 2, 2009 @ 11:42 am - April 2, 2009