« Just saw a program on "ID" called God's Next Army... I am CONCERNED | O¿O in the crowd's Blog | "The Devil Went Down To Georgia "SHE" Was Looking For A "Seat" To Steal... »
SOMEONE, PLEASE, "TALK ME DOWN." I just cancelled my TIVO "Season Ticket" of The Rachel Maddow Show!
I just canceled my TIVO "Season Ticket" of The Rachel Maddow Show. Since the election ended she has done nothing but bitch and moan about, well,...pretty much everything Obama has done. This would not be so bad if she were to offer different ideas but all she is doing is whining about everything!
Don't get me wrong I think she COULD be an important voice in progressive politics but not by constantly complaining about EVERYTHING.
Somebody, PLEASE, TALK ME DOWN!
Advertisement
I can't because I have noticed this as well. She is starting to irk my nerves a bit with all the whining.
November 27, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't because I have noticed this as well. She is starting to irk my nerves a bit with all the whining.
November 27, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Boy, I thought it was only me... I bailed on the show a week ago, even the Repubs are suppose to give him a bit of a honeymoon...lol
Whining sounds better coming from the right, they are irrational most of the time, for her not so much...
I'm starting to have a thing for Campbell Brown now...
November 27, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting and worth examining that the so called 'left biased media' actually seems to inadvertently reinforce right wing criticisms on a semi-regular basis. I'm thinking of the New Yorker cover with Barack in Muslim garb giving Michelle dressed as a 60s Black Panther replete with automatic weapon the fist bump. While on one hand it is a sophisticated visual criticism of the seemingly laughable attempts to stereotype BHO as a Muslim on the other it reinforces that label. Had it been suggested as the cover for the National Review, it would have been shot down by the editorial board as being to inflammatory. Back to your topic, I can't talk you down. Rachel's getting a little too cutesy for my tastes lately.
November 27, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stopped watching her last week. I think she is very bright and does her homework, but she has become whiny and I hate it when she asks dumb questions that she (and anyone with a brain) already knows the answers to.
November 27, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, right! It is not just you; it happens to all: When they say what we want to hear it is much easier to listen...
What the heck! Throught the election season we all liked what she had to say and now...
There are too many in this board that cannot bring themselves to be critical of Obama.
November 27, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that's it at all. IMO, what's happening is a pushback against the lefty purity trolls, who like to complain, but offer no new ideas of their own. For example, it was this faction that torpedoed the [alleged] Brennan nomination. (With good cause, but that's not my point here.) However, I have not seen the "big" names of that movement -- Greenwald, Hamsher, Maddow, Josh (to an extent), and (on this issue, although he's no liberal) Sullivan -- offer a reasonable alternative for that position. And there is a lot of grumbling about the lack of "progressives" named to the cabinet thus far, yet very few well written arguments championing specific progressives for specific positions.
Re: Maddow - I suspect part of Maddow's trouble is that she has terrible sources inside the transition team, so she's picked her own "outsider" narrative and decided to run with it. Yesterday was Day Three of "Where are the Progressives?". And though she did have one throwaway mention of Melanie Barnes, tapped to be the head the Domestic Policy Council, I was agape that she was so set on covering Obama's "betrayal" of the progressive left that she chose to all but ignore the President-elect naming a progressive as the "domestic policy czar"!
When it comes down to it, their specific beef:
is really,As if a Dem who served under the Clinton administration is "tainted". WTF? Progressive is not the only kind of Democrat. Now, if there are legitimate, substantive criticisms to be made of a specific nomination (as in the case of Brennan) that is always good for the democratic process. However, if the main root of the opposition is "Clintonites are not change", then check yourselves. Moderate and conservative Democrats voted, too, and they also deserve a seat at the table.
November 27, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we could rec individual comments, I would rec this. I am so sick of Greenwald, Hamsher, et al I could scream. I have hated Greenwald for most of the year (it is nearly impossible for me to respect someone who refuses to vote), but Hamsher is just as annoying. Where did these people get the idea that they were entitled to 100% representation in his administration? Many, many independents, republicans, centrist democrats and Clinton-philes gave Obama those 365 votes, not just disgruntled Kucinich supporters. And Obama is acting like someone who gets and respects that.
I didn't support Hillary for president either, but for God's sake what the fuck is up with this war on the Clintons? He wasn't Pol Pot, for God's sake.
