Upcoming

- Weekdays - 6pm
- Sunday - 2pm
- Monday - 6pm

Today's TRMS

By Vanessa Silverton-Peel

On today's show David Bender will be filling in for the first hour, taking your calls about McCain's and Obama's events at Saddleback Church this weekend. He will be talking to Dan Gilgoff from Belief Net. Rachel will be back for the second two hours of the show.  Rachel will be talking to the Reverend Welton Gaddy about the candidates' forum at Saddleback Church and Pakistan expert Brian Katulis.

Comments

(50)

Saddleback Mountain

I didn't hear Obama say anything that wasn't consistent with his stated beliefs and positions, or anything that would hurt amongst his supporters.

I heard John McCain do a lot of pandering, but consistent with the pandering he's been doing all year.

By nmhankAugust 18, 2008 - 5:21pm

Softballs for Mccain

I watched the "debate" and the 3 softball questions where Mccain was able to stress his war and pow experience. Quite moving and played well to the gathering.

I thought tho that the rpley to his hardest decision

McCain, asked the toughest decision in his life, cited his refusal to be released ahead of fellow U.S. prisoners of war in North Vietnam.

There was a definite pause and this trailed off as an after thought: "It took a lot of prayer," he said.

Now, in interest of full disclosure, I'm very happy I didn't know the war was going to last for another three years or so. But I said no, and I'll never forget sitting in my last answer, and the high- ranking officer who offered it slammed the door and the interrogator said, "Go back to your cell. It's going to be very tough on you now." And it was; but not only the toughest decision I ever made, but I'm most happy about that decision than any decision I ever made in my life. (Applause.)

Could I finally say, it look a lot of prayer. It took a lot of prayer.

most interesting was his pro-life administration comment, when just a few days ago he was open to a pro-choice VP.

I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies. (Cheers, applause.) That's my commitment. That's my commitment to you.

much also has been made of Obama and the absence of a flag lapel pin. I would like if in one of your stints on countdown you would accumulate and show the number of times McCain has no pin.

Seems everytimne i see mccain some where there is no pin.

By terry_in_maineAugust 18, 2008 - 9:10pm

McCain story about CiS - phony?

David
The internets are on fire that McCain may have lifted that cross in sand story from the famous Gulog writer.
It's all over Kos and Freerepublic.

David, it may not be brilliant, it may be fraud. Go slowly before your conclude.

By smartcookienycAugust 18, 2008 - 5:49pm

Comfort Level

David:

Barack Obama walks into a room with 20,000 people, of whom, if he makes a huge hit, he might convince a few hundred of them that he's not the antichrist.

John McCain walks in knowing that as long as he keeps pandering, he's going to be a big hit, and get tons of applause for everything that comes out of his hyprocritical mouth.

Who is going to look more comfortable?

Hank

By nmhankAugust 18, 2008 - 5:58pm

Yes, don't jump so quicky to conclusions

Yes, as much as I'd love to see McCain get caught in a big lie, I also wouldn't get so carried away and conclude that simply because one woman indicates she followed McCain early on that this means he arrived early. Perhaps he stayed in the motorcade or got back in --or-- who knows?

It's tempting, I know-- but a good journalist doesn't hastily jump to conclusions and spread rumors without at least using qualifiers like that 'might' be proof, that 'might' help expose McCain's lie...rather than getting too carried away and insisting that alone constitutes proof positive.

By skeptical2August 18, 2008 - 6:09pm

McCain Cross in Dirt story stolen from Solzhenitsyn 1973 book

Please go to Daily Kos at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/17/122230/161/239/569299 to see more. Thom Hartmann did something on it this morning, but this story needs to be flogged in the press. How McCain can "win" that "debate" with these lies is beyond me.

By kim1123August 18, 2008 - 6:48pm

McCain Cross in Dirt story. Thanks, Kim1123

Oh wow, if this is true, man, McCain is such a .....
Kim, you've got to be kidding me, this source is amazing. Perhaps you should send it to McCain and tell him to own up to his lies. What's next? Will he sell his soul to the devil? If so, I guess then we could get our military to defeat him, it, the evilness that lies within him.

Thanks for the link. Great find.

...so our minds may meet across these pages, in the colorful country of another writer's language, where we can flourish in the knowledge that we are learning how to speak to one another... S. Brownrigg

By OmazingoAugust 18, 2008 - 7:22pm

This really isn't a provable

This really isn't a provable thing. Drawing a cross in the sand is a fairly simple action. When I was a kid I drew lots of stuff in the playground yard, I'd imagine prisoners with no other writing tools draw in the sand throughout the world.

It could be that the story is a lie. It could be that he read the story and his memories mixed up what happened to him during a traumatic time with a story he'd read. Or it could be that this has happened to a few people from time to time and it's totally legit.

Point is, there's no way to prove it one way or the other.

I do feel that he milked the story pretty seriously at the church. He started off by talking about the specific tortures that were done to him, which was completely unnecessary for the cross story. That's working his tragedy a little too hard. If he does it too much, it might weaken the sympathy for him. Any emotional reference can be overused, just ask Rudy "9/11" Giuliani.

By Jason M. BryantAugust 18, 2008 - 7:37pm

Drawing a Xtian symbol in the dirt goes back 2000 years or so.

When Christianity was an underground cult (in the Roman Empire) followers supposedly drew one side of the "Fish" and if the other person was also of the faith they would draw the other side. This is what I learned in Sunday School 50 years ago so I have no idea if it is true or not. But drawing a cross in the dirt to secretly identify followers is probably done all over the world...
later edit: My Sunday School lessons soon gave way to reality, Science Fiction, and Mad Magazine - and at this point I am barely even an Agnostic. Right now I hold to the theory that the New Testament was written by a group of Roman satirical playwrights and I suggest that you all search the 'nets for Piso Bible - true or not, probably only St. Gene Scott could tell us (and he is beyond normal human contact now!)

By domitypeAugust 18, 2008 - 10:10pm

the bible and the moral majority

I was brought up Catholic and I stopped believing a lot of the stuff they were telling me about in the bible just could not be true. I realized that no one can live in a whale, no one(Methuselah) lives to be 969 years of age, no one man(Noah, who was 600 years old at the time and his father Lamech was 182 years of age when he fathered him) can build an arc big enough to house all the animals in the world (I don't care if he was Norm Abrams and had all the power tools in the world and logging equipment to clear and mill the largest forest ever seen and do this single handedly,, and how did he feed them and clean up after them, keep them from eating each other...um must have been the first love boat) Plus if it rained that much and for so long, which it couldn't have, there isn't that much moisture in the atmosphere. The skies would block out the sun and global cooling would take effect. First thing that would happen is that all the oxygen would be depleted due to the lack of plant life then entire earth would be in a total ice age. The only life left on earth would be fish that can live in deep water without out light and little oxygen. um maybe they really do believe in evolution. No one turns into a pillar of salt, you don't go blind from masturbation, and here's the kicker....THE SUN DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND THE EARTH
Now take in consideration that the "moral majority" picked the last President (dubya) and he's a born again Christan ,umm don't they believe in NOT KILLING, NOT LYING,TAKING CARE OF THE SICK, THE POOR,LOVING EVERYONE ETC. Instead of going on and on about the bible let me just say that these people only quote the bible and use it when it fits their purpose

By rusty_scupperAugust 19, 2008 - 9:53am

the bible and the moral majority

Hi Rusty,

Hey, thanks for your concluding paragraph. It is exactly how I see it. People who profess Christianity ought to be concerned about keeping the 10 Commandments - not just posting them in public places. Better to keep them! And that paragraph actually refers to the second half of Matthew 25, which is one of the most important passages in the New Testament.

Isn't it interesting, by the way, that so many of the political figures who profess Christian faith almost never quote the Christian portion of the Bible, the New Testament, but only the Old Testament, what we took from the Jews?

What is interesting about your first paragraph is that you rejected Catholicism on the strength of decidedly non-Catholic thinking. While the Old Testament is of course part of the Christian Bible and taught to Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants alike, Catholics do NOT teach that the Old Testament stories you cite are LITERALLY true, but alegorically so. There is a big difference, one of the big differences between Catholics and fundamentalist Christians.

Nobody literally believes in Paul Bunyon and Babe the Blue Ox, but the truth of the story ("myth," if you will) is that American can-do attitudes and action busted the sod of the midwest and the western part of this continent in a remarkable way, preparing for the farms, orchards, towns, cities, etc that now exist in those regions. So in a way, the story of Paul Bunyon and Babe the Blue Ox is alegorically true, but literally ridiculous!

Still, I respect you and your decision. All the best to you.

Paul

By penglishcsbAugust 19, 2008 - 11:44am

Rachel, anyone, explain this to me...

Rachel,
John McCain joked about the 3 million dollars (OUR TAXES) spent on testing the DNA of grizzly bears, but didn’t he cast his vote in 2003 for the bill that funded this ‘project’? Explain to me, if he is so concerned about the careless spending of our taxes, why did he vote on such a bill? Furthermore, why would he sit in the “church of God” and try to deceive us? Secondly, when asked to give a specific number (income range) pertaining to, say, what is considered middle class, he could not. Is it because McCain is SO out of touch with the middle class that he can’t give a number on the spot? Thirdly, everything revolved around a story, his story as a POW. Ok, my heart goes out to him and what he went through BUT how does being a POW make him more suitable to be president?

...so our minds may meet across these pages, in the colorful country of another writer's language, where we can flourish in the knowledge that we are learning how to speak to one another... S. Brownrigg

By OmazingoAugust 18, 2008 - 7:08pm

obama's judgement

you gave the long version of the republican's and McCain's demonstrations of their judgment. you might want to keep the short version in your notes. Which is the fact that all those questioning his readiness and judgment were 100% behind George Bush, for not only one, but two elections. So whose judgment should we be questioning.

By thomas h. kellyAugust 18, 2008 - 7:35pm

I don't understand

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that the people questioning McCain's readiness supported Bush in both elections?

By Jason M. BryantAugust 18, 2008 - 7:39pm

Why American government loves dictators

I don't think American governments have favored dictators for racism or anything like that. I think they have just liked the idea of only having to deal with one guy.

If you have a President or Prime Minister who is favorable to your position, then he still has to push everything through his Congress or Parliament. With a dictator, once you've got that guy you're done. It's easy to push anything through.

In theory. The reality, as demonstrated by our history with Latin America in the 50s and 60s, is that dictators aren't as reliable as we'd like. But that lack of stability is what you get for only having to work with one guy.

By Jason M. BryantAugust 18, 2008 - 7:52pm

What I found interesting....

... was the juxtaposition of Rachel's comment about the rule of law, and not the rule of one person.....

One of the unique things of the U.S. it's that it's never had a dictator... even though Cheney tried... and the rule of law is by-and-large obeyed. Very few countries in the world, especially those with a history of colonization, can make that claim.

Given this most wonderful aspect, I can't help but find it dichotomous that the U.S. has on many occasions not just allied but supported and put in place such governments.

And Jason..... from my experience, some people find that having a relationship with the U.S. can be just as unstable as you say the dictators in the 50s and 60s were. ;)

After all, these countries/leaders are seeking self interest and as these change, so do allegiances. Just ask Saddam Hussein.

By cool_princessieAugust 19, 2008 - 5:05pm

Yep

Oh, I make no claims at all about how stable *we* are. Georgia is in the middle of finding out what fair-weather friends we can be.

By Jason M. BryantAugust 19, 2008 - 5:23pm

Congraturlations Rachel for Beating O'Reilly

On Friday's ratings!!

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/the_scoreboard_friday_august...

Rachel - 416

Bill - 281.

You go gurl!

Note: even if he had someone subbing for him (I really do not know) it doesn't matter because his subs take in as much ratings for the show as he does. Therefore, this is awesome!

By cool_princessieAugust 18, 2008 - 8:10pm

mccains statement

mccain has said that he knows how to get bin laden, he said that he knows where he is and that he will get him. question if he knows, why is he allowing american soldiers to lose there lives while he running for the president.He said this sat. at saddleback.
He also said that he knows how to win wars, in his speech last week. question What war has he won and was he in charge of making decision. Why is the media allowing him to get off so easy.

By ksnowtonAugust 18, 2008 - 8:24pm

Saddleback

Rachel, I have to say that I am impressed with Rick Warren. He seems honest and seriously wanting to give us a fair look at both candidates. I'm not completely comfortable with our candidates talking about their faith at all, but if it must happen, I think this format worked fairly well. Although, while I was watching it, I couldn't help but notice two topics kept out of the conversation - environment and capital punishment. Granted, Warren mentioned prison, but didn't elaborate on this topic. There is no doubt that Obama would have handled these two very difficult topics better than McCain. As a Roman Catholic, they are two topics that have always been incredibly important to me. I also couldn't help but wonder who Roe v. Wade has ultimately benefited (politically speaking). It's really only hurt the Dems and helped the GOP, right? Does the GOP really want Roe v Wade overturned? Do they really want to see a reduction in abortions? If abortion were no longer an issue, would the other wedge issues be enough (gay marriage, guns)? I don't think so. If evangelical issue voters didn't have this issue, wouldn't they be more likely to vote for the democrats? Human rights, environment, education, poverty - all the other issues that relgious/spiritual/good people care about, are issues the democrats have a much better handle on. In fact, I think you could argue that these other issues are rarely discussed by the GOP. Outside of the abortion issue, the GOP message is one of war not peace, business owners not factory workers, healthy families not sturggling single mothers, tax breaks not social services, the right to guns not the right to healthcare... I can go on. All this being said, how can a relgious/spiritual person vote for the GOP if the abortion issue was settled? I'll be suprised when I see a republican really try to make an effort to reduce abortions instead of just talking about it in election seasons.

By 40riversAugust 18, 2008 - 9:54pm

Well Rick may not be the man you think...

Evidentially, Rick (the man you respect) Warren knew that McCain was NOT in that cone of silence he promised his viewers. McCain was in transit at the time (with his campaign folk in full Blackberry mode) and Warren had learned of this before the show.

Warren may have a more measured appearance than most Evangelicals, but his motives are just as transparent if you look at what he knew beforehand along with how he asked the questions.

By Polly Tics (not verified)August 20, 2008 - 9:51pm

flyboy mccain

I wish someone would take the time to explain, to the public, the difference in missions of the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines. McCain's sacrifice was no greater than the many Army soldiers ,Marines and Airmen taken into captivity. Much has changed since John McCain's war of forty years ago. I wonder if he isn't trying to fight the Viet Nam war all over again with all his bluster. What might all those years in captivity do to a persons lifelong mental outlook? The thought scares me that he may still have PTSD. Go to any VA hospital or homeless shelter and you just might meet a Viet Nam Vet unable to function normally due to the inability to let go of the past. Does the fact that they may have been a POW qualify them to be president? I think not. John McCain's war was then not now. I don't want someone with a lifelong vendetta leading my country . Bad enough that the world has become so unstable......again. ( I still remember the cold war duck and cover days of my youth). I certainly do not wish that on my grandchildren! We all need to take a long hard look at both candidates. Nothing should be taken for granted because we the people do not really know either man. We are not part of their family and friends circle and never will be. We depend on the media to introduce us and hope like hell that what we see and hear is the real thing. We've been wrong before so let's be more careful this time. Our very way of life could depend on it.

By dbmayhueAugust 18, 2008 - 10:29pm

YouTube work

In 1999, I so wanted to belittle W with the classic disco song "In The Bush" by Musique. ("Push, push, in the Bush.") Today, my soundtrack for Obama would be "Something You Got," performed live by Ramsey Lewis at the Bohemian Caverns.

By Buxtehude_BarbarossaAugust 19, 2008 - 2:20am

Bush's vacation time

After listening to your comments on Bush's amazing amount of time either on vacation or at the Crawford Ranch, I couldn't help but wonder how much time Dick Cheney has taken off. Or how much time he spends in Washington compared with other VPs. I wouldn't be surprised if he's in Washington much more than his contemporaries.

I've often found myself wondering if Bush "went on vacation" or was "sent on vacation."

By CT-CharlieAugust 19, 2008 - 6:32am

No more faith based govt

Rather than a conversation on faith at Saddleback, how ‘bout a conversation on reason. The default position in this country is if it has to do with faith or religion, it’s good and deserves respect. I’d rather know the candidates’ greatest failure of reason, or when they’d allow their faith to override reality based issues when making a decision. I want to know when the candidates allowed their feelings to override their reason. We’ve just had two terms with a bozo that thought God wanted him to be prez. Iraq makes sense if you think of it as one big freaking faith based initiative.

By jerryblankAugust 19, 2008 - 7:13am

Mccain knew the answers?

