IMDb-BEWERTUNG
6,0/10
2698
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Der liberale Talkshow-Moderator des inzwischen eingestellten Air America Radios diskutiert tagsüber aktuelle Ereignisse mit Schwerpunkt auf Politik.Der liberale Talkshow-Moderator des inzwischen eingestellten Air America Radios diskutiert tagsüber aktuelle Ereignisse mit Schwerpunkt auf Politik.Der liberale Talkshow-Moderator des inzwischen eingestellten Air America Radios diskutiert tagsüber aktuelle Ereignisse mit Schwerpunkt auf Politik.
- Auszeichnungen
- 3 Gewinne & 23 Nominierungen insgesamt
Folgen durchsuchen
Empfohlene Bewertungen
So bad. Unfortunate too, because Rachel seems to be smart and insightful. But this show only shows her as a smirking snarky unpleasant would-be commentator. But she might as well have little pebbles in her pockets and just chuck them at pictures of her betes noir.
When she was a guest on various an MSNBC show (a far left show -- please, so far left), she was sometimes charming, even funny. Even if one didn't agree.
Now? Grief. Things for her and MSNBC have come off the tracks. She's not as funny as Ann Coulter in the latter's writing, not as attractive as Michelle Malkin, and no longer as witty as (fill in the blank here) as just about anyone else on TV. It's such a waste, she could have been so GOOD.
A smirk while one completely distorts the day's news, doesn't compliment either conservative or liberal. And poor Rachel, I have to believe that the powers at MSNBC provided a dictat, as the left is inclined to do, to force her to forget about actually providing all the facts.
And she is really kind of cute too. I like her. But she unfortunately deserves her place at the bottom of the ratings.
Perhaps one consolation, or at least sort of appealing factor, is that isn't as harsh, mean, cynical, and juvenile as Keith Olbermann, who at this point precedes her on the MSNBC nightly line up. She has the same subject matter, but usually just smirks with a smile, while Olbermann smirks with a nasty snarl. Neither is effective, but she's at least sort of engaging, while the latter is a nattering fool.
When she was a guest on various an MSNBC show (a far left show -- please, so far left), she was sometimes charming, even funny. Even if one didn't agree.
Now? Grief. Things for her and MSNBC have come off the tracks. She's not as funny as Ann Coulter in the latter's writing, not as attractive as Michelle Malkin, and no longer as witty as (fill in the blank here) as just about anyone else on TV. It's such a waste, she could have been so GOOD.
A smirk while one completely distorts the day's news, doesn't compliment either conservative or liberal. And poor Rachel, I have to believe that the powers at MSNBC provided a dictat, as the left is inclined to do, to force her to forget about actually providing all the facts.
And she is really kind of cute too. I like her. But she unfortunately deserves her place at the bottom of the ratings.
Perhaps one consolation, or at least sort of appealing factor, is that isn't as harsh, mean, cynical, and juvenile as Keith Olbermann, who at this point precedes her on the MSNBC nightly line up. She has the same subject matter, but usually just smirks with a smile, while Olbermann smirks with a nasty snarl. Neither is effective, but she's at least sort of engaging, while the latter is a nattering fool.
I know back in the day when I listened to Air America that Rachel Maddow was something special. She impressed me then as someone who had a keen grasp of what was happening and could translate it into terms that anyone could understand.
I believe that it is not only her impressive academic credentials that contribute to this, but a serious work ethic that causes her to do copious research on a subject.
This was evident as I watched her tonight. She knew her stuff! She is a charming personality that makes the news worth watching. The mainstream media on every evening during dinner can learn a lot from her.
So, skip Charlie and Brian and Katie, and get you news from Rachel. You will be a better informed American.
I believe that it is not only her impressive academic credentials that contribute to this, but a serious work ethic that causes her to do copious research on a subject.
This was evident as I watched her tonight. She knew her stuff! She is a charming personality that makes the news worth watching. The mainstream media on every evening during dinner can learn a lot from her.
So, skip Charlie and Brian and Katie, and get you news from Rachel. You will be a better informed American.
Total propaganda. If it were not for Trump she and that horrible network would all be unemployed. Her obsession with constantly discussing Trump is such a bore. I am not even a Trump fan. But there could be a war going on and all she would report on is Trump. Lame. I wonder if she is intelligent at all as she appears to be simply mouth piece for the far left. I have watched in and off over the years and honestly The Maddie show has gotten to the point that it appears to be obsession with the former president .I do not believe there is any news or discussion of need on her show at all. If you disagree with her she goes crazy. If you are a sychofant and pay homage she will interview you for hours. Horrible.
Rachel is a sort of relief for me. After years of hearing extreme views coming out of America, I'd given up on the country. Rachel and before her, Keith Olbermann were and are proof that Americans aren't completely of their rockers. Sanity ensues.
One of the greatest moments on the show was when Rachel took one of the verbal droppings of the McCain campaign and said: "Wait, should we call this just ... LYING!?!"
Well said, Rachel, it's about time someone called these jokers out.
While Olbermann is really well spoken, eloquent and very passionate, Rachel is more toned down, has more of a sunny disposition and is in general more fun to watch. Olbermann is good too, but his subjects are sometimes so dark, which of course isn't HIS fault, that I get away feeling upset and depressed. Aww, it's hard to choose between them, love, love, love em both!!!
PS Someone who thinks Coulter is funny, is sick and twisted and a pox on all your seven houses.
One of the greatest moments on the show was when Rachel took one of the verbal droppings of the McCain campaign and said: "Wait, should we call this just ... LYING!?!"
Well said, Rachel, it's about time someone called these jokers out.
While Olbermann is really well spoken, eloquent and very passionate, Rachel is more toned down, has more of a sunny disposition and is in general more fun to watch. Olbermann is good too, but his subjects are sometimes so dark, which of course isn't HIS fault, that I get away feeling upset and depressed. Aww, it's hard to choose between them, love, love, love em both!!!
PS Someone who thinks Coulter is funny, is sick and twisted and a pox on all your seven houses.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesNamed for its engaging and energetic host, Rachel Maddow, who gained a public profile through frequent appearances as a progressive pundit on MSNBC.
- VerbindungenFeatured in Newswipe: Episode 3 (2010)
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Offizielle Standorte
- Sprachen
- Auch bekannt als
- The Rachel Maddow Show the First 100 Days
- Drehorte
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
- Laufzeit
- 1 Std.(60 min)
- Farbe
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen