The Rachel Maddow Show

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.

"The Rachel Maddow Show" is no "Democracy Now!" - there are things that which Rachel Maddow resists discussing - but it's infinitely better than anything on Fox News (aka Fox Noise and Faux News). Maddow clearly does research in her reporting. The criticism of the show is usually either that it's a partisan show, or emphasizes Rachel Maddow's lesbianism and physical appearance. This is not an argument, but rather an ad hominem attack. Even if it's a partisan show, Maddow DOES interview people with opposing viewpoints, namely Pat Buchanan (the surprise is that ultra-bigot Buchanan is willing to be in the same room as a liberal Jewish lesbian). But most importantly, TRMS is an intellectual show: it includes segments about scientific topics, including environmental issues. I consider it a good show.

Rachel Maddow is brilliant, well educated, very hard working and just a nice person. It shows in all her work. If you want to hear the news that is important she scours all the major news sources for the stories and homes in on the stuff that really matters. Her commentary is erudite and daring. She takes on the B.S. fearlessly and is expert in adding context that shows up deception, spin and hypocrisies. She is humble enough to admit when she is reporting something outside her area of expertise and readily admits it when she makes mistakes. To top it all off she has a goofy-gentle sense of humor that makes the news fun. If all newscasters were as good as her we would live in a country that really would be a shining beacon on the hill.

Been painful to hear this clown for years- please -make it stop

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.