I love it when smart women shine. Go Rachel!

Susan Gabriel

I don’t trust Olberman…I think he has a chip on his shoulder and an agenda outside of politics.  Rachel is plenty smart and I like her presentation of issues.  But sometimes she makes me cringe and turn the channel when she’s too smug to be tolerated.

As far as MSNBC goes, I consistently like Morning Joe.

First, I must say that, until recently, I did not have either cable or satellite TV. This was for two reasons. First, neither was within our budget, nor is watching TV terribly important to us (we’re more readers than watchers). Second, my older son, whom is considered "special needs" (ugly PC term for severe behavioral issues and Asperger’s syndrome), had serious issues with extremely violent programs, and could make even the viewing of "normal" children’s cartoons into an ugly confrontation. We could, and did, prevent him from watching inappropriate programming, but if it were even remotely accessible it would provoke repeated ugly situations.

A full year after my older son moved in with his biological father, my husband and I, after much thought, decided to install a dish. We have very basic service. My younger son, who is "garden variety" enjoys it very much. We set limits, for him and ourselves. Television is for entertainment…we have a rather small, select group of programs that we watch regularly. These appear on various networks; we are not TV "snobs".

We also do not watch "talking heads" of any type or political persuasion. At this point, I will speak strictly for myself. I enjoy wow.com, but I am somewhat amazed at the response to Mr. Wow’s current piece. I am truly surprised that so many readers place so much emphasis on the opinions of media commentators with clear political (and sometimes obvious religious, and even gender and racial) agendas, who are paid significant amounts of money to state said opinions as facts, raise doubt and suspicion, and stir the pot, so to speak. These people are far more about entertainment, albeit dubious, than they are about factual reporting. Each time I hear about a new member of this lower life form, I look them up on the internet. I watch video clips of them, read their interviews and commentaries, and shake my head in dark amusement. I would not believe a single word that oozed out of their lips.

What astounded me in so many of the comments in this thread is that apparently many people are viewing some of these rabid proselytizers in a rather messianic aura of light and wisdom. They say that they’ve done research, documented the "facts", talked to people in a "position to be informed", so it must be true. Oh, and they’re making jokes at the perceived enemies expense, which validates their words even further. They’re funny people, why would they lie? O, wait, most, if not all, humans lie. Lies of ommission, lies of commission, white lies, black lies, lies to cause hurt, lies to relieve pain. People will lie when the truth would save them. This is true. It is not a conspiracy, it’s human nature.

However, in the case of these pundits of prevarication, it is also to cause anger, disturbance, and contention.  One writer claimed that no one called a certain media ranter because he had his facts right, and the "opposition" could not refute them. It could be the phone line is not hooked up. That would be the Occam’s razor solution. Or is permanently busy. But, it could also be that sensible, intelligent, thoughtful folks who oppose or disagree with him either do not watch his ravings, OR, have the common sense not to argue with a zealot. You cannot argue with a zealot. It is alot like skipping stones into the incoming tide. A serious waste of brain time. 

Do some of you seriously listen to the highly biased, not necessarily very well educated (a college degree does NOT mean you are well-educated…some students graduate after majoring in unprotected sex and beer pong) media, who are not really paid to think, but to act in the best interests (read: ratings) and political/religious/moral views of the network that they represent? Do you guage your political awareness, your knowledge of potential candidates, and your expectations based on their dubious information? O, and that would be the regular nightly news people. When you you start talking about the sincerity, accuracy, knowledge, and deeply held-beliefs of these alleged comedians/commentators/newspeople being worthy of actual consideration in your choices, and in proving your points, you have just completely jumped the shark…into outer, outer space. Can you not see them for what they are? 

As for me, I select political candidates by watching and listening to them, by viewing their history, and by using my own judgement. I have been wrong. I voted for George W. Bush. After the events of 9/11, I was reasonably sure that the odds were with him to keep this country safe. I most emphatically did not agree with his stances on women’s freedom of choice, religious issues, and gender orientation. Plus, he is an incredibly muckle-mouthed impromptu speaker, does not seem capable of an original idea, and always seemed vaguely confused. I did not know that he would generate such a debacle in Iraq, to the detriment of so many good men and women, allow the embarassment of Guantanamo, or make any of his other numerous errors. I do NOT believe that his decisions resulted in the lack of further terrorist attacks on United States soil, but I DO believe that many innocent people were persecuted, racism was promoted, and many, many American citizens had their privacy unnecessarily invaded. I made a bad judgement call.

I also voted for the much maligned (especially on this website) President Obama. I did consider John McCain. I did not agree with many of his policies and promises. I did not like his wife. With much of middle America suffering financially, I found it blackly amusing, but also remarkably insensitive and clearly totally out-of-touch when she wore $300,000 worth of designer outfits on the campaign trail, accessorized with plenty of diamond bling. And then there was the issue of McCain not being able to recall quite how many houses he owned…not really an issue for most folks, particullarly those who have been foreclosed on and left homeless. But then the bomb landed in the form of Sarah Palin. I could not, under any circumstances, vote for John McCain with Sarah Palin as his running mate. She is the antithesis of what I consider a valid candidate. She is inarticulate, and her folksy talk nauseates me ("you betcha!" agh). She is unable to answer the simplest of questions without meandering off into a senseless, babbling ramble. If the questions were in any way provocative (that does not mean "sexual", by the way) or, um, called into question her motives, honesty, past somewhat dubious performances, or anything about which she was ignorant (the list here seems endless) she simply refused to answer, or declined to be interviewed. And then there were her alleged beliefs (do I think she is honest? Not at all. I think she is a fraud.). No birth control, no choice for women, serious reactionary fundamentalist Christian beliefs, no sex before marriage. O, yes, that one. I’m not precisely sure how she thought dragging her unwed, underage, pregnant daughter, along with her rumored fiance, along on the campaign trail would help promote her agenda, but then I do think that not all of her synapses are firing correctly. The girl did look miserable, though, poor uneducated thing. And, of course, taking a brand new Down Syndrome infant along with her (I guess to prove her ability as a "working mom") further reinforced her idiocy. Down Syndrome babies are usually fairly delicate little things, much more susceptible to infection and distress than "garden variety" infants. I knew a full time working mom with just such an infant, and she was very careful not to stress the little one, who had the kind of heart ailment that is typical of the syndrome. So, I must question Sarah Palin’s motivations in bringing her pregnant daughter (was it punishment?) and fragile newborn (an obvious political maneuver) with her. 

