Tired of Rachel bashing Democrats. She totally doesn't get it re: the M$M!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

Before you flame me, please just hear me out:

<rant on>

Sometimes Rachel is so passionate about what she believes that she cannot be reasonable when it comes to how basic politics works. She and I are BOTH political scientists and I respect her brilliance, as she is way smarter than me, but her passion thwarts logic at times.

Case in point--

On her show the other night, she went on a rant about why it is that Democrats continue to run local campaigns while Republicans--with the help of Faux Noise--are running national campaigns. Her rant was very anti-Democratic Party, as she has been in recent days. She chastised Democrats because they adhere to the Tip O'Neill Doctrine that "all politics is local." She rightfully argued that times have changed with technological advancements, not to mention that money has become the "mother's milk" of politics. As a result, Democrats should be running differently, a la like Republicans are, making good use of the media.

What Rachel doesn't understand is that Democrats cannot run national campaigns because they don't have the corporate infrastructure like the Republicans do. The contemporary Republican Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of Fox News and the corporations. To her credit, she showed clips of Sharron Angle admitting that Faux is footing the bill for her campaign. She also demonstrated how tea party candidates like Joe Miller and Christine O'Donnell are taking advantage of this new corporate medium. As a result, they are outraising their opponents by at least a 10 to 1 margin.

My problem with Rachel is that she doesn't understand that the Democrats have no friends in the mainstream media. They simply don't. And MSNBC, while it's friendlier to Democrats, cannot be like Faux and explicitly campaign for Democratic candidates. Even the appearance of that happening on MSNBC would create a firestorm. And we all know how MSNBC threw David Schuster under the bus and reprimanded Chris Matthews, and now Ed Schultz for minor infractions compared to how the Republicans have been demonizing the Democrats and the president 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

While many of Rachel's criticisms of Obama and the Democratic Party are valid--the latest being how many Democrats have cowardly refused to run on their accomplishments or publicly go after the Republicans for their tax philosophy--this particular charge against Democrats is short-sighted and naive.

If the Democratic Party had even a modicum of media-friendly outlets as the Republican Party does, the story would be different and her claims would make sense. But to suggest that the Democrats ought to run like the Republicans is just illogical given the infrastructure that the Republicans have built with the help of the Corporate Media. Plus, the fact that journalism is dead and opinion-based reporting is now the order of the day.

Consider this, for example: I'm hearing all the concern about Democrats not running or Obama not out there fighting hard enough. It's a LIE!! The corporate media is refusing to show Democrats at town hall meetings. They didn't even air the president's brilliant UN speech. Did they even show the president signing the small business bill into law the other day? Of course not. And when the few shows do manage to invite a few Democrats, they tend to represent the corporatist or Blue Dog wing of the party, and/or are the milquetoast, soft spoken types like the Harry Reid. When was the last time you saw a Sherrod Brown or a Debbie Stabenow outside of MSNBC, on Meet the Press, This Week or Face the Nation? You haven't. From the very beginning--even days after the 2008 election--it has been as if the Republicans were in the majority. Their appearance on the Sunday morning talk shows outnumbered Democrats by a 3 to 1 margin. (Media Matters covers this quite well.)

So when Rachel goes after the Democrats for not running the way she would like for them to run, she really should consider the fact that the Democrats simply do not have the support of the Corporate Media. They never have.

<rant off>

[Aramchek]

1. She is an Idealist. Obama has to be a Realist.

[metapunditedgy]

37. Really...? Was Obama an Idealist or a Realist during his campaign? n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

40. Both. He said that he would do some things that liberals wouldn't like...

and that conservative wouldn't like. He even told you that he would pursue actions that are not popular with the teachers unions; you know, that he supports charter schools, for instance. He also told you that he would pursue action in Afghanistan because there are "smart wars" and "dumb wars." But, he did tell you that he wanted to work with Republicans. That is definitely true.

Bottom line: there was nothing in either his rhetoric or action that should have led us to believe that Barack Obama is or ever was a liberal. He simply is/was not. The big problem is that many people projected onto him what they wanted him to be rather than actually research his record or go behind his words to look at his platform. For those who are upset and disappointed in Obama for failing the purity test, here's something that most honest pundits were right about: his positions are not at all that much different from Bill and Hillary Clinton. Many of us just didn't want to believe it. We wanted him to be something that is not, and he is NOT a liberal.

