Rachel Maddow: The Smartest Voice on Cable

Take a look at two of her segments from tonight's show:

The Rachel Maddow Show airs weeknights on MSNBC following Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann. I would recommend everyone watches it.

Fair is Fair

Republicans have had and will in the future have no problem bringing up Rev. Wright in an effort to damage Obama's candidacy.  Now we find out that Sarah Palin's church and personal religious statements are less than conventional, to say the least.  For all that talk of the "liberal media" there sure hasn't been much talk on Palin's religious views even though that "liberal media" had no problem talking about Rev. Wright non-stop, so why is Palin's similar situation off limits?  It shouldn't be, and kudos to Rachel Maddow for bringing it up on her inaugural show tonight --- more shows and networks need to take notice.

It's not that religion should play any role in politics, because it should not, in any way.  The problem is that it appears Sarah Palin thinks religion does have a role, a huge role at that, to play in politics, and scarier still, in policy decisions.  The governor as recently as June of this year has stated that the Iraq War is God's will and that members of her congregation should pray for her oil pipeline proposal to succeed.  

Then, of course, there is the pastor who visited her church who claimed that the Jews being killed in Israel are being killed as a punishment from God since Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah.  And what about her church teaching that one can "pray away the gays".  Or how about the idea that the rapture is ever approaching, and that, get this, Alaska is the promised refuge during that supposed great time of peril.  

Please, give me a break.  This is not just religious right wacky (although Palin has that covered with her stances on abortion and creationism), this is frightening, radical thinking.  And the idea that one candidate can have their church's dirty laundry, a church which they didn't even attend consistently, aired for weeks straight and another candidate, who is, by the way, on record as being in church on days when that harsh rhetoric was spewed, can get the proverbial "get-out-of-jail-free card" throws out any claims of "objective journalism".  Fair is fair, or at least should be, but that is not how the media is acting.  Hopefully, they will pick up this story and make Sarah Palin answer those same tough questions that Barack Obama had to.  

Obama Caves; Clinton Stays Strong

As I've said previously, this FISA Bill did nothing but violate the basic rights of privacy guaranteed to every American in the Constitution.   There was and is no reason to grant the telecom companies immunity for breaking the law.  What's even more disappointing then the fact that so many Senators voted for it, was the fact that Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee for President, caved in to Bush's and the Republican's tactics and voted for the bill.  

Now I've read Obama supporters on the blogs claim that he had to do this.  That if he didn't, Republicans would tear him apart.  Guess what Obama-bots?  You don't beat the Republicans by giving in to their demands.  The "change" that Obama so often talks about will not happen if Democrats allow themselves to be bullied around by Republicans.  

What does make me proud, however, is the fact that Sen. Hillary Clinton voted no on this bill.  Sure, Republicans will criticize her for it.  Sure, Republicans will call her weak on national security.  But today, Sen. Clinton actually acted on the words she spoke of during the primary --- standing your ground and taking the fight to the Republicans.  

In this hour, the contrast between the Democratic nominee and the runner-up is clear.  Our nominee, unfortunately, doesn't believe in standing up for and defending Democratic values.  He'd rather appease Republicans and stay as far away from controversy as possible.  The runner-up, however, doesn't worry about what Republicans think or say about her.  She does what she feels is right.  

Even more interesting is the feed-back I'm seeing on the blogs from some people who were highly critical of Sen. Clinton in the primary --- in other words, they bashed her non-stop.  Some, like Sean Casey at the Daily Kos, see Obama and Clinton in a new light.  Here's what Casey wrote:

"Thank you Hillary - I appreciate you standing up for my right of proivacy and the Constitution. I definitely misjudged you. Two months ago I would have bet anything that you would have voted "Yea" and he would have voted "Nea". Sincerely - Thank You - and those who voted NEA with you.

Change we can believe in? It's a change, but not the one I expected. WOW!"

Now, with all this said, let me be clear: I still unequivocally support Sen. Obama for President.  Even though I believe he was totally unjustified in his lack of courage to stand up to Republicans today, he would still be a much, much better President than Senator McCain, who apparently feels free from even showing up to vote --- for anything.  