November 27, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the criticism was constructive then no one should have a problem. If the criticism begins with Obama lied, betrayed, tricked, used us, threw under bus, or the infamous "I want my money back", then expect a lot of people to defend Obama because the criticism that follows is usually bull, or complete overreaction. I resent it when people claim some of us are following him blindly, drinking the Kool-Aid, or see him as The One. It is the complete opposite. I don't put him on a pedestal. I don't expect perfection or miracles. I know he is not perfect and he will not be a perfect President. Something he has told all of us several times. He also told us that he will do things that we won't agree with. Time and time again this man has shown us that he is not into petty and partisan bickering, that he doesn't care what his opponents say about him, that Dems don't have a monopoly on good ideas, that the change will come from him and he will be in charge. Yet, when he forgave Lieberman, vetted Clinton for SoS, decided to keep Gates on temporarily, so many on the left acted like they never saw it coming. I believe the real Kool-Aid drinkers are the ones who acted like they were blind sided. I see with much clarity. Obama is an imperfect human being working in an imperfect system run by other imperfect human beings.
November 27, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
What would you criticize him for?
November 27, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the others about Rachel. I thought I was the only one. I stopped watching her last week also and was praying for KO to come back. It is not the fact that she is being critical of Obama, it's that she should know better. If anybody should be able to explain why Obama is using former Clinton people or having Gates stay on, it should be Rachel. She is extremely smart and I thought she would see what he was doing instead of repeating the generic media and paranoid supporters question of "is this change we can believe in?" She says she reads a ton of news articles before she does her show and has followed the election like we have. If she had been really listening to Obama, I mean really listened to him, then his picks and actions so far have should not come as a surprise.
November 27, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rachel works best counter-punching. She seems to have a dearth of her own positive "talking points." Maybe it's her pessimistic outlook.
I also stopped watching back in the silly "talk me down" segments. I got tired of yelling at my TV, "Just go look at fivethirtyeight."
November 27, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with Anew08 again on this one. But Madow does usually have a guest to 'talk her down' and she is keeping pretty good tabs on the lame duck and any danger he may be posing. As long as she keeps a counter-point guest in her discussions, I am not threatened--and I do like her and she did a good job, before her new show, holding up the left.
Again Anew08 expresses my views rather well. Obama has not lied about anything. He has people on his various teams connected with every Administration since Kennedy except LBJ and Bush 41. The people he is about to put in place come from all over the country, there is ethnic and gender diversity, as well as occupational and educational diversity.
Chicago is not going to run the country, Washington DC is not going to run the country, the Clinton Gang is not going to run the country,Obama is going to run the Executive Branch with the best and the brightest and he is going to work zealously with the Congress to put in place changes the likes of which my generation has never witnesses before.
November 27, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are victims of the 24 hour news cycle. Everything has to have drama. O'Reilly,and etc, are all purveyors of rage. KO seems to be selling rage in another direction then FOX. Rachel came along on his coattails, but she holds her own.
This Talk Me Down segment suggests that EVERY DAY there has to be something so dramatic Rachel is up on a ledge ready to jump. Got Hope?!?
Re: Buchanan. Pat is to Rachel what Colmes is to Hannity. Neither one of them really have a good grasp on the moment, although they think they do. Colmes recently suggested that since the country is moving left, "his work is done". hey Colmes, take the money and shut up. You've embarassed yourself long enough sitting with your hands tied across from a rage merchant.
November 28, 2008 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and don't forget, Rachel wore the same type of Pajamas I am wearing right now.
November 27, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like Rachel, but I find I like her better on the radio than on T.V. Her T.V. show is frothier with more bells and whistles, which was fine before the election when they were deployed in support of "the cause." In the heat of battle, the froth was forgivable. Well, the battle is over, and froth doesn't work so well anymore.
BTW, when I say she's better on the radio, I mean her live radio show. The hour devoted to replay of the previous night's T.V. show sucks.
November 27, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I the only non-DLCer left in the USA?
Obama is not going to have the favorable international, domestic, or economic conditions that Clinton had in the 90s. But he's bringing in a team that had quite a bit of success handling peace, international approval, and a dotcom bubble. Whether or not they can deal with the catastrophic conditions the Bushes have left him remains to be seen.
Someone above says that progressives aren't the only kind of Dems. That's true. There are also DLCers, Blue Dogs, Dixiecrats and other obstructionists. But I doubt that their agenda is to move the country forward.
So go ahead. Turn Maddow off. I'm sure she has little to say that you "moderates" will appreciate. Count me among the cursed liberal purists -- also known as believers in justice and constitutionality.
November 27, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think DLC or non-DLC is the issue. I think people are willing to be "educated" re the ways in which Obama is not particularly progressive, or the ways in which his cabinet and administration picks aren't progressive. What we're discovering, I think, is that cutesy, whiney commentary -- e.g., "Really? Seriously? I'm just sayin'" -- works only when you're in complete agreement with what she's saying and better able to overlook the stylistic quirks. I don't know that anyone here is in violent disagreement with her complaints about Obama's picks. I hear what she's saying; I just don't have a strong sense of how the picks are going to play out. But, because I don't totally agree with Rachel and just want to hear what she thinks, I don't like the cutesy whiney.