Rachel knew that, too. She only acts as if it is some major, astonishing revelation. And that's why I cannot understand her attitude. She has known all along that he was never going to be Dennis Kucinich.

He was a idealist in terms of some of that rhetoric when it came to changing the way Washington works. He was also incredibly naive.

[metapunditedgy]

44. Both? 50-50? 80-20? 100-100? Why can't Rachel be "both"? Why can't Obama *still* be both?

"Bottom line: there was nothing in either his rhetoric or action that should have led us to believe that Barack Obama is or ever was a liberal."

Now that's just an attempt at revisionist history. Surrealist revisionist history.

Bottom line, you're saying Obama's voters were stupid and gullible.

On edit: added quotes around your quote.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

48. Examples, please. I'd like to see examples, just like I gave you examples.

And thanks for the edits; I sometimes type too fast and end up making mistakes.

[metapunditedgy]

52. Is health care a right or a privilege? Health care is a *right*. 'Nuff said.

Here's some more from the "Obameter." I'm not defending their classification of these campaign promises, just that they were made and I'd consider them to be liberal.

- Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials
- Double funding for afterschool programs
- "will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws." (LOLZ)
- Allow bankruptcy judges to modify terms of a home mortgage
- Give annual "State of the World" address
- Provide an annual report on "state of our energy future"
- Recognize the Armenian genocide
- Allow penalty-free hardship withdrawals from retirement accounts in 2008 and 2009
- No family making less than $250,000 will see "any form of tax increase."

AAAAAAAAANNNNNDDDDDD.....
- Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN (SUPER LOLZZZ!)

I just cut and pasted a few from the "promises broken" section. (Again, I'm not arguing they were broken, just refuting the revisionism that Obama did not campaign as a liberal.) There are plenty more (and probably meatier) to choose from.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

66. Nuff said? Not so fast...

From Politifact:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-kept/

[metapunditedgy]

53. But not to change subjects, why can't Rachel be "both"? Why did Obama have to change? n/t

[BzaDem]

54. In this context, an idealist is someone who won't actually change anything but will talk a lot

about change.

For example, almost everything you mention in your list actually can't be done unilaterally by the executive. It is done by Congress. That requires negotiation and compromise.

An idealist would not make the hard compromises that have to be made to get any bill enacted about anything (other than naming a post office). They would talk and talk and talk, but they wouldn't actually produce one iota of change (other than the vibrations in the air resulting from their vocal cords).

Obama, on the other hand, knows that in our system of government, Congress is the legislative body that enacts laws, and that to get bills that reach 60 votes, hard compromises have to be made. Sometimes, promises can't be enacted, because he doesn't have the power to enact them. Sometimes, a President has to forsake some priorities to even make most progress on other priorities (and sometimes a President is lucky to even have that opportunity).

Your conflation of "idealist" and "liberal" is misplaced. Obama the "realist" is much more liberal than an idealist, because he actually makes policy more liberal (rather than just talking about it). If you are looking for an idealist who refuses to compromise, you are probably going to be disappointed, because Democratic voters are likely not going to waste the Presidential nomination on someone who will do anything and everything except what is necessary to actually produce change.

[metapunditedgy]

56. Wow. Where to start. Umm...

(By the way... have I gotten shifted over to BzaDem? Hi, BzaDem!)

You said: "In this context, an idealist is someone who won't actually change anything but will talk a lot...." But the context was "Obama ran as both an idealist and a realist." So I'm having trouble understanding your call for context... in context.

Then you say the stuff in the list "can't be done unilaterally by the executive." And I supposed if pressed on the issue, you'd take us down the rabbit hole that ends with Joe Lieberman as Cheshire Cat once again. But we can skip that whole unpleasantness about wasted bully pulpits and Congressional majorities, because a lot of those promises actually are on Obama's shoulders alone.

Call HCR players to negotiate around a big table? What, Obama needs to requisition a table from Joe?

"Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials." We can start with the executive branch there....

And this one: "will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws." Joe, where did you put the bully pulpit? Can I have it back, pleeease???

Then you said: "Obama the "realist" is much more liberal than an idealist, because he actually makes policy more liberal (rather than just talking about it)."

Wow. Let's start with this. Given that an overwhelming majority of Americans wanted a *robust* public option, *why* wasn't it possible to get one, or to even STEP UP TO THE FLIPPING BULLY PULPIT and demand one? What *exactly* was the obstacle that prevented us from doing that?

Finally, what you're telling me is that if Obama (or other Democrats) use liberal rhetoric in their campaigns again, I should assume that they're blowing sunshine, because... well, because THEY ALREADY KNOW JOE WON'T LET IT HAPPEN. Is that your position? I really hope not.

[BzaDem]

61. Your vision of how change is enacted does not correspond with reality.

"hen you say the stuff in the list "can't be done unilaterally by the executive." And I supposed if pressed on the issue, you'd take us down the rabbit hole that ends with Joe Lieberman as Cheshire Cat once again."

Yes, I do tend to not take seriously conspiracy theories (such as how Obama secretly wanted the public option killed and made a secret arrangement to have Lieberman kill it). There is a 9/11 forum for that stuff.

""Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials." We can start with the executive branch there...."

Actually, Obama made very tough rules regarding lobbyists and revolving doors (almost as soon as he was inaugurated). So much that otherwise qualified people have been unable to serve in the Obama administration because of it.

"Call HCR players to negotiate around a big table? What, Obama needs to requisition a table from Joe?"

Here, your perception of a "negotiation" is the problem. In reality, Lieberman/Nelson's position in the negotiation is, you get rid of the public option, and then I will vote for the bill. Lieberman and Nelson would have been HAPPY to walk away and give the President nothing. In fact, if Nelson walked away, it probably would have ensured his re-election (rather than ensuring his defeat, which is where he is headed after voting for HCR).

The type of negotiation you envision (such as a labor negotiation) only happens when both sides have a disincentive to walk away (such as the negative effects of a strike for both sides). In this case, there was absolutely NO disincentive for them to walk away (and in Nelson's case, a huge incentive to walk away). If Obama said public option or bust, then Lieberman and Nelson would have both walked away. You can't have a negotiation when the other side isn't there.

"*why* wasn't it possible to get one, or to even STEP UP TO THE FLIPPING BULLY PULPIT and demand one"

There are two problems here. The first is that you are trying to link what is popular with what is possible. While some things are both popular and possible, a much greater amount is popular and yet simultaneously not possible. In fact, there are many things for whose popularity does not at ALL factor into whether or not it is possible. In the public option's case, while a majority favored the public option in the healthcare bill if one existed, a majority also wanted to kill the healthcare bill. (And no, this was not "from the left" -- they poll this, and a majority actually wanted to kill HCR because of too much government, not too little.)

That should give you a sense as to why the public option was never going to pass even though it was popular. But even aside from the public option (and much more generally), you should not assume that something is possible just because it is popular.

The second problem with your quote is that you assume the "bully pulpit" actually influences policy. This is false (and in fact, it often doesn't even influence people). Here is the best summary I could find that enlightens as to the limits of the "bully pulpit:"

--snip--

"Washington is obsessed with oratory and persuasion. Lawmakers are constantly begging the White House to take the rhetorical lead on this or that. Pundits and reporters talk incessantly about message and narrative. In the movies and on TV, governing always culminates with a dramatic speech. The only problem? Speeches don't matter.

George Edwards, a political scientist at Texas A&M and the author of the book "On Deaf Ears: The Limits of the Bully Pulpit," has studied the major speeches of every recent presidency. His conclusion: "When we actually looked at what happened to virtually all presidents, the public almost never moves in their direction. That was true with Ronald Reagan, with Bill Clinton. It was even true with Franklin Roosevelt before World War II. The country moved when Hitler did things, rather than when FDR made a speech. And we're seeing the same thing with Barack Obama."

If the point of presidential speeches is to move public opinion -- and that's certainly what most of us think -- they simply don't work.

So, what does? Well, Mr. Edwards says, the public actually has beliefs of its own: "The public supports what the president wants to do when they support what the president wants to do."

