I think I'm in love with Rachel Maddow

I watch her show daily online after it airs. I find her journalism to be outstanding, I love the random science and personal character she puts into the show.

All episodes are available online at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/

If you’re interested the Dec 30 episode was probably my favorite ever. It was her end of the year show and it was awesome. It went back over the year in news reported by The Rachel Maddow show. The first 2 segments absolutely smashed Dick Cheney and the Republican Party’s attempt to use terrorist attacks against the US for political gain.

I do find Kent Jones to be an annoying part of the show but I’ll tolerate him for more Rachel Smiles.

Too bad, she’s taken – her partner of some years is artist Susan Mikula.

Rachel is full of awesome. She’s a geek, she’s actually smart rather than just a talking head (doctorate in political science from Oxford), and yeah, she’s a fan of stuff like science and infrastructure.

I don’t think I’d ever “switch teams” for anyone, but I’d love being her friend, or drinking buddy at least. :smiley: (Did I mention I like her “cocktail hour” segment frequently shown at the end, where you get a quick mixed drink tutorial?)

Moved MPSIMS --> Cafe Society.

She’s great. Kieth Olberman may have been some kind of a mentor to her over at MSNBC, but her style is totally different from his. He’s angry and strident, she’s cool and analytical. Kieth may be entertaining, but his show is basically an echo chamber. It’s like political junk food, where the Rachel Maddow show is substantial and intellectually nutritious.

So yeah, she’s the best thing to happen to cable news in a long time.

From what I’ve seen of her she is a cool chick, and I’d imagine she isn’t such an ideologue in everyday life.

Yeah I know. She also lacks the dangly bits I require in my partners but we can make it work somehow.

I’ve been head-over-heels for her since she used to hand Tucker Carlson his ass on his own show about five years ago or so. She actually got Tucker Carlson to change his stance on gay marriage.

This confuses me. Because I distinctly remember her talking about someone she interviewed who assumed she was a lesbian, and asked her what it was like being one, and her saying her response was that she didn’t know since she wasn’t. This led into something about not assuming by appearances.

This was within the past year, sometime between now and when she subbed for Olberman (and I liked her a lot better). Was she just not out? Or did I somehow misinterpret the whole thing?

I dunno, maybe she’s bi then? The Wiki article on her says she met her partner in 1999, and I’ve heard her openly discussing her partner on her radio show. (I forget if she has on TV.)

I sort of want to like her, but I just find her unbearable to listen to. Her delivery is an annoying mixture of smirk and just slightly phony mild outrage that I just can’t take it. I liked her a lot better when she used to go mano a mano wth TC.

I can certainly understand that position. She has a lot of fun with her TV show and works to make it informative and entertaining at the same time. She does come off as snarky and lacking in rightful outrage because of this.

She is exceedingly brilliant if she wanted to step in up and be more serious she easily could but she instead chooses to enjoy herself. As her journalism is so much better then those on the opposing side she lets it speak for itself rather then rub it in their faces till they cry. As it is now she is bombarded with complaints from the right for her input she gets called a sick puppy by a former president. If she continued to use her show to go mano a mano I think you’d end up with a campaign to have her dragged off the air. As we have seen in our country being honest is not enough to defend yourself, I think she’s better off with her ‘anti-conservative light’ approach.

I have to admit that I haven’t watch too much of her show and have only seen her in monologue mode. Does she spend much time interviewing other people or debating with others? I probably would feel the same about watching any single person “lecture” me about politics. I never quite trust anyone to stick to the facts unless there is someone else there to challenge him/her. It’s too hard for us civilians to have the same access to data as these commentators do.

I’ve been watching her show since it first came on the air. She appears to genuinely enjoy actually debating people with different political views than herself, and as Don’t Call Me Shirley pointed out, has succeeded (possibly the only cable news host to have ever done so). One of her early segments was It’s Pat, with Pat Bucannan - the arch-conservative for whom she seemed to have a genuine affection, calling him her “fake Uncle”. He stopped doing those after a few months, and hasn’t been back after expressing an opinion that appeared to genuinely appall her.

She’s an out and proud gay woman, and can only think that she told someone to not make assumptions just because people shouldn’t make assumptions.

It also seems like people with different political opinions like being on her show. Besides Buchanan - and I remember the event but not the particular topic that was his last appearance, plus she did seem to have a good amount of genuine affection for him - she’s interviewed people from across the political spectrum and they always seem pleased to be there. She certainly seems to have a wider variety of guests than Olbermann does. I like Olbermann ‘personally’ and I respect him in many ways, but man, he’s gotta reel in the frothing-at-the-mouth a tad. By contrast, Maddow has said (click page 5 at that link):

She usually has at least one guest per show that she discusses or debates with. She has made numerous invitations to those of opposing views on air and in writing. She is generally very respectful and thankful to her guests. For the most part however right wingers are very unwilling to get caught in the same room as her. If I held views in opposition to her I’d probably be afraid to speak on air with her too. She has razor wit and an amazing memory of journalistic events and a complete intolerance of lies. A opponent that offends her and doesn’t have all their ducks in a row is likely to leave bleeding. She’s still waiting on a Dick Cheney interview.

She jumped on the “teabaggers” bandwagon with just a little too much enthusiasm for me to take her seriously. Heh-heh, you know, “teabagging” is a weird sexual practice, and heh-heh, those anti-tax nuts had some teabags. Teabaggers. Ha.

It makes her sound like she gets her news from the local free “alternative” paper, the kind with the ads for hookers and massage parlors in the back. Not that the Straight Dope would have anything to do with such a publication.

Now, that I would watch!

If you count Jon Stewart as a cable news host (and I’m pretty sure he would refuse to count himself, but it’s plausible), that’s two.

I think that may have had more to do with having other gay friends, particularly gay **men **who found the idea of staunch right-wingers self-identifying as “teabaggers” a source of endless hilarity. Hers was, as far as I know, the only TV show to show the scene from John Waters’ film Pecker that featured “teabagging”.

Really? I’ve always assumed she gets her news from rags the New York Times, The Economist, Le Monde, The Times of London - I figure her newspaper buying habits are much like Holly Hunter’s character in the movie Broadcast News - a dozen papers a day.