tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post2831876660163406607..comments2024-03-28T17:40:13.653-04:00Comments on the daily howler: Shorter Rachel Maddow: Hey, rubes!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-33087446016020671592012-12-26T22:29:13.365-05:002012-12-26T22:29:13.365-05:00A 15 minute press conference by the President coul...A 15 minute press conference by the President could have clearly stated the government's message. He chose not to do that for reasons unknown. <br /><br />As far as being a press failure...it was certainly far from a perfect press performance, but the press focus on Benghazi did force the government to admit to different facts than they originally put forth. If the press were always this skeptical, the public would be better served. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-23975412986170216762012-12-22T14:03:59.460-05:002012-12-22T14:03:59.460-05:00Change the word "fans" to the word "...Change the word "fans" to the word "MSNBC" ("she'd probably anger some of her fans"), and your contention would be more accurate.<br /><br />It shouldn't be news that mass media, which depends on the largesse of government, and whose upper management is as establishment as it gets, will not countenance criticism of American policy in Iran, Israel or anywhere else. Expecting Maddow to take up these subjects is as silly as blaming her for the absence of Shakespearean drama in prime time.<br /><br />Of course, blaming Maddow does serve a purpose, as TDH exhaustively proves, day after day -- it avoids confronting the real issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-83729196978145578872012-12-22T11:03:35.304-05:002012-12-22T11:03:35.304-05:00Maybe not always after a few days, but rather a fe...Maybe not always after a few days, but rather a few years, if ever.<br /><br />AC/MAAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-18410816916838500492012-12-22T10:21:30.711-05:002012-12-22T10:21:30.711-05:00The idea that Republicans only wanted to fault Ric...The idea that Republicans only wanted to fault Rice for misstatements or even lying on the Sunday talk shows is fatuous. They wanted to blame her and the Obama administration for the attack and deaths in any way they could. Since Rice had nothing to do with the actual security they could not take the line that she had bungled security without being accused immediately of lying themselves. Nevertheless, the (false) connection was implicit.<br /><br />The debate all along has been over whether Rice and Obama could be saddled with responsibility for the attack, or whether that responsibility belonged with the CIA and other professional agencies, including State. The release of the report was just another battle in that campaign, and there seems no good reason to criticize Maddow for taking part in it.skeptonomistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-80507695970803449642012-12-22T08:24:28.759-05:002012-12-22T08:24:28.759-05:00"But when TDH says: Maddow is a horrible clim..."But when TDH says: Maddow is a horrible climber," anyone willing to look at the long history of evidence would have to agree.<br /><br />"When Rice needed help, she was totally AWOL. Is it really Maddow's job to help administration officials?"<br /><br />No, it's not her job to help. She seemed to pretend it was.<br /><br />But then, what *is* Maddow's job?<br /><br />On the evidence, it's conning liberals with feel-good pablum and misdirection.<br /><br />"Why should she get out in front to defend Rice?"<br />"It's not like they have trouble getting press coverage to get their message out."<br /><br />It sounds like you weren't paying any attention during the Benghazi debacle. Because it was very much a press failure. The press as a group was actively distorting and mis-stating the message that you seem to think had no trouble getting out.<br /><br />It's reasonable to criticize Maddow -- or any other journalist or commentator -- for failing to document this press failure, which was itself big news.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-13800507219870252132012-12-22T04:49:52.905-05:002012-12-22T04:49:52.905-05:00The republican attacks against Rice for lying abou...The republican attacks against Rice for lying about Benghazi were all about flexing republican muscle with the media in tow. There was no there, there. All one need do is reread or re-watch a feeble-minded blowhard named John McCain reel out his song and dance to know that he and other republicans were mendacious about the early story with regard to Benghazi. Whether Rice was honest or not about the early information available to her was not relevant, because nearly all information concerning national security cannot be trusted until a few days after an event when enough time has passed to collect evidence and investigate the circumstances involved. Rice's response on the Sunday talk show circuit was simply parroting the intelligence available to her.