Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiMaddow Annoyed by Dems, Flattered by Groupies
Rachel Maddow was unknown outside of progressive circles when she began her nightly cable show on MSNBC in September. Not anymore.
![[Rachel Maddow didn't own a television until last week. (Frederick M. Brown / Getty Images) ]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/maddow-2.jpg "maddow-2.jpg")
Catching the wave of interest in political news and commentary, the Rhodes Scholar's mix of smarts and snark and girl-next-door approachability caught ratings fire. Almost immediately, the Castro Valley native was frequently beating CNN's Larry King in the nightly ratings (although King had more overall viewers in February). Not bad for somebody who didn't own a television until last week. It still hasn't been turned on, said Maddow, who fears once she starts, she won't be able to stop watching.
That hasn't prevented her from appearing on late-night TV shows over the past month (Stewart, Letterman, Fallon). The Stanford University graduate and former activist is back in San Francisco tonight to headline a fundraiser for Mother Jones magazine that is expected to raise $100,000.
We caught up with Maddow, 35, to talk about everything from what Democrats are doing wrong to how she deals with groupies. Here are excerpts from the conversation.
Q: You are a proud progressive, yet you regularly take on the left. What has the Obama administration done wrong so far?
A: Oh, tons of stuff. State secrets? That was in a San Francisco courtroom, wasn't it? The judge was so incredulous that the Obama Justice Department folks were going to continue with the Bush administration's argument that one of these horrible terrorism rendition cases should be dismissed on the basis that the whole idea of it was secret. Not that a specific piece of evidence was secret, but that the whole idea of the case was about a secret thing. (And the administration) dropped the enemy combatant designation, but kept all of the meaningful things about making somebody an enemy combatant. So there's been a bunch of important national security/constitutional things where the outcome is confusing at best and a continuation of the Bush administration policy at worst.
Q: How does the president sell his budget, not only to Republicans, but to people in his own party?
A: The thing that is sort of pathetic and funny is that the people he has most to sell it to is these conservatives who have decided to assert their own power by siding with the Republicans against the president. If progressives and Democrats want to gnash their teeth about anything right now, don't waste it on the Republicans, save it for (Sen.) Evan Bayh, D-Ind.
Conservative Democrats decided to wait until there was a Democratic president to say that we insist there be fiscal responsibility and no additional deficit spending. They waited through the entire Bush administration and didn't say anything like that. Meanwhile, Bush turned a hundreds-of-billions surplus into a trillion-dollar deficit and Evan Bayh didn't say beep. He had to wait until there was a Democrat in there so he can feel that he can get in opposition.
Q: Why is that? Is that a lack of political courage? Is it opportunism?
A: I think it's a defect in the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party doesn't feel pressured enough by its base. They feel like the way to show cojones, the way to really to show that they are tough guys, is to take on their party from the right. So that's how Evan Bayh is trying to make people remember how to spell his name - is by seeking to be the opposition to Obama in the Senate. Which would be great for him if he were a Republican. But the fact that people elected him to go be part of the Democratic majority in Washington and now he's using that opportunity to essentially empower the Republicans and obstruct the president's agenda is sort of pitiful. I think that won't happen if the liberal base and if the people who voted in the giant Democratic majority in Washington let him hear about it.
Q: Now that you're a nightly presence on television, you have developed quite the cult following - from your female fans, mostly. You've been in a long-term relationship (for 10 years next month). How do you feel about your groupies?
A: It is a delicate balance between being very flattered by it and pretending it's not happening. (Laughs.) I don't think it's helpful to dwell on that, because I don't think it can do anything good to my mind. So I try not to dwell on it, while also appreciating that people are kind.
Listen to Joe Garofoli's complete interview with Rachel Maddow as a podcast at sfgate.com/ZGOO.
45 Comments so far
Show AllI have a crush on the lady and I'm the opposite sex!! Seriously, Rachel is a prize for conservative, anal retentive corporate media, not to mention their deprived audience. It's almost enough that she's bright and informed, but her personality shines above even that. That said, I would call her a progressive Liberal. Her only competition, Keith Obermann is more of a liberal Progressive, just falling short of real anti-Establishment/media credentials. My main question, however, goes to the interviewer, Garafoli. Where the heck do you get the idea that Rachel attacks the Left? What Left? Democrats with few exceptions are either centrists or those Blue dog conservative Demos mentioned, to Right of center. Left would be Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinish, whom she's always agrees with, so far. And by the way, why is there no Left on our "free market" media? No free market of ideas here maybe? Amy Goodman's Democracy Now demostrates what a real free market of media offerings might actually look like.