I heard this woman's call yesterday. If she was being honest and McCain really had the questions ahead of time, this needs to come out. In fact, if he 'cheated' in a church, isn't that something Obama needs to emphasize? I keep having that McC ad with him saying that Obama would rather win an election and lose a war. Perhaps McC would rather 'lie in a church and go to hell than lose an election". I KNOW without a doubt that if the candidate who was allegedly observed waiting in a motorcade so he could have a headsup on the questions, was OBAMA, it would be all over right wing radio,without the worry if it was true or false. It would be repeated endlessly to re-inforce it. (Gotta keep repeating the propaganda, just ask George W);.
Too bad we are better than them. Our 'betterness' will likely have us lose another election.
Also RE POLLING: dont forget that it is incredibly important for the R's that the results of POLLS be close...they can't diebold an election if it a slam dunk for Obama. It has to be CLOSE. THis is why they need their pals at Zogby etc to keep the polls within a margin of error.
The machines have been proven to be ineffective., yet they are going to be used without paper trails in a lot of states and NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT IT!!! What is wrong with us?

By VicthpoohAugust 19, 2008 - 9:03am

What's wrong with us???

Nothing is wrong with us. What's wrong is that the Republicans and the big corporations have pulled of the greatest coup ever unknown to man and nobody said anything. Welcome to the all new and improved UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INC.

By rusty_scupperAugust 19, 2008 - 10:07am

Chris Matthews

People need to find a way to support Chris Matthews. I continue to hear rumors that Chris might be fired because of the pressure he is getting from so-called ex-Clinton people, and he's been off the air for weeks now. If the deluded ire of the Clinton supporters ends in Chris being canned that alone is a major blow to Democratic politics and journalism. For years, the two people of record in political journalism who you knew would reflect the truth and/or the public sentiment with an inciteful, true journalistic eye were Chris Matthews and Tim Russert.

Clinton people became upset by Chris glowing over Obama speeches, even though that reflected how hundreds of thousands felt (including diehard Republicans) after watching Obama's early speeches. It is petty and shortsighted for ex-Clinton people to dwell on blaming Matthews for the inadequacies of the candidate they supported.

This effort is fueled by Rovelike influences who wish to continue to demonize those like Matthews, Keith and Rachel so as to prop up Hannity, Rush and O'Reilly as "necessary" reactions to a "liberal media." When in fact, liberal voices are a dwindling few in the media. And Matthews has never even been a true "liberal" voice. He is however the only one with the weight and incite to continue to rail that our government hasn't gotten anything accomplished in decades (mainly because the media allows politicians to focus on petty, individual linguistic scuffles while purposefully missing the greater picture). He is the only one to attempt to push political figures to get off their talking points and answer the questions that needed to be answered. He is the only one with a knowledge of political history who is able to focus a conversation away from the minuteness of talking points and open the conversation to a greater reality. Currently, that voice is absent from our political discussions at a time when more is needed, at a time when we need a broader vision of how each individual spat fits into a larger perspective. Politicians want Americans to have no memory. It is up to the media to provide context.

His loss would be our loss, as politics continues to delve deeper into the moment without seeing the greater impact historically.

By barelyawakenowAugust 19, 2008 - 9:25am

I don't really want him to keep his job.

I genuinely think Chris Matthews is terrible. Ever interview he gives drives me up the wall. He spends thirty seconds asking a question. Then interrupts the interviewees right as they start to answer and spends another thirty seconds continuing to ask the same question. The guy can't shut up long enough to let anyone else talk.

Plus, who's at the top of the list to get a show on MSNBC? Rachel Maddow. So I don't really think we would be worse off if Hardball went off the air.

By Jason M. BryantAugust 19, 2008 - 10:59am

He's great

but you must be thinking about the hannity and colmes on fox network. That show is a mess.

By ksnowtonAugust 19, 2008 - 1:30pm

Probably a moot point

As menionted lower down on this page, Rachel is getting her own show on MSNBC, replacing Dan Abrams. I doubt MSNBC would do two big changes at once, so Chris Matthews is probably safe.

By Jason M. BryantAugust 19, 2008 - 4:36pm

Chris Matthews has been off

Chris Matthews has been off air NOT because of problems from ex Clinton people (although they clearly want him dead), but because he was suffering from a bad case of Pneumonia. He was back in his chair last night and whether he stays or not is not so much about Clinton's but because his contract up. Now I'm sure the Clinton folk have pressured MSNBC, but I'm sure the network has other issues with him IF they don't renew.

