Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Mr. wOw | 10/20/2009 4:00 am

In Defense of My Favorite 'Sick Puppy' – Rachel Maddow, by Mr. wOw

By Mr. wOw
© AP
Last week, the former president of the United States, George Bush I, weighed in on opinionated cable yakkers. He allowed that there was a "lack of civility" all around, and was generous enough to concede that President Obama was "entitled to civil treatment." (This is quite a lot coming a man married to Marie Antoinette, aka Barbara Bush. Who can ever forget BB’s pronouncement that the devastated Americans corralled into the Astrodome, to escape Hurricane Katrina, were actually living better than they usually did? "This is working out very well for them.")

But of course, the one-time, one-term president had to single out the talking heads on the left, referring to MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow as "sick puppies."

While I wouldn’t go so far as to call Olbermann a sick puppy, he has definitely worn thin. I once found him smart and not too over-the-top to irritate, but during last year’s campaign, he went off the rails – as did all the males on MSNBC – over the possibility that Hillary Clinton might win the Democratic nomination. And when she wouldn’t just fold up her tent and leave the campaigning field open to Obama, his head and his ego exploded, and it has been a swollen mess ever since.

Olbermann has become a parody of himself, preaching to the converted every night. He has his fans, for sure, but what he generally induces in Mr. wOw is a series of cringes. I’m on his side, but want him to shut up most of the time. And I detest that bit of business at the end: "This is the whatever day since George W. Bush declared mission accomplished in Iraq." What does that have to do with anything now? Enough. And Olbermann’s paper crunching and tossing it at the camera (his audience?) – showy and nastily aggressive.

Which brings us to Ms. Maddow. She began popping up on MSNBC as a guest, often sparring, quite enjoyably, with Pat Buchanan (and infamously, with Joe Scarborough, who did not enjoy the experience). She seemed to have been brought up through the auspices of Olbermann, they were friends. Olbermann clearly respected her. And what was not to respect? She was a breath of fresh air on cable: intelligent, prepared, reasonable, amusing, blessedly devoid of the self-activated intolerant scream button that afflicts so many.

Maddow’s star was rising, and just so we knew it, MSNBC tried to slap on a bit of eyeliner on and femme her up slightly. Not only was this unnecessary, it looked unattractive. For one brief, terrible moment Mr. wOw feared her boyish haircut was going to be poofed into some sort of faux "do." Tailored simplicity shouldn’t be messed with.

Clearly, Maddow was being groomed for her own show, and finally, it happened. Initially, however, it looked as if she was too much a creature of, and too influenced stylistically, by Olbermann. She was suddenly "cute." She made funny faces, she used funny voices. Once I turned her on to find her wearing a funny hat! She was also relentlessly snarky. That becomes tiring. And then there was that guy at the end of her show, the "pop culture" maven, or whatever he was (still is) to riff on something insubstantial. As if anything insubstantial is wanted from Rachel Maddow. She was no less intelligent, prepared and reasonable, but she was losing something valuable and unique in what appeared to be an attempt to be one of MSNBC’s frat boys. Mr. wOw was distressed.

408 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

C Hardy
Countrywoman what I hear on FOX is nothing you would ever hear on any other news station b/c they are too scared to report or say how they truly feel b/c the White House might come after them and those on the left may call them racist.  They can’t even run a commerical against Obama or even say one word negative about Obama no matter how many wrongs he does to try and get it right….Sad very sad - I’ll take FOX and their opinions anyday. 
By C Hardy on 10/21/2009 3:19 pm
~ countrywoman ~

Hi Mrs. Hardy

I wonder how you reached the conclusions about why Faux "reports" what they report, ("scared") because my own view of their agenda is very different from yours.  That said, they have every right to air their opinions, and there should be no argument with that.  My problem with them is that they often spin those opinions as fact, and as real news.  I know that other networks do it too, blurring the line between news and opinion, but nowhere close to the way Fox does it.  (I base this conclusion on my own research, not what others opine.) 

I guess we all gravitate toward the information that best fits our own beliefs?  Which is fine unless we are basing our beliefs on false information.  Would you be surprised to learn that I never fail to watch Fox News Sunday?  Sometimes I even learn something there.  But if that was my only source of unverified information, I shudder to think how dangerously misinformed I would be.  That would comport with MY definition of sad.

Re commercials against Obama and his policies, I can’t know what is broadcast in your corner of the world, but where I live I have seen MANY anti-Obama ads aired on both local and satellite networks.  (Some of them are so loaded with false information that I wonder why the station/network was willing to run them on that basis alone, never mind the politics!)

There is one comment in your post that I especially appreciate…..I note that you have at least credited our President with TRYING TO GET IT RIGHT, even though you obviously take exception to the way he goes about it.  So much of what I read from those who criticize him is just hateful manufactured denigration.  I see Obama as an intelligent, decent, patriotic, family man who has good intentions.  I do not agree with everything he is doing, but I think he is doing his best to make things better for all of us.  And I believe he is making progress in spite of all the efforts to cause him to fail.   