Rachel is a Democrat who fully supports same sex marriage. That's it. She's not a progressive. She fully supports Israel. She fully supports the War in Afghanistan and the actions in Pakistan. She pretty much fully supports O-blah-blah and his agenda. She's a Democrat. She once seemed much more progressive than she is today - when she was a radio jock on WRSI, but those days are long gone.
And who can't just giggle at the sophmoric fashion statement, with her severe (as Ignatious J. Reilly would say)Myrna Minkhoff-for-the-new-millenia eyewhere? Definitely a product of Air America. She's more entertaining than most of the other pro Zionists on the idiot box but what she does and what Amy Goodman does really are completely different things. Amy Goodman is a journalist and not the type of talking head that would make a not so brilliant analysis/connection between speeches that presidents make and "the little green arrows at the bottom of your screen" as she did one day after a Bush speech. She's just another talking head with a niche/market who certainly isn't telling anyone that pays attention anything that they already didn't know. The sarcasm is sophomoric too.
Amy Goodman is a serious journalist and a national treasure. It is not fair to compare anyone to Amy, Juan and the crackerjack staff at Democracy Now. They are quality folk.
Maddow serves a purpose too, as someone who can interest the wider general public in issues presented in a smart and entertaining way. She gets people to pay attention, which is an accomplishment. Sometimes the commentary can shade over to sophomoric, but hey! don't sophomores count?
But yes, she has some glaring blind spots.
Joe
I have a crush on the lady and I'm almost seventy.
Take your meds....;-)
Yeah why no articles on the seal hunt?
Christ-only Fox news had a story on it.
Come on CD, you were the site that introduced me to SHAC.
Cut down on the Obama focus.
Have more articles on the green scare.
Vote Green...screw the Dems...especially the Stenny Hoyer DLC Clintonite types...they are as evil as the republican leaders.
Somehow I got on Sen. Mark Udall's (D-CO and a Conservadem) mailing list and was just asked for some campaign money. I fired off a howling made reply that he got in on Obama's coattails in November(like his brother in NM, my home state, who's not in the Bayh coalition) and his aligning basically with the Blue Dogs is a slap in the face of the new administration. What audacity! We all need to let such lily-livers--who were meek as mice the past eight years--are not the types of Dems this country needs right now. I hate self-righteous politicians who bait and switch.
http://freesolaradvice.blogspot.com
My parents watch her every night. Personally though, I could take or leave her. She's swims too much in the Mainstream Democrat pool for my tastes. Better her and Keith O. than O'Really and Dimblaugh I guess.
Great, a Smart Lesbian in the MSM!
And a progressive, triple great!!
Rachel is Righteous, but there is one black-hole in her perceptions.
She is a Zionist who recites Israeli Propaganda word for word-
Please! Before reacting to that, Google 'American Hummus Maddow,' and hear for yourself, "Rachel Maddow Strikes Out On Gaza." A clip of her speaking. It was sad to hear yet another powerful MSM voice speaking against the Palestinians.
But other than that....a progressive Lesbian on tv? Yeah!
Well, her position on Israel and Zionism is enough to tell me that she is just for show. It's maddening (unintentional pun on her name) that someone who comes across as a decent human being has such a giant blind spot for the Palestinians.
YAWN, more of the same, just wrapped in more palatable packaging.
You know as well as I do that if any MSM TV host were to question Israel's 'right to self-defense' in the slightest they would be yanked off the air faster than you could think it. It's far too taboo a subject still in this country...hopefully that will change, and soon.
zmann, Quite true, In Rachel's case though the pro-israel rhetoric is notable because she is progressive in many other arenas. Unlike most msm hosts who are not progressive re any issues. I too hope this will change, however I see it going the other way-more and more Americans slowly inculcated into believing Palestine is a lost cause, oh the rockets they launch at israel etc... best, joe.