--snip--

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10262/1088323-109.stm

In summary, your vision of how government actually works relies on the following assumptions:

* Legislators who do not want a policy can simply be flipped in a "negotiation" around a "table."
* The President can use the "Bully Pulpit" to change America's opinion on an issue of policy.
* Something being popular implies that it is possible to enact.

While there are exceptions, all three assumptions are false in general.

Next time you hear a "promise" from a candidate on the campaign trail, you should think about the limits of that promise given the power delegated to the candidate. For example, if Obama makes a "promise" to enact a law, you should simply mechanically translate that into a promise not to veto the law should Congress enact it. Presidents don't enact laws. The laws that do get enacted have FAR more to do with the makeup of Congress than the President. Roosevelt and Johnson had FAR more than 60 seats in the Senate during various points in their presidencies.

[metapunditedgy]

62. Whew....

Let's keep the original topic in mind. Did Obama run as a realist (yay!) or an idealist (boo!)? The answer given upthread was both. Now you're saying that any politician who uses idealist rhetoric should be assumed to be lying. Ok, whatever. Then I guess the question of how he campaigned is moot. He was lying, is your response.

Did Obama crack down on lobbyists? You say yes, politifact says no. Check for yourself. I guess we'll have to leave it at you and politifact disagree on that one. But that's not relevant... the point for *this* discussion is that Obama campaigned as a liberal, hippie, lobbyist-quashing idealist. Now anybody who repeats Obama's concerns is told to stop whining.

Do bully pulpits work? I think I responded once before to your selective quoting of that article. But I guess we'll never know for sure, because we never even got a *chance* to see. Idealist promise made, idealist promise broken. You can't *realistically* (or rationally) blame this stuff on Congress.

Was it impossible for Obama to keep his promise to negotiate HCR openly? We'll never know, because he never even sent out an invitation to the "major players." Sorry, there's no way to spin the fact that this was a liberal promise that was broken for no good reason.

I don't think your attempts to rewrite the narrative and history itself should be labeled "realist." Ironic, isn't it?

[BzaDem]

67. Obama ran as an idealist to the extent that he ran as a postpartisan candidate who would work with

Republicans (and other process-related "promises"). He emphasized "working with Republicans" as often as he could. That was idealist bullshit, because it could never happen.

But the idea that Obama ran as an idealist from a liberal policy perspective is revisionist history. He ran ads AGAINST Single Payer, calling it "extreme." He barely talked about a public option at all. He specifically said he would look forward, not backward, whenever asked by anyone whether he would investigate Bush. He ran on ESCALATING in Afghanistan. The idea that Obama ran as some liberal crusader might have come about because he was running against Hillary, but that was because some people were hearing what they wanted to hear (not because that idea is at all accurate).

"But I guess we'll never know for sure, because we never even got a *chance* to see."

Actually, the entire point of that article and corresponding book was that we really HAVE had a chance to see, and that it DIDN'T work. He wasn't talking about hypotheticals -- he was talking about studies of its effectiveness in the past, in concrete instances.

"You can't *realistically* (or rationally) blame this stuff on Congress."

To the contrary. Only an irrational person who had no understanding of how government ACTUALLY works could NOT blame failure to enact bills on Congress. See Article I, as opposed to Article II.

"He was lying, is your response."

I wouldn't call it lying. If you want to call it lying, it is only lying to the extent that every single presidential candidate who has ever ran for President also "lies." Another way of looking at it is that it isn't Obama's fault if you haven't read the Constitution and do not understand that Congress legislates (as opposed to the President), and Congress can give the President the finger as often as it likes (as it often does).

"I don't think your attempts to rewrite the narrative and history itself should be labeled "realist." Ironic, isn't it?"

The only ironic part of it is that you are claiming that I am rewriting history, rather than the other way around.

[metapunditedgy]

74. It's all my fault. I get that.

Did Obama campaign on the public option? Here, you like to cite Ezra Klein:
But it's impossible to defend Obama's statement that "I didn't campaign on the public option." For one thing, it was in his campaign plan, which is to say, he campaigned on it.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/yes_obama_did_campaign_on_the.html

Do you consider the public option to be "practical" or "realism"?

