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.

Lesley Stahl | 01/26/2009 8:30 am

Lesley Stahl Asks Rachel Maddow: What Do You Do at 7 on Sundays?

Lesley Stahl
LESLEY: You have doubled the ratings for MSNBC at nine o’clock. So my question is, how much fun are you having? I hope my bosses don’t see this, but the truth is, I love what I do in news so much, that I would pay them, and you look as though you’re having that kind of fun.

RACHEL: I am having that kind of fun, I can honestly say.  I’ve had about 300 different jobs in my life and I sort of feel like I’ve been a chit in the job lottery and my ticket just came up. Like I won the best job in the world, and I don’t really have a total grasp of how I got it – and I don’t know how long it’ll last. But as long as I have it I’m going to play it for all it’s worth.

LESLEY: Well, you’re doing great. But I have some questions, first off, about demeanor, because one would have thought that the ticket to cable heaven or something like that is a temper tantrum: The anchor shouts and the audiences come. But you are congenial. I’ve never seen you get angry and yet you’re drawing a crowd. So we have Obama; we have Rachel Maddow, lowering the temperature, cooling the hostility. What’s going on? Do you think that there’s been a real change in the public’s appetite?

RACHEL: Well, I don’t know. I guess that will become evident if this becomes a bigger trend than the trend that you’ve just identified. But, the way that I see it strategically, is that those in talk radio – which is sort of where I come from – and television, you’re trying to get people to connect with you; you’re trying to draw people in. And one way to do that is to express anger and vituperation and indignation. That draws people in. It is something that is very compelling, just in human terms. But another way to draw people in and to have people feel like they’re invested in you and they care about what you’re going to say next, is if they relate to you. I think that’s more the direction that I’m going. I think I have the same amount of anger as everybody else. I just don’t think it’s my best side and so I don’t try to show it very much in public.

LESLEY: Do you explode?

RACHEL: No.

LESLEY: When we’re not watching you? Or is this just your temperament, is this who you are?

RACHEL: I think it is my temperament.  I do feel like I’m hosting, and so I ought to be a congenial host, even with people with whom I disagree. I’m asking people to be part of my program, not because I want to hurt them but because I believe that they have something to say. And so I feel like I ought to, just in terms of manners, ought to treat them that way.

LESLEY: Well, of course, other anchors don’t see it that way, as we well know.

RACHEL: No, but I am not a person who enjoys humiliating people.

LESLEY: I have to ask you something that is apropos of absolutely nothing. But I did hear that you do not own a television set. It’s true, right?

RACHEL: Yes.

LESLEY: Yes. So before we get very far, I want to ask you if you have the foggiest idea who the hell I am.

RACHEL: I’ve Googled you extensively. Don’t worry.

LESLEY: Oh, OK. So you know me from Google. So what do you think?

RACHEL: I know. Your whole career is online, don’t worry.

LESLEY: What do you do Sunday night at seven o’clock? I have a great idea for you. What are you usually doing?