In conclusion, I leave you with the video of Senator Russ Feingold talking with Rachel Maddow tonight on MSNBC concerning the FISA Bill, why he opposed it, and how he feels about Democrats, including Sen. Obama, not standing up to the Republicans:

Abrams and Gregory's New Shows: A Quick Review

Today was the debut of David Gregory's new show on MSNBC, Race for the White House.  In essence, the show features 6 segments discussed over by a 4 member panel.  Tonight's panel was great, with Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough, Eugene Robinson, and Chuck Todd offering their opinions and views. Okay, maybe Robinson and Todd are no good, but I hope Maddow and Scarborough remain regulars, as both got into several heated arguments with each other that were both highly substantive and highly entertaining.  

The biggest surprise for me, however, was how well David Gregory fit into his new role as host.  Think of him as a more lively, more personable Tim Russert, or a less lively, less opinionated Dan Abrams.  As long as the panelists stay as good and the segments stay as lively as they were today, Race for the White House could prove to be a huge success for MSNBC. 

Verdict with Dan Abrams also debuted tonight.  Nothing much to note here, as Verdict pretty much follows the same format as Abram's old self titled show, but again I must say that I love the "On Their Trail" segment. Abrams, although he blatantly injects his opinion into topics, is never tilted towards one candidate, or for that matter, one ideology, over the other. On one issue he might agree with Obama; the next McCain; the next Clinton.  It's just really refreshing to get commentary without a clear bias behind them.  

With that being said, I encourage all of you to check out MSNBC's new primetime lineup.  Gregory's show looks very promising, Matthew's is getting better, and Abrams continues to "tell it as he sees it".  (The only downside is the none-stop bias of Keith Olbermann, formerly the best MSNBC host.)  

MSNBC's New Line-up & A Review Of Their Current One

MSNBC will be changing up it's line-up as of next Monday.  Tucker Carlson's show will be getting the ax, replaced by a show hosted by David Gregory.  Andrea Mitchell will now be anchoring the news everyday from 1-2 p.m.  Live with Dan Abrams will be undergoing a name change.  Other than that, MSNBC's current programing line-up will, for the most part, stay in tact. With that said, he are my hopes and reviews of the current and future programming on MSNBC.

Morning Joe

I start off every morning watching Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski on Morning Joe.  Despite my opposing views with Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, I must say, I do enjoy the show.  They usually have a great variety of guests on the show and the exchanges between conservative Scarborough and liberal Brzezinski are priceless.  The one thing I must complain about, however, is Brzezinski's new found bias for Barack Obama.  I enjoyed the show, and her, much more when she was simply the liberal and Scarborough was simply the conservative and broad topics were discussed in relationship to the two parties.  Now, Brzezinski finds a way to make everything about Obama, even if the topic does not involve him or his campaign.  You get the feeling she is pushing him down your throats, and after a while, it gets really old.

MSNBC Daytime News

Not much to say here.  I don't hate MSNBC news, nor do I love it.  Truthfully, the only time I actually find myself tuning in to MSNBC daytime is when it's what they call "Super Tuesday", their all day political coverage, which is actually quite good.

Hardball

I used to be repulsed at Chris Matthews and his blatant bias, but he has been getting better.  He rarely takes sides any more in arguments and debates, and thats a huge improvement  And when you tone down Matthews' bias and listen to what this man actually has to say, you realize that he is a fascinating guy who knows more than most will ever know about politics.  For that reason, I have once again found myself a fan of Hardball, and if Matthews keeps behaving the way he is now, I will remain a fan.  It's so much nicer to hear Chris give his insights and analysis of politics in general and it's mechanics, rather than gushing over one candidate while constantly demeaning and degrading the other.  