Do you consider these campaign promises (from upthread) to be "practical" or "realism"?

- Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials
- Double funding for afterschool programs- "will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws."
- Allow bankruptcy judges to modify terms of a home mortgage
- Give annual "State of the World" address
- Provide an annual report on "state of our energy future"
- Recognize the Armenian genocide
- Allow penalty-free hardship withdrawals from retirement accounts in 2008 and 2009
- No family making less than $250,000 will see "any form of tax increase."
AAAAAANNND:
- Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN

Re: the bully pulpit. The issue is, of course, that Obama promised to use it and didn't. (But hey, if it was pointless, what would it hurt to try, since he promised?) This revisionist history is silly: "Well, Obama knew it wouldn't work, so he didn't do it... he was just pulling your leg when he said that." Doesn't really work, does it?

Again, you're saying Congress is responsible for lobbyist exemptions in the Exec Branch, the disappearing bully pulpit, broken promises to gay couples, lack of transparency in HCR negotiations, etc.? That seems to be what you're saying.

And then you wouldn't say Obama was lying, but maybe there were "lies", and then I think there was some stuff about "political realistic statements" or whatever that could be misunderstood as lies, but I guess you edited that out.

And finally, you're saying all of this is my fault. Ok, I get that. Whatever.

[BzaDem]

76. Since you seem to love politifact, let's look at what they say.

Promises kept: 122
Compromise: 39
Promise broken: 22
Stalled: 82
In the works: 238
Not yet rated: 3

Your bullet points of broken Obama "promises" sounds impressive, if you put your fingers in your ears and ignore the 122 promises kept even without compromise, the 39 compromises, and the 238 promises in the works.

Nice try though.

"Did Obama campaign on the public option?"

I said he barely talked about it, not that he didn't campaign on it (because I knew you would grab something out of the depths of a policy whitepaper on his website and act like he is a progressive hero for basing his campaign on it).

[metapunditedgy]

77. Not sure who you're arguing with there, but the discussion was about whether Obama

ran as a liberal. I just went to politifact to get a nice list of campaign promises. I even said I wasn't judging whether or not those promises were kept.

If you want to have a thread on whether Obama is keeping his promises, start one. It should be lively. He certainly has kept some.

I picked the Ezra Klein blog post because you seemed to find him authoritative on the subject of the bully pulpit. You can google for more detailed info about how the Obama campaign used HCR and the public option as part of its message. Putting your take together with the info out there, it's starting to sound like the goal was to have a very mixed message out there, and public option was intentionally part of the mix.

But... it's really hard keeping you on track here. You seem to want to change what the discussion is about all the time. ("Look--a pony... gotcha!") Anyway, the original post I was responding to said that Obama was a capital-R Realist. And I was like, "Damn, when did that happen? I voted for an Idealist. And if the labels are fluid for Obama, why are we being all hard-assed about labeling Rachel?"

And I keep forgetting to ask, where do you get this statement that a majority wanted to kill the HCR bill, even *excluding* people from the left who thought it didn't go far enough? I'd like to add that to my list of polls.

[metapunditedgy]

82. Seriously, do you have the reference for this poll you cite:

You said:

"In the public option's case, while a majority favored the public option in the healthcare bill if one existed, a majority also wanted to kill the healthcare bill. (And no, this was not "from the left" -- they poll this, and a majority actually wanted to kill HCR because of too much government, not too little.)"

[Aramchek]

58. now that is a great post and exactly what I meant

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

65. I think she is, sometimes. She is both, but I think she's much more the idealist. n/t

[Greyhound]

83. "Realist"

Conservaspeak for avoiding actions that might hurt Big Money.

