TheDebbieDee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:03 PM
Original message |
Sen. Chris Dodd must watch The Rachel Maddow Show. |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-11-10 05:04 PM by TheDebbieDee
Just last night Rachel was discussing how Sen. Dodd had ceded the Democratic majority of his finance committee and was working in a bi-partisan way with Sen. Corker on a banking regulation bill.
Rachel mentioned that Sen. Corker was the recipient of huge gifts from the payday loan industry and this might compromise Sen. Corker's judgment.
I guess Sen. Dodd did not know that til Rachel dropped that dime. Anyway, Sen. Dodd decided to take control of that committee and write the bill without Sen. Corker's help.
Thanks, Rachel.
Edited because proper names start with capital letters.
|
alstephenson
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:05 PM
Response to Original message |
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:08 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Gawd we need more Rachels to set the |
|
policy makers straight. I wonder why she doesn't run for office? She has the political education background, media savvy and the youth so that she could become a powerful member of Congress in the future. It's really time to start weeding all the corporate DINOS out of Washington and replacing them with true progressives who know policy.
|
damntexdem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. For that matter, we need Rachel in the Senate. |
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. She's a native Californian. I can see her replacing DiFi. n/t |
Warpy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
5. She's better heading a research staff |
|
and telling a growing audience what they're digging up on the only news show worth tuning in. She'd be one voice of 100 in the Senate, kept stifled because she'd be threatening the cash flow of the other members.
She's a marvelous teacher, able to explain just what sort of shenanigans are going on clearly and concisely and without talking down to her audience.
The only thing I'd love to do is move her to CBS Evening News when Couric's contract runs out--or any other broadcast news that would deliver a larger audience than cable/satellite.
|
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
8. CBS would be a bad move. She would be censored |
|
and probably made the object of a witch hunt like they did to Dan Rather if she refused to comply. I prefer her uncensored.
|
upi402
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:10 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Rachel Maddow speaks for me |
|
:bounce: Take the party back!
|
Rhiannon12866
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:15 PM
Response to Original message |
7. What would we do without Rachel?! |
|
She's "must see" TV! :applause:
|
ThomWV
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:16 PM
Response to Original message |
9. I am so pleased that we have Rachel, there is no one else like her on the national stage. |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-11-10 05:17 PM by ThomWV
Honest, respectful, and seemingly far more intelligent than her contemporaries.
|
wryter2000
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:35 PM
Response to Original message |
10. I love her, too, but there may be another explanation |
|
According to Hartmann, there was some meeting of progressive media people yesterday, and they all lit into the Dems pretty loudly. He thougth that might have changed Dodd's mind.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 11th 2024, 03:43 AM
Response to Original message |