So I voted for President Obama. I liked his ideas, his hopes, that he was breaking the tiresome mold of recent hopefuls. I don’t care how he dresses, if he’s charismatic or handsome, or what race or religion he is (though, frankly, I would welcome a non-Christian president). He has been in office for less than year. I want to remind all of you of that. Less. Than. One. Year. Yet so many of you hate him, disrespect him, or are seriously disappointed in him because he hasn’t caused the problems created and exacerbated in the last (at least) 24 years (I’m counting two Bush’s and Clinton here) to just magically evaporate. Do you think he came equipped with a magic wand? Or, given some of the very thinly veiled racism so many of you display, do you think he has some mystic juju that will make it all better? Many seem to think that Mrs. Palin would have done soooo much better. May I remind you that John McCain was the one actually running for president, not Sarah Palin? And that she is a woman rightly accused of abusing her office as governor for her own personal ends? Remember, people, less than one year, under enormous pressure from people who do not want to compromise, who want to remain static, whose sense of entitlement keeps them from seeing the suffering of others, especially those whose race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation does not match their own.

And one more thing…I see your warts, folks, when you speak of Michelle Obama. When you sneer at and criticize her clothing, jewelry and hair. When she shows her admirable, lovely arms, smiles her broad smile, dares to be feisty, out there, herself. I can hear you, you see, not quite daring to speak aloud "There she goes, how dare she, that uppity ‘n-word’." You’d like her in a flour sack perhaps? Submissive and dowdy? Or perhaps in pastel, proper suits, subdued pearls and church-lady hats? The Bush wife look? Give me a break. It’s about time we had a First Lady who loved life, who was feisty, who had an opinion, a style, and freedom. And for those of you who are Hillary Clinton fans, I suspect that Mrs. Obama might not be quite so "stand by your man" if she found out that her husband was playing cigar tricks with unstable interns in the oval office. Give all of thatirrational, ignorant hatred a rest, and try to remove those steel rods from where they seem to so firmly planted. 

Factoid: I am not economically disadvantaged, affiliated with ANY party, a minority or an atheist (sigh). Once only, I gave money to a homeless man and his 5-year old son, who was asleep in his lap. They were fairly clean, and the man was clearly neither a tweaker, junkie or crackhead. He had a cheap little sandwich for his son, and a little bottle of water, nothing for himself, and he was sitting in an inconspicuous place. It was by accident I saw them, while on my way to an expensive restaurant. I thought of my sons, and my modest home, and full fridge. It made me think about my life…alot.

peace

Rachel Maddow is the most refreshingly honest and smart news show around.

She has on opposition, she does her homework, sticks to the facts, and Rachel is fearless.

I admire her tremendously

Yes, Rachel is intellectually sublime.  While I usually (read that all caps) enjoy enjoy Keith, he certainly has his limits (please stop the voices, Keith) he is but the intro act for Rachel, like those warm up acts in Vegas.  Good, but not what the folks came for.

I just enjoyed rewatching Rachel show us the vaccuousness that is Tamera of the motivational empire.  Rachel asked the right questions, and yes used the right expressions to let the woman expose herself to anyone who thinks. 

 http://www.squidoo.com/mikabrzezinski

I agree that Maddow is great, but still like Olbermann. After all the silliness that parades as truth on Fox news, I like that we have a tough guy on the left.

However, I mostly wanted to register my disagreement with this statement, that didn’t belong at all in this opinion piece, Mr. Wow. 

"Well, he is, but that’s a general distress, brought on every day by the latest Obama gaffe – do we really need the president down in the gutter feuding with FOX News? So, whatever happens politically – that is, should the ineffectual Obama lose the White House in 2012"

Yes, we do need a feud with Fox News. The problem with Democrats historically is that they have been weak and let the right push them around. I like that he isn’t just letting them run around and make sh*t up. (To paraphrase Sarah Palin)

Secondly, what Obama gaffes? List something of importance…can’t? It’s because there haven’t been any. And even if there were, who wouldn’t gaffe when they are followed by cameras every minute of the day and there are multiple 24-hour news channels to comment on everything—from the fly you kill during an interview to you mumbling that Kanye was a jack***?

Give him a break. I am surprised he has not gone completely insane from all the pressure on him, not to mention the fact that threats against him and his beautiful family are 400% more than for George Bush (there are more than 30 threats daily), and the Secret Service is stretched thin.

The problem isn’t his being ineffectual, the problem is that we on the left have UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS.

Methinks that snarky conclusion stems from Mr. wOw not getting over the fact that Hillary isn’t president.