<br /><br />There were several events throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa that were either planned due to the 9/11 anniversary, or were spontaneous due to ongoing resentment and a desire for vengeance against the West in general and the U.S. in particular.gcwallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07990785263482839943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-13904587789721705592012-12-21T23:50:57.521-05:002012-12-21T23:50:57.521-05:00She was worse tonight. She had a segment on Hage...She was worse tonight. She had a segment on Hagel. Hagel is under attack for three reasons--his anti-gay comments, the fact that he's a Republican (The Daily Kos people don't want Democrats picking Republican Defense Secretaries), and the fact that he's pretty far left by American standards on the subjects of Iran and Israel and has said derogatory things about the Israel Lobby, even calling it the "Jewish" lobby at one point. It's this last set of issues that has Hagel in trouble with Republicans and has also created a split among Jewish groups concerned about Israel (with J Street supporting him, but others opposed).<br /><br />Rachel says nothing about the Iran,Israel, and lobby issues. I think it's deliberate--if she had to comment then no matter what stand she took she'd probably anger some of her fans. Anything involving Israel is touchy. (Boohoo. Get out of the political commentator business if this bothers her.) Or maybe she just wants to pretend that Republicans oppose Hagel because they just like opposing Obama nominees. Whatever the reason, she's not informing her viewers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-21158878261332535872012-12-21T23:04:53.419-05:002012-12-21T23:04:53.419-05:00It's true that Maddow didn't address the a...It's true that Maddow didn't address the actual GOP accusations against Rice and this post makes that point well. <br /><br />But when TDH says:<br />Maddow is a horrible climber. When Rice needed help, she was totally AWOL.<br /><br />Is it really Maddow's job to help administration officials? It's not like they have trouble getting press coverage to get their message out. To carry the Maddow defense further, why should she get out in front to defend Rice when the Pres waited 2 months and after the election to find his voice? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-51106981497805473132012-12-21T22:16:27.570-05:002012-12-21T22:16:27.570-05:00when will she self-correct about Inouye's name...when will she self-correct about Inouye's name?civic literacyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07370758487023486073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-83823556178562116852012-12-21T19:51:45.128-05:002012-12-21T19:51:45.128-05:00Bob, I am convinced that watching Maddow is a wast...Bob, I am convinced that watching Maddow is a waste of my time so I never bother clicking on the links you provide if we want to see the whole segment. A long time ago I used to think the liberals needed a Rush Limbaugh of their own until they started emerging. I don't need or want someone who shares my views to feel they have to resort to dishonest distortions and spew bile infested rants to make points that will best be accepted on their own merits.Horace Richardsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-64752142311805782262012-12-21T19:45:33.325-05:002012-12-21T19:45:33.325-05:00While I do agree somewhat with your analysis of Ra...While I do agree somewhat with your analysis of Rachel Maddow's commentary, is it necessary to use words like "self-dealing ass?" I found those words quite unacceptable. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-32717650968648878002012-12-21T17:42:38.925-05:002012-12-21T17:42:38.925-05:00I'll tell you what makes me gag: Maddow's ...I'll tell you what makes me gag: Maddow's nightly exchange with Ed when she peppers her dialogue with faux-hippie "mans" (Thanks, man, etc.).<br /><br />As far as Rice is concerned, I recall a rather tense live appearance by Rice on the show early on in the Obama administration. Seems that Maddow advanced one of her blithe generalizations and Rice corrected her rather tersely; Ms. Maddow did not take kindly to this and there was a real edge from then on. <br /><br />Rice has made subsequent appearances, but I've never discerned anything more than an icy cordiality between them.<br /><br />Perhaps, like John McCain, but with much more subtlety, Maddow has been getting back at Rice for past slights. After all, one just doesn't correct Ms. Maddow, it's bad form.catamountnoreply@blogger.com