 

By ~ countrywoman ~ on 10/21/2009 4:51 pm
C Hardy

The 3 I mentioned, Beck, O’Reiley and Hannity - I never hear them say their opinion is fact unless they have uncovered something such as ACORN and then they back it up with proof.  I have just recently started watching and listening to FOX - use to watch O’Reiley years ago but he started to get on my nerves and came on too late for me….Now I listen to him in the mornings on my sirus radio -

 I dont think Obama set out to fail and I truly hope he doesnt b/c that means WE the Americans he is leading fails.  I think he lied to us with his pork package and with his healthcare speech but I think he is trying to correct that.  Yes I know its a slow process but I can still be critical when I dont like how slow he is moving. 

I dont listen to Rachael so I cant comment on her - I’ll have to go out there and see if I cant catch when she comes on….I know those stations are on my dish just gotta find them.

By C Hardy on 10/21/2009 5:29 pm
~ countrywoman ~

We are on a roll today, C Hardy………I am hopeful that you will check out Rachel’s show, I suspect you will find it very interesting.  It is on MSNBC (a channel I do not get on my dish) but you can also link to her on the net:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show

I do watch O’Reilly sometimes, he makes some good points from time to time, and he is VERY entertaining.  I even bought his latest book as a gift to one of my very dear Republican pals.  (You may already know that some of the proceeds from his book go to help our military personnel?)  Win/win!

You not only can be critical, Mrs. H, it is our duty as Americans to call ‘em as we see ‘em!!  In my own opinion though, the right and duty to criticize carries the responsibility to do so based on reality, not just the counter-productive fictional snark that some post here and elsewhere.  Call me Pollyanna, but I believe that WE THE PEOPLE are finding our voices again, and beginning to help make a much-needed difference!  

(I wonder how your little flower girl has grown since those early photos, but I do understand why a parent would be reluctant to post a photo of her child these days.  We will all just have to use our imaginations.  :~}

By ~ countrywoman ~ on 10/21/2009 6:17 pm
Zera Lee

Welcome back, countrywoman. Welcome back. (^_^)

By Zera Lee on 10/22/2009 4:04 pm
~ countrywoman ~

Thanks, Zera Lee, so nice to find your kind words here!

+~~

By ~ countrywoman ~ on 10/22/2009 9:50 pm
True Taylor

Hey ~ countrywoman~,

Great post as usual. Lovely to see (read:) you again!

By True Taylor on 10/22/2009 12:20 pm
True Taylor
My comment was in response to By ~ countrywoman ~ on 10/20/2009 10:43 pm   Not sure how it ended up way down here.  :>)
By True Taylor on 10/22/2009 12:29 pm
~ countrywoman ~

True Taylor…..I so appreciate your message.  Thanks for the thumb’s up!

+~~

By ~ countrywoman ~ on 10/22/2009 10:03 pm
Lizzie R.
This thread is supposed to be about Rachael, but seems to have morphed to Beck/Limbaugh. Neither of them can hold a candle to Rachael, as she is truly educated with a PhD from Oxford, and is always a lady. She has people from both patries and is always polite if she disagrees with a guest with an opposing idea. I was quite pleased when a guest called her Dr.Maddow, with respect to her  education. It is refreshing to watch her and know she is above a lot of the other women "news readers" who look like babes. I always enjoy all her guests and the intellectual discussions they have. I can’t understand why Bush, the elder, called her a "sick puppy."
By Lizzie R. on 10/21/2009 12:12 am
Baby  Snooks

I can’t understand why Bush, the elder, called her a "sick puppy."

________________

The psychoanalysts would call it projection on his part.  As in takes one to know one. I wrote the Bushes off that day in the Astrodome with that comment of hers.  So appalling. And so revealing.  Mainly how people in this country will blindly follow any old Pied Piper who comes along and plays whatever song they want to hear.  And of course don’t noticed the water rigins around them as they begin to drown. 

By Baby Snooks on 10/21/2009 12:17 am
C Hardy
Lizzie so what your saying is that no one can touch Maddow b/c of her PhD?  I didnt think it took an education to give your opinion on how you think or feel about current situations.  Hmmmm imagine that you now need to have  PhD to have a good thought?  Who knew.
By C Hardy on 10/21/2009 3:21 pm
Lizzie R.
Intelligence goes a long way.
By Lizzie R. on 10/21/2009 6:48 pm
C Hardy
Lizzie I dont have a PhD but I am intelligent!!!  You dont need a PhD to be intelligent….
By C Hardy on 10/21/2009 7:02 pm
Lizzie R.
I have a BS degree, plus one year post-grad. I have great admiration for anybody who can go on the earn their doctorate. It takes a lot of intelligence, work and tenacity to earn a PhD, so do not diminish it. Of course, you are intelligent, but there are degrees of intelligence. She is to be admired, even if you dislike her for some reason.
By Lizzie R. on 10/21/2009 8:05 pm