November 28, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that she is very smart, but I was disappointed even before she began this whining. I wrote her and said that she should be able to find a more thoughtful conservative voice than Pat Buchanan, whom she says she greatly admires, but used to fear. I feel certain that if she proposed the same question to me and to Pat I could give an almost word-for-word of Pat's take on the subject. He has been saying the same script for a decade, and his prejudiced comments don't get any more palatable over time. (Actually, although I didn't get a response from her I haven't seen Pat on her program as much).
The "Talk Me Down" section was a loser for me from the first time I saw it. It seems contrived and is not enlightening. Her chirpy comments get on my nerves; I have the feeling I could rerun the same video daily and put in the latest audio and it would fit perfectly.
But OK; the point here was constructive criticism. She is smart and curious, and manages to disagree without pissing people off: all very positive, and unfortunately very rare in news coverage.
In my opinion she should go into more depth about specific issues and interview real experts rather than "opiners." She is smart enough to ask them questions based on their comments and it would add to the discourse. That kind of give-and-take is sorely needed.
The current hit-and-run-complaining (always with the exact same smile reaction) is a loser. Oh. And so is the "Pop Culture" segment at the end. (At least she didn't drag in Willie Geist (sp) to copy the dreaded Tucker, but come to think of it, it is definitely a copy-cat of Tucker's end of show [See, I'm human after all] section. The good news: Rachel doesn't need it; she is obviously human. The bad news: Tucker wasn't human and it didn't help him.
BTW, On NPR this am there was an interview with Juan Williams to "evaluate the Obama transition" (wonder why they only interview Fox News people). Juan referred to those who are questioning Obama's choices of so many Clinton associates as -- get this -- "FORMER OBAMA SUPPORTERS!"
Sheeeeesh! Keep alive guys, the work isn't over yet!
November 27, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also think part of the problem is the dearth of "news" since the election is over. Because we have "only one President at a time," Obama cannot really do any governing. Bush, meanwhile, is abdicating more and more of his job each day. So all of the shows are pouncing on miniscule "issues" to blow up into mountains.
The same is true with Morning Joe -- lately with the loud Dylan Ratigan of CNBC, harping on why isn't there more transparency, why doesn't somebody use Google for government, why do they have trash Wall Street? The same story continued in the afternoon on the David Gregory retread "1600" with Morning Joe's Mika Brzezinski in the host's chair with -- guess who? -- Dylan Ratigan again (with the same complaints) until he was taken to school on Google for Government by Ron Brownstein of Atlantic Media. But the following morning -- back on Morning Joe -- Dylan is whining about -- you guessed it -- Google for government.
Now I like Rachel Maddow. But like many of you I found myself tuning away after a few minutes. Part of it is the lack of any "new" news -- what is often described as "breaking news" is not. And in an attempt to be more like Keith, with his stock segments, Rachel has come up with some goofballs that lose their appeal quickly. Does "Lame Duck Watch" really need the appellation "Quackitude?" Shouldn't be one or the other, not both? How about some simple strong segments on things no one is talking about.
I suspect as we approach inauguration things will get better.
November 27, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come down, O¿O, come down!
It's a miracle that someone like Maddow is on the air to begin with but even more miraculous if she's offering critiques of Obama instead of calling in for her talking points like Limbaugh and Hannity.
I'm not saying I agree with her, and I myself am quite pleased with Obama thus far, but I'm very happy to have Maddow out there thinking for herself and complaining whenever she feels like it.
November 28, 2008 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
To put it another way, the Republicans are thankfully self-destructing, so it's up to us to serve the genuinely important role of "loyal opposition" when necessary.
November 28, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did anyone see the article the other day regarding Rachel and Keith's boss insisting that these two are not cheerleaders for Obama?
I think that has something to do with her latest tone.....self preservation.
November 28, 2008 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Somehow, I find it so refreshing that someone is using humor and doesn't take themselves too seriously as seems to happen to everyone given their own show. Sure, she doesn't always get it right and some of her style can be grating over time, but I for one appreciate the chuckles and the Quackitude. The news is bad enough and serious enough on every other station and from every other commentator - let's have one who can be irreverent and a little sarcastic. She's only had the show for 3 months and since the election, not much to talk about. As she's said, she doesn't always get who she wants to talk to and has to make do with who she does get.
I also appreciate her focusing on justice (ie torture and whether that's an issue that will be pursued) and the apparent disconnect between help for Wall Street and help for everyone else. If that is considered being too critical of Obama, isn't that the job of those in the media? Or have we just forgotten what that's like in the past 8 years?
December 1, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink