Mr. wOw | 10/20/2009 4:00 am
In Defense of My Favorite 'Sick Puppy' – Rachel Maddow, 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.
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.
Read more about: Barack Obama, Fox News, George H.W. Bush, Keith Olbermann, Mr. Wow, Rachel Maddow, U.S.























408 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
You seem to be obsessed with Obama’s ratings. Here’s an historical ratings device for you to ponder:
Presidential Approval Ratings, Since 1950
Below are the highest and lowest approval ratings ever received by a president in a national opinion poll throughout his presidency.
Presidential Approval Ratings, Since 1950 Below are the highest and lowest approval ratings ever received by a president in a national opinion poll throughout his presidency. President Highest Rating Lowest Rating Harry Truman 87% 23% Dwight Eisenhower 79% 48% John F. Kennedy 83% 56% Lyndon Johnson 79% 35% Richard Nixon 67% 24% Gerald Ford 71% 37% Jimmy Carter 75% 28% Ronald Reagan 68% 35% George H.W. Bush 89% 29% Bill Clinton 73% 37% George W. Bush 90% 29% Source: Can West News Service; CNN; "The Ups and Downs of Presidential Popularity," Ron Faucheux, Campaigns and Elections magazine.
The war in Iraq was not a monumental blunder if that is what you so frequently refer to. Many, including President Obama, have stated that the U. S. made Iraq a better place for their people. You stay hung up on that for some reason even after Obama has openly stated that it made a difference.
I do want to thank you for the historical presidential ratings. What is worth mentioning is that Obama’s ratings have plummeted very early in his presidency. I do not see how he can recover because of the debt he has created while "experimenting" with ways to stimulate the economy.
Polls are important because they measure how Americans feel on a regular basis. What is significant here is that Americans don’t trust this administration. That’s bad juju for Pennsyvania Avenue.
F P, we haven’t failed. We’ve been through many wars brought on by both democrats and republicans! For you to suggest that one president bears all of the fault is ludicrous. Simply ridiculous.
Those of us on the right have very good memories, F P. We know our history and we know a bad president when we see one. It’s a far left leaning agenda that occupies the White House now. That is never good for America. Never. As we continue to be equally divided in this country due to a polarizing president we have to ask ourselves one question. "Why is this president incapable of bringing this country together with confidence, hope and less government involvement?" Obama is for Obama and the far left wing that got him elected….government control, spreading the wealth and loss of our freedom of speech. Polarizing….
If your stomachs are strong enough take a look at the kind of "news" these people watch.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/the-ten-most-egregious-fo_n_327…
This will be on Rachel’s show tonight, I suspect. But even so: For those who don’t support President Obama, you might want to skip the following link. For those who do support him, here’s the link to his talk last night in New York City. If you want to skip the intro, his talk starts at about the 7:30 mark. I suggest you watch it straight through to the end; the speech really does have its moments. Best to y’all …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzqJUKFMa10
and the polls you look at are too liberal…
That same Rasmussen Report survey of likely 2012 Republican primary voters finds that only 39% have at least a somewhat favorable opinion of Chairman Michael Steele, including a mere 11% with a very favorable view of him. And even sadder was 68% of Republicans said the GOP had no clear leader in March, but by May 37% believed there was a leader somewhere. Not sure where though. But what about the women in the GOP? Forty-one percent (41%) of female GOP voters are not sure what they think of Steele. Tsk Tsk.
So, who is the GOP leader for 2012? Big mystery. And such sad numbers… only (29%) of Republican voters say former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is their pick to represent the GOP in the 2012 presidential campaign, while 24% prefer former gov. Mitt Romney. Failin ‘Palin is way down in the teens ( 18%).
And so it goes. The GOP continues to wander in circles in the wilderness. Such a shame.
Gosh, Maggie,..if only we had some really inspiring leaders like the Dems…..Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Charley Wrangle….
Why I know you’re just as proud as a big ol’ peacock!!!