Pleae notice how anyone with any views that threaten the accepted orthodoxy are marginalized by highlighting their personality rather than their substance.
The best thing about Rachel Maddow is that even though she has a TV she has (so far) refused to watch it. Rachel do yourself another favor and don't even plug it in--because while you think you are watching TV it will be watching you.
Poet
You beat me to it, Poet......If one wonders why the left is always marginalised and powerless one simply has to read some of the ridiculous comments posted here. Many really need to get a clue.
The topic inventory on CD includes an overview of the vital G20 meeting as well as the outrage it will bring to a head in London this week (thousands are expected to engage with local authorities in various acts of heated demonstration), the pending prosecution by Judge Baltasar Garzón in Spain of the Bush regime accused of crimes against humanity, Obama's ill-conceived escalation of the Afghan war (the site of a civilian blood flow to rival only the Vietnam debacle), the largely unaddressed rising homeless crisis--newly aggravated by the ongoing economic meltdown (with entire families relegated to tent-dweller status, their lives literally wrecked)
AND...the one and only poster child for lesbian identity in these here U-nited States, RM. Isn't that fun! Is this People magazine, or a thoughtful forum examining and commenting upon the seemingly endless crises now facing humanity throughout the world? Lives are hanging in the balance, and you find relevance in TV entertainment time!
CD: let's pretend that intelligence is THE crucial aspect of one's existence, i.e., that it's important to cultivate one's intelligence--just pretend...for a start. That is, by all means, be proud of RM--but somewhere else (e.g., at home).
if you actually read this article, you would have seen that there was quite a bit of substance in the interview and this is not just a celebrity profile - maybe you should read the Washington Post and waste your criticisms on mainstream media sources which provide us with none of the information you mentioned.
To repeat:
I did read the article, and, no, there was not "quite a bit of substance" to be had there. A celebrity profile--partial or not--has no place in the mix CD has codified, which socio-political mix was listed in the original comment.
Said another way: It's akin to Obama appearing with Leno. Cute Cute Cute--TOO cute, in fact. And, utterly irrelevant--and, worse, since it tends to divert attention-- to what is occurring in our world, owing to Empire.
RM reads like a Yuppie media darling feathering her narcissistic nest at every opportunity. People magazine or Entertainment Tonight--possibly...
And, many Washington Post and NYT articles--corporate media though they most assuredly are (and, they are indeed scrutinized for every possible lapse in diligence and honesty owing to biases)--do not include a nod to excited, lesbian groupies in the header. Groupies!
The critique comes by way of keeping CD's standards up above the corporate fray. If readers were indifferent then it wouldn't matter in the slightest what went on here. But, as it stands in the world (original comment) have we got the luxury of being diverted at this point in the game? That's the work of the MSM, not an enlightened, focused web forum--or one which aspires to that excellence.
This article:
: You are a proud progressive, yet you regularly take on the left. What has the Obama administration done wrong so far?
A: Oh, tons of stuff. State secrets? That was in a San Francisco courtroom, wasn't it? The judge was so incredulous that the Obama Justice Department folks were going to continue with the Bush administration's argument that one of these horrible terrorism rendition cases should be dismissed on the basis that the whole idea of it was secret. Not that a specific piece of evidence was secret, but that the whole idea of the case was about a secret thing. (And the administration) dropped the enemy combatant designation, but kept all of the meaningful things about making somebody an enemy combatant. So there's been a bunch of important national security/constitutional things where the outcome is confusing at best and a continuation of the Bush administration policy at worst.
Q: How does the president sell his budget, not only to Republicans, but to people in his own party?
A: The thing that is sort of pathetic and funny is that the people he has most to sell it to is these conservatives who have decided to assert their own power by siding with the Republicans against the president. If progressives and Democrats want to gnash their teeth about anything right now, don't waste it on the Republicans, save it for (Sen.) Evan Bayh, D-Ind.
Conservative Democrats decided to wait until there was a Democratic president to say that we insist there be fiscal responsibility and no additional deficit spending. They waited through the entire Bush administration and didn't say anything like that. Meanwhile, Bush turned a hundreds-of-billions surplus into a trillion-dollar deficit and Evan Bayh didn't say beep. He had to wait until there was a Democrat in there so he can feel that he can get in opposition.
Q: Why is that? Is that a lack of political courage? Is it opportunism?
A: I think it's a defect in the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party doesn't feel pressured enough by its base. They feel like the way to show cojones, the way to really to show that they are tough guys, is to take on their party from the right. So that's how Evan Bayh is trying to make people remember how to spell his name - is by seeking to be the opposition to Obama in the Senate. Which would be great for him if he were a Republican. But the fact that people elected him to go be part of the Democratic majority in Washington and now he's using that opportunity to essentially empower the Republicans and obstruct the president's agenda is sort of pitiful. I think that won't happen if the liberal base and if the people who voted in the giant Democratic majority in Washington let him hear about it.
Substance you say!
I may not always agree with Rachel Maddow, but I enjoy her show and I like her personality.
First thing: I like Rachel. She is very likable, no question.
I especially enjoyed her in-the-early-days Air America show (the a.m. show with Lizz Winstead and Chuck D., in the pre-Greene brothers days, before they swept her into the evening slot and she edited towards the center). But I sort of agree with CapeFear: her producers and handlers at MSNBC are EXTREMELY involved in censoring what she can talk about. How much of the line is GE's and how much of it is hers is not clear. But I watch it for those items that do get talked about and either haven't made it or won't make it onto Amy's daily broadcast.
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
Rachael morphs into Amy.
Neat.
Waiguoren
I must strenuously disagree with your favorable comparison of Rachel Maddow to Amy Goodman as the huge, huge difference is that Amy Goodman, unlike Rachel Maddow, recognizes that the people of Gaza have been suppressed and brutalized by the Israelis. As proof of this assertion I suggest that you google Rachel Maddow and Gaza or the web site that azjoe has suggested to see how Ms. Maddow, unlike Ms. Goodman, supports the Israeli while denying the rights of the Palestinian people.
Yet Rachel Maddow has the gall to call herself a liberal, which apparently means that the Israelis have the liberal right to massacre and slaughter the people of Gaza. The only excuse, if one can call it that, is that General Electric is not allowing Ms. Maddow to speak forthrightly on this issue. If that is the case, then Rachel Maddow should resign, as a matter of integrity, from her position.
Gentlemen... If i may weigh in here...
I believe that there are demographics of us that may never hear of or listen to Amy Goodman, but Rachel may be able to still instill ideas into mainstream media with something more toned down, more hip, and more marketable to the ADD six second sound bite crowd, something that would be demeaning for the Amy Goodman team to do...
I have intellectual crushes on both of these women, like Media Benjamin, and am inspired by their prolific work in sharing truth and knowledge with millions of us...
Working in any industry, even journalism, is a compromise to begin with in order to get published, unless you self publish or broadcast... She probably is censored about speaking in public about certain subjects by her editor or whoever... and probably has her own personal beliefs, which is her own prerogative if she is private or neutral or opposite about some of what I believe... and I respect that... By that logic, Anyone who pays taxes or voted for Obama is committing the same crime of supporting the war machine, so I think that is a red herring issue...
Amy and Rachel have taken different approaches and strategies in their media work, which reflects their personality and age... using the tactic of making a stink and quitting her job because her boss is GE to prove her integrity would be silly, and undermine her strategy of using MSMBC to bring quick, smart, honest analysis and debate back to the cable news show genre... with witty humor that can be snarky at times... contrast her with Olberman, without the special commentaries of the Bushscape goat, is seeming more like an obnoxious sports commentator with this manufactured spat with Oreiley, constantly reminding us of the latest status of their cat fight...
Very well stated, and I share your attractions as well. Intelligence is the ultimate aphrodisiac.
BRAVO, well put Erroll!
And how can we overlook the bizarre brilliance of Kent Jones ?
I know she's as gay as the day is long and looks like nerdy 16-old boy, but I think Rachel Maddow is one of the hottest women on the planet. I like smart, snarky women.
One of my sons has a major crush on her too. Doesn't care if she's gay. He admires her for her mind and her wit.