By Polly Tics (not verified)August 20, 2008 - 9:45pm

Don't look at me

I didn't give it to him.

:winky:

"If you want a picture of the future of Man, it is a boot in a human face--forever."--George Orwell

By capn_crustyAugust 20, 2008 - 9:50pm

Awww, how are you doing this

Awww, how are you doing this week Captain? I had Pneumonia once and it hangs on forever!

Here's a kiss and a prayer to help you along with the healing.

By Polly Tics (not verified)August 20, 2008 - 10:29pm

Issues on presidents can't deliver: here's one!

Rachel et al,

It is so confounding how the Saddleback megachurch and all those who throw the every-four-year-red-meat into presidential campaigns are so successful in confusing and falsely persuading voters!

I listened to the Saddleback event in a car as I drove to see my ailing mother. When the issue of abortion came up, it reminded me of several conversations I have recently had about whom to vote for. I am a Catholic and when other Catholics say that there is no other choice than McCain, I am truly astounded - and frustrated! A Catholic can vote for ANY of the candidates because NONE of them completely fulfills the Catholic ideal, and NEITHER fulfills the notion of "embodiment of evil." We have to use our best judgment, just like everyone else!

Look, regarding a president and abortion, while a president can put forward candidates for the Supreme Court, that's really about as far as a president can go. (And that is a long way, but the Senate still has the option to confirm or not.) Still, even if a president were able to place sufficient anti-abortion justices on the Court to roll back Roe v. Wade, that would not make abortion illegal, it would deny public financing of abortions to poor people. Who would bet $1.50 that wealthy pregnant women or their families would decide against an abortion if they did not want to go through with the pregnancy?

That a presidential candidate is for or against abortion is a non-issue because a president doesn't affect the issue. (What did Reagan, Bush the Elder or Bush the Lesser done about it?) This is a red meat issue (as in a non-issue) that only serves to ignite people who are not informed about the issues presidents CAN and CANNOT affect effectively.

ANYBODY INTERESTED IN LISTING OTHERS???

Paul

By penglishcsbAugust 19, 2008 - 11:20am

Rachel Maddow E-cards

Have you people seen these yet?

http://ecards.cerebralitch.com/cards/viva_rachel_maddow

I really like this one but they're all good...

http://ecards.cerebralitch.com/cards/viva_rachel_maddow/VRM104

By scott IAugust 19, 2008 - 11:33am

Too funny!!

I logged on to post just that. :)

I already sent my wifey the one that professes my love to her.

I did get a little miffy because Chuck Todd (a) got more cards, and (b) got better color cards. All of Rachel cards are pink. I have nothing against the color pink, but a few years back there was a research made on book covers. The study was made to see how book covers affected sales. The result was that pink covers sold less than those with green covers. Women authors were more likely to get pink covers, and men are more likely to get green covers.

Rachel's cards were all pink, whereas Chuch's were red-white-blue or green. :/

By cool_princessieAugust 19, 2008 - 12:00pm

Even funnier

I just realized that the card I sent my love sayzz inside that I would drop her for Rachel.... NOT the intention at all.... sadly, my partner didn't find this funny.... :)~

please pay attention to the cards, and don't get caught in the moment like I did. LOL!!!!

By cool_princessieAugust 19, 2008 - 12:39pm

The Who Who Show?

No offense to Mr Bender... he seems like a decent bloke and all, but is this still the Rachel Maddow show,??? Or has her star risen out of reach of the common radio listener?

By IdenilAugust 19, 2008 - 12:38pm

Did you see this over on Firedoglake?

http://firedoglake.com/2008/08/19/who-is-orson-swindle-and-why-the-hell-...
I especially love this line:

It's possible John McCain really did have the "cross in the dirt" experience exactly like Alexander Solzhenitsyn's. It's also possible that little fairies encapsulated in lightly scented bubbles fly out his ass when he farts.

By domitypeAugust 19, 2008 - 1:34pm

RM's tv show

The time has finally come...

http://tvdecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/rachel-maddow-to-replace-dan-abrams-on-msnbc/

By rhitAugust 19, 2008 - 4:22pm

Rachel on MSNBC

Wow, this is great for Rachel, for MSNBC and for the viewers! But... will her AAR show survive?

