Hi Murphy, you have a pretty good sense of humor yourself. I fervently hope all I have heard recently, happens. The country needs a break, and I hope it is coming soon. Have a good one, talk to you later.

I certainly agree with the many positive comments about Rachel Maddow. She always seems to get the story straight and delivers it to those of us who enjoy good intelligent and truthful commentary, no matter what the subject matter is. I also think she should be herself. It’s what you believe and manage to give to your audience that is important. Keep up the good work Rachel and Thanks WOW Joyce Jones

You know I sure would like to hear more about Whoopi. I understand that she is involved with the Science Channel. I would certainly like to follow it but do not have the Science Channel listed. How do I gain access to the Science Channel other then spending more money which I do not have. Thanx Joyce Jones

I have been a "fan" of Rachel Maddow for a few years, dating back to her radio program with Liz Winstead.  There will never be a substitute for intelligence- not in comedy, not in journalism.  It’s makes the difference between an argument and a debate.  It is also the fundamental difference in discourse between men and women- one is physical, the other a more nuanced and intellectual exercise.    You cannot have a debate without research preparation- the mind has to understand what it hears to formulate responses and delve more deeply with more questions.   Rachael Maddow has a PhD in political science.  This is the topic she discusses.  She (like John Stewart) is well prepared which is why she is not threatened, and does not attack.  She does not lecture on weather, or health, or economic news- she knows her topic and her guests, which is why she offers a substantial show- open to humor, and critical analysis.  Olbermann, like many of the other men on MSNBC have fashioned for themselves a mantle fit for anti-Fox crusaders- and have lowered themselves substantially for an equal footing in mud slinging.  Even Dylan Ratigan was moved over from CNBC to offer a more politically charged show.  I don’t know who is now in charge of this station, but I hope he moves up into the GE building that is being sold off before it continues down this road toward caricature.  Rachel really is the last pillar of professionalism on this station, better suited for the limited audiences of NPR or PBS.  She should have taken over Meet the Press but the cowards in the news division didn’t have the courage to put an "unknown+woman" at the apex of that table.  (so much for their  focus on women this week)  politics itself has been reduced to bloodsport, all adrenaline, no brain, banging around between Fox and GE.  I still like Chris Matthews, wish he’d let others talk more, and use his backroom experience to enhance discussion instead of run over it.  Joe Scarborough, Olbermann, Ratigan, need to be edited with more commercial breaks instead of encouraging their unbearable egotistical sermonizing.  It is unfortunately the reason why many repeaters who post "opinions" so defensively on this site feel validated.  No matter what the topic, the same crew waste space here with unrelated anti-liberal/obama faux-patriotic flag-waving nonsense and ignorantly site blogs or partisan outlets like Newsmax to contradict concrete fact with mythological opinions they consider equivilent.  Rachel Maddow is a professional- she has credentials for this particular genre that are non-existant elsewhere- and I would argue that the embarrassing quality of  elected leadership does not automatically quantify as gained knowledge, and in fact should disqualify many based on the criminal and scandalous reasons for career change.   Dr. Maddow is the standard to be matched for the future of broadcast journalism.  If you turn off your radios and TV, and look around, not too many productive people watch TV for news, choosing instead to select their information sources- from the "google machine"- for good- and ill when you don’t triple check for facts.  No one under 25 listens to the radio, or has magazine/newspaper subscriptions.  It’s a new world, and thank goodness much of the thoughtless screaming on both sides has already begun the "countdown" as its days are numbered.   

I was once an avid watcher of Mr. Olberman but have since gotten tired of the bombast and agree he has become of parody of himself.  I do appreciate Ms. Maddow’s approach to interviews and debate.  We need more like her on TV. 

Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart are the most reliable sources for news. .  We get the facts about issues that matter are should matter to us all.

Rachel Maddow is very thorough with her facts and quicklly makes corrections when she discovers a mistake. 

My mother used to watch O’Riley and we were afraid she was going to have a stroke she would get so angry.   She thinks Rachel is great and we can relax.  She gets her fix by watching Keith O. bash O’Riley , Hannity and Beck.

I’ve only recently (in the last 4 months or so) discovered Rachel Maddow’s show and I am already a “fan”. Living in the country and having only acquired satellite TV about 2 years ago, I have been rather starved for some intellectual stimulation, especially since retiring at the rather young age of 53. She is thorough and willing to hear another side and give airtime to opposing viewpoints as well as being willing to admit when she has made a mistake. I respect that immensely. If it weren’t for her show and the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, I’d be a very dull “girl”.

What I like about Rachel is that I can believe what she says. She is not for show, she talks about what is going on and delivers an easy to follow summation of the facts that she has researched. She does not need anyone to help her deliver what she so brilliantly gives to us. It is a delight to listen to someone that you can believe and trust.