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

Lee Harrison
Leslie, Thanks for a great interview. I all but gave up watching Rachel because she comes across as snide. It is nice to see a different side of her here.
By Lee Harrison on 01/26/2009 9:34 am
Alice Alice
I don’t understand your impression of Rachel as “snide” at all. I quit watching MSNBC because of the arrogant, snide, smug hosts. Then Rachael came along. I watch not only because she’s smart but also because she’s civil - a perfect example of Obama’s mantra, “you can disagree without being disagreeable.” It was a good interview, Leslie, but a few times I wanted to hear/read the end of Rachael’s answer to your question but you interrupted her. And by the way, Rachael is right: Chris Matthews is a very uncertain liberal … and barely a journalist.
By Alice Alice on 01/26/2009 4:10 pm
Lee Harrison
Alice, I’ll give her another try…but I really did think she was snide and sanctimonious the few times I watched. Truthfully…I think most of the talking heads are like that, so maybe I’m not the best judge. Chris Matthews drives me up a wall…but then I don’t like yelling;-)
By Lee Harrison on 01/26/2009 4:56 pm
Buh- Bye
Look in the dictionary under the word snide and you’ll find Keith Oberman’s photo.
By Buh- Bye on 01/28/2009 9:45 am
immoddesta godessa
She is and has been fantastic on AIR AMERICA for a couple of years now and as o f10 . 15. 08 I have been hoping that she would provide the press with the news from the oval ofice! She’s as bright as Obama, has his interests at heart and could difuse the rabid beat press with some humor when needed! BLESSINGS GALORE Rachel!! just sayin’ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By immoddesta godessa on 01/27/2009 1:19 pm
Lee Harrison
Imm, Lesley’s interview and all the comments on this thread prompted me to watch her the other night. I see her appeal and she’s obviously razor sharp. What I find so unattractive is the obvious glee she displays while attacking and making fun of her target, and her attitude that she’s so much smarter than anyone she disagrees with. For example, she ruthlessly attacked the House Republicans for trying to stop the stimulus package. Rachel’s attitude was the Republicans are stupid and that they are engaging in a political move to stop Obama. It just never occurred to her that ideologically, the Republicans can’t back a move they believe will harm the country. But, I promise, I’ll keep watching her;-)
By Lee Harrison on 01/28/2009 6:34 am
sang mo
It just never occurred to her that ideologically, the Republicans can’t back a move they believe will harm the country. ” She’s not the only person who doesn’t buy that line. After the last 8 years, its hard for many people to believe that the republicans have an ideology that gives a shit about the country or its citizens.
By sang mo on 02/04/2009 11:13 pm
EKA -
After having just read the Bernie Goldberg post, THIS is what I’m talking about, Rachel Madow, an avowed lefty, is not angry, not destructive. She comes from a philosophical viewpoint but understands there is a value in different viewpoints and enjoys the discussion of those differences. And, man, the woman is S M A R T , disagree with her if you must, but you must acknowledge that she is a first class mind. The best thing to come along on TV in ages … and isn’t it serendipitous that she shows up NOW, at exactly the time when we need intelligent conversation. I love that woman !!!!
By EKA - on 01/26/2009 9:35 am
DeBúrca obj
AND… she comes equipped with a PhD in Political Science, as opposed to Limbaugh and Hannity, both college drop outs. That is the difference in the Liberal commentators and the Right Wing Conservative commentators, education and actual knowledge of their subject. However, this puts the Liberals at a disadvantage because they are usually not as good at reducing ideas to sound bytes, and yelling over their opposition.
By DeBúrca obj on 01/26/2009 10:30 am
maria lampert
when Eka admits “I love that woman!!!!” what really drives her opinion of Madow?
By maria lampert on 01/26/2009 2:46 pm
Catherine Kaiman
what exactly are you implying?
By Catherine Kaiman on 01/26/2009 4:23 pm
phyllis Doyle Pepe
EKA: I couldn’t agree more. I think she is absolutely terrific! One of the things I like about her is that she is a teacher. Have you noticed how she goes into detail about things––explains, deciphers. At one point she had a guest that was savvy in the Israeli/Gaza situation. They had a large map that they kept referring to; it was like a mini course. The fact that she has this wonderful sense of humor adds so much to her delivery. She’s a straight shooter with an edge. Her self deprecating comment about what she does as “low art” is laughable. In this day and age it’s as high as can be (since reading doesn’t seem to be that much in fashion) and Rachel is way up there swinging on a satellite.
By phyllis Doyle Pepe on 01/26/2009 5:26 pm
Patty E
And get this: I have emailed her shows…and she DOES correct herself, when she makes a boo-boo——no defensive ‘walls’…
By Patty E on 01/26/2009 9:49 am
Roger from Ohio
I have to agree with the rest….. that was a great interview. I dont usually “make a point” to watch the Rachel Maddow show, and only catch it a couple times a week…. but that is going to change.
By Roger from Ohio on 01/26/2009 9:51 am
Brooklyn Gal
What a pleasure to know that their is a woman out there who can say “this is my ideology, but that doesn’t mean I have to be crass”. I may not agree with her on all the issues, but I can certainly respect her as a person. It would be nice if Wow could let her also do I feature the way it did…well, you know who?
By Brooklyn Gal on 01/26/2009 9:52 am