Countdown

Keith Olbermann, to say it simply, has become the liberal Bill O'Reilly.  Keith used to be objective and would offer a straight forward analysis of the top stories of the day based on facts.  Now, it's the Keith loves Barack show.  Keith has recently, in essence, accused everyone who supports Sen. Clinton of being a racist and a Republican in disguise.  He appears amazed every night that the entire nation doesn't bow down and worship Obama as he has apparently become accustomed to.  And some would say that the "liberal Bill O'Reilly" is exactly what the Democratic party needs.  I counter by saying absolutely not. We need someone in the media who doesn't take the side of one candidate over the other, but rather challenges the conventional wisdom.  Keith used to be that person.  But now, he has let his ego get the best of him.  His show has become more focused on attacking the Clintons and tearing down their supporters than anything else.  The vibe Keith now puts out, rather than standing up to convention wisdom, is that you're only right; you're only a Democrat; you're only an America if you love Barack Obama and hate Hillary Clinton.  It has become painful to watch Olbermann degenerate as he has.  He used to be the best on MSNBC; now he's the worst.  

Live with Dan Abrams

Starting on Monday, Live with Dan Abrams will become Verdict with Dan Abrams.  Hopefully, despite the name change, the show will stay the same since Dan is now my top guy to watch on MSNBC.  Why?  Because, when I watch him, I feel like I'm actually getting a fair, balanced view-point, without any political bias.  His "On Their Trail" segment is one of the best in television.  He takes on Obama as much as he does Clinton and vice-versa.  And although I don't always agree with his calls on who's right and who's wrong, I will admit that he calls them as he sees them.  Many nights Obama has come away with more "X's" than Clinton and vice-versa.  Also, his two most frequent guests, Pat Buchanan and Rachel Maddow, also make for great television as they argue and debate the issues.  I just hope that with the new name, Abrams keeps up his fairness and objectivity.  It does this country a great deal.

Tucker

Thank god Tucker got canceled.  Admittedly, Tucker's show was good at times, but only good when he had a good panel on to access the day's political headlines.  Tucker Carlson himself added nothing substantive to the show.  The show was only good if the panelists made it good.  And although the key to any good political show is a good variety of guests, the host has to bring something to the table as well.  Tucker didn't.  Let's hope his successor does.

Race to the White House

Yup, thats the name of the show, hosted by David Gregory, that will succeed Tucker.  I'm interested to see how Gregory will do.  Will Race to the White House be a more serious toned show, like Meet the Press, or more loose and free formed like Hardball and Live with Dan Abrams? I'm not sure, but I would be happy with either.  The political junkie in me loves the serious toned, old school political discussions (even though I'm quite young) that take place on Meet the Press and like shows, but I also love the arguments and heated exchanges that are allowed to develop on the more free-formed shows.  I will say that they probably could have found a better host if they were going for a free-formed show, such as picking Rachel Maddow or Pat Buchanan. If it's a serious toned political discussion type show, Gregory should do well.  

On a side note: I'm still begging for MSNBC to get a Crossfire-like program with two hosts from opposing political views. They need to have a Buchanan vs. Maddow show. That would be gold.  But until then, we get David Gregory.  I hope he does good, but honestly, it's not as if Tucker set the bar all that high.  

POLITIDOSE's Beat The Press

Back by popular demand, (or simply because I want it back, you decide), it's POLITIDOSE's Beat the Press.  I have often been critical of the main stream media and pundits for their clear biased against Sen. Hillary Clinton and for whomever appears as her chief rival at a given time.  In this edition of Beat the Press, I'm going to look at two instances where MSNBC has been clearly biased against Hillary in recent weeks.  

First off, here is a video montage showing Hardball's Chris Matthews belittling Hillary Clinton and being just plain rude while gushing over the Republican candidates and Democrat Barack Obama: 

And it was just yesterday when one of my favorite MSNBC analysts, David Shuster, made an outright disrespectful comment of Chelsea Clinton, saying that Chelsea was being "pimped out" by her mom to campaign for her.  Here's the video: 

Seriously, shouldn't children of politicians be left alone?  Chelsea isn't out there attacking Obama or making policies.  She is campaigning on behalf of her mother, something I believe everyone can respect.  Just imagine the outrage if this comment would have been made about Obama's girls.  No matter how you look at it, this was completely inappropriate on behalf of Shuster and MSNBC.  

On the flip side, I would like to commend MSNBC anchors and analysts Dan Abrams, Rachel Maddow, and Pat Buchannan for what is mostly fair, balanced coverage and analysis of this campaign.  Chris Matthews, David Shuster, Tucker Carlson, and as of late, Keith Olbermann could all learn from them.