Paul

By penglishcsbAugust 19, 2008 - 4:37pm

RM's TV show

Wonderful! I hope she keeps the format much like her radio show, newsy and not a bunch of talking heads. Perfect place for her between KO and his repeat show. Everyone who watches him will stay with her, I know I will. Now I bounce around between CNN and local news. I wonder if she'll keep all three hours of radio, maybe the first two and drop the 3rd.

Congrats Rachel!

By PatConnorsAugust 19, 2008 - 4:38pm

Congratulations

Congratulations to Rachel on getting her own show. Since Abrams does his last show on Thursday, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they've known about this for a little while.

Since the time slot they're giving her is after the radio show, perhaps that means she'll do both. Something's going to have to change, though. If Rachel isn't going to be on Race for the White House at all anymore, then the simulcast doesn't make sense. Three hours of radio and *then* the TV show is asking a lot. Maybe they'll start the radio show at 7, do two hours, then simulcast her TV show. That has problems, too, since it might be hard to avoid repeated material.

We'll see. I wish her good luck with the new show.

By Jason M. BryantAugust 19, 2008 - 4:42pm

Hip Hip Hooray Rachel!

Yes, she has already said she intends to do the radio show along with the teevee gig. I knew she wouldn't leave us in the lurch...

By Polly Tics (not verified)August 20, 2008 - 9:39pm

Congrats Rachel!!!

Will keep following your career. Hopefully your show will be podcastable like Keith's is!!!!!

By cool_princessieAugust 19, 2008 - 4:47pm

Congratulations Rachel

No one has worked harder, been more informed or deserves it more.

Of course, I wonder what will happen with the radio show....perhaps a different time slot (one that my local station might actually, finally, broadcast???) Or as suggested by Jason...a simulcast....THAT would finally make sense as opposed to RttWH.

And, will there be a place for Kent?

Hank in Albuquerque

By nmhankAugust 19, 2008 - 4:50pm

Rachel rules!

What outstanding news! The only thing better would be if Rachel had Kent Jones with her on MSNBC every day...

By airboyAugust 19, 2008 - 4:51pm

Best News Ever

YES! - congratulations on yr own tv show, Rachel!

By TinaBAugust 19, 2008 - 5:10pm

Gray matters ...

Subject Title: Gray matters ...

After Pastor Rick Warren's: "Forum on Faith", I have heard and read a lot on the notion that John McCain "won" the night. Which in itself is a ridiculous notion, how can your "ideas" on faith be the winning ones?

Anyway, yes, John McCain "did" respond quickly, and his answers were very black and white - while in contrast Obama's answers were thought out before spoken, and yes his answers did seem "gray" on some of the hot button issues like abortion and rights at conception, etc.

Well, honestly, for me, these "are" gray areas! I think a leader of a nation with multiple faiths "needs" to be gray in these areas. A leader can have his own views on this, but to place his "personal" views into policy re: religion is completely wrong.

As an independent voter, at one time in 2000 I had considered voting for McCain. The reason I didn't - his knee jerk reactions to questions without giving them the deep thought they deserve - but mostly because he was always so unreasonably black and white re: issues like abortion.

How could a leader of our nation be so unable to budge on this issue?

As a woman, I could never in good conscious vote for a leader who was pro-life, it is a choice that women do not make lightly, it is also a decision they live with for the rest of their lives, and it is their "personal" decision.

This simply is NOT an issue for a leader to dictate policy on! What are we, Communists?

I would much rather the leader of our "free" nation be gray on a lot of areas, and not make some of these "very" personal ideas or thoughts LAWS!

One voter who is supporting Obama for his gray matter - he knows their are many issues that are gray matters.

-Marie Smyers

Rochester, NH

PS - I know some people thought John McCain won the night because he talked to the audience - I didn't like that at all - it was supposed to be a discussion with Pastor Warren, not a "stump to the voters"!

PSS - I find it very disturbing that a man running for president, (John McCain) can sit in a church and act all pious while he has been LYING in ads re: Obama. AND he says he has lied to the country before, (lying to SC voters in 2000 re: their flag to get votes, and admitting it in his book) a man should come to church with a clean and clear heart.

By Marie SmyersAugust 19, 2008 - 6:40pm

Comments

(50)