Joe
I'd love to hear Maddow take on her own Congresswoman - Miss Privatize the Presidio National Park, Nancy Yes on Patriot Act, Queen of "Taking It Off the Table", that White Chick from Pacific Heights, Madame Speaker Pelosi!
Maddow's from Massachusetts.
From the article:
Almost immediately, the Castro Valley native was frequently beating CNN's Larry King in the nightly ratings (although King had more overall viewers in February). Not bad for somebody who didn't own a television until last week. It still hasn't been turned on, said Maddow, who fears once she starts, she won't be able to stop watching.
Castro Valley and Stanford University....she is from here all right.
ROFLMAO !!!
If you're a DISH subscriber, you must buy an expensive package to see Rachel and Keith on MSNBC. I can handle it, but a lot of Dish customers are missing out on a valuable resource. C'mon Dish, put MSNBC in a basic package. Do the right thing!
I have the basic Dish package, and I have Keith and Rachel as well.....Having just reviewed my statement to be certain I do have basic plus HBO and Starz......Is it possible that "basic" is geographically dependent?
I enjoy watching Rachael, as she brings a fresh, sometimes slightly irreverent twist to the news. She asks questions that are avoided by the major news outlets, and her use of humor and grace with those who disagree help people focus on the issues. Don't know how long here popularity will last, there is no question about her brillance and ability to communicate. Amy Goodman, Democracy Now, brings a similar gift of balance to the news, but has the credibility of many years of experience doing a daily news broadcaste.
With Rachael, at times she is the news, with Amy the question is balance, but both of them bring an issue into detail with each show, and gives you insight and information to dig deeper for more information.
We shouldn't agree with any reporters point of view without question. But the good reporters who make us think and give us details missed other place is helpful. As her fans would say, You Go Girl!
A "gift of balance to the news", on a news outlet owned by General Electric? What acid are you on? Maddow doesn't go anywhere NEAR the truth in her reporting, which is not balanced in the least. That would expose the daily American genocide going on in the Middle East, Obama's continuation of Bush's policies and the farce that American elections really are. We'll never see that on a General Electric channel, get real.
Cape Fear
Bingo! Intelligently and persuasively well stated.
This lady rocks! I wish we had more Democrats like her. I might then consider calling myself a Democrat. Right now I'm just a LIBERAL!
She is right about the "Conservative Democrats"......
Bill Clinton and his "Band of Council on Foreign Relations Members" were instrumental in deregulating the financial industry and setting up Al Qaeda and The Taliban.....Ask Sandy Berger, what was the stuff you took out of the National Archives? (Philip Shenon, "The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Commission").....Bill triangulated and gave "Conservatives" everything they wanted.
Barack Obama has surrounded himself with Members of The Council on Foreign Relations and he is doing the same "Triangulation Game" with conservatives.
Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan attacked the United States. Both countries were illegally invaded and now occupied.....It is the Conservative "Carter Doctrine" and the Neo-Conservative "Project For A New American Century" concepts that are still being followed........"We, The People of the United States, have the right to take and control the natural resources of any country if our our "Vital Interests" are threatened......
Rachel is apowerful unapologetic progressive voice. We need her to offset the Limbaughs and O'Reillys.
Shach, I know very little about Rachel in all honesty. What I do know is that she is no progressive. Rachel is on the left side of the dominant political spectrum along with Michael Kinsley, Thomas Friedman and others -- all part of the mainstream, just the liberal wing.
You first note that you know little then posit as to her political views.I am confused frankly. Might I suggest that you spend a bit of time reviewing Maddow's positions prior to apparently dismissing her. I would love to hear ( read) your definition of progressive politics.
Progressivism, despite your intimation to the contrary, is, in my own opinion, certainly mainstream, and is obviously a part of the "dominant political spectrum". In fact, the very word 'progressive' comes into use because of the thorough defamation of the word 'liberal'. They are one and the same I believe. Certainly Maddow is wedded to the system, but so are progressives. One must enter into the deeper waters of leftist politics before finding folks who see a dire need to dramatically reform our sick and sad system of governance.
I support the thrust of this article frankly, and applaud Rachel Maddow for her ability to criticize the party of her base.
But still supportive of the Obama trillions' giveaway of taxpayer money to the super-rich.