Ideals are those things you are supposed to stand, and fight, for. Compromising is for details to further an agenda, not that agenda itself.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

2. But on the other hand she keeps giving them ammo to use which they apparently ignore.

How many of these local campaigns point out that their opposition is being funded by billionaire jagoffs the Kock brothers. Not to mention that poll after poll shows that tax cuts for the rich are unpopular yet the Democrats weaseled out of that one instead of turning it into a campaign issue. Both her and Olbermann keep trying to help these guys but the party is just not interested, it seems.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

9. I agree with that. There's much ammo to go around. Some Democrats are using it.

Others--the Blue Dogs--aren't. They are scared. Indeed they are absolutely terrified of Republicans. It's so frustrating. They are going to lose anyway (read: Blanche). Why not go out doing the right thing?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

10. Ahh Blanche now there's a paragon of principle. As demonstrated by her

cowardly don't ask don't tell vote. You're right if I knew I was on my way out at the very least I'd try to do as much as possible and be productive.

[Supersedeas]

23. spot on

[Nite Owl]

3. The dems have run national

campaigns just not this time because they have chosen not to. Yes, the MSM is partially to blame but the dems lack the fight and are running away from accomplishments in certain areas of the country where Blue Dogs have chosen to run as faux repukes. Some of these dems are too conservative for our party and not conservative (nuts) enough to win over GOPers this time. They were brought in on the '08 wave and are not likely to win this time.
There is a difference between bashing and having a disagreement, bashing and constructive criticism.

[DURHAM D]

5. +1

Yep - The Dems don't have a short "sound bite" to run with this time.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

7. I do agree with that. But she seemed to suggest that it was a Democratic Party

platform not to run national campaigns, and she might be right. Still, I think it's really not fair given the environment that we're in now. I mean, the Democrats aren't getting any help from anyone in the media.

And I agreed with her; there are some Democrats who aren't campaigning on their record. I didn't deny that she was right. I just think that Republicans have really built a strong infrastructure that is difficult to break down. While it is true that Democrats did run national campaigns in the past, the amount of corporate influence this time around is unprecedented. With the Supreme Court decision, it's much worse than ever before.

[Nite Owl]

17. Their $ is something like

6 to 1 against us thanks to the SCOTUS.
She is just trying to help and I wish they would listen to her more. If it's any consolation it's probably all DUers and a few more dems watching her show anyways!
I also heard something through someone local who is very familiar with how the ads work that most of the ads are rather generic and run through only certain ad firms in DC that are donors. The candidates that can afford it do their own and they are much better. So bottom line is the ones that need the good ads most can afford it the least. I found that very interesting in light of all the things that could be in ads and aren't.

[Johonny]

14. I agree

Her guest said that actually the Dem on her show gave a perfectly good reason why not to. The Dems are now representing so many conservative districts a national campaign is really hard. While they have used the president and VP for a rather soft national go around. The general belief is the party needs to take this election district by district on where they hit hard on certain key issue. Or to put it another way, I agree some members are running away from certain parts of the party accomplishments, and thus there is no national campaign. However running away is oddly their plan. Will it work. Will conservative independents (and there's a lot of these now because of what Bush did to the Republican party) really vote Dems because they're the real low tax party, or the real family values party? Rachel doubts it, I doubt it. We'll see the results come November. I get why they are trying this, I don't think it will work. I though Rachel gave both sides of the argument. She let her guest perfectly lay out his ideas. I really see no problem no agreeing 100 % of the time with your guest. That show comes on 1 hr earlier than her show.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

18. Yep. I was glad that Larry O'Donnell seemed to be the voice of reason there.

And again, to her credit, sometimes she brings on commentators and political experts who "talk her down" on these issues. I think O'Donnell may be the voice of reason, though he is sometimes very wrong and like to boast the fact that he used to work for DPM in the Senate. (O.K. Larry, we know you worked for him!!)

[Ninga]

4. Well argued. I can find no fault with your "rant". So I guess the question is, why?

Your thesis is reasoned and easy to follow, so why did she indict the Dems on the media thing?

Perhaps there is a subtle undercurrent to her reasoning which is not obvious? I don't know. Some days I am so confused.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

15. Some days she confuses me, too. She does such a brilliant job going after Republicans.

But then it all gets thrown down the toilet when she does it to Democrats--broad-brushing the entire party. The fact is that there are brave Democrats out there fighting. I just wish she would do more to highlight those brave ones and single out the Blue Dogs and the corporatists.

Her rants start off right. Going after the Republican Party for their hypocrisy and lies. But inevitably, they always end with an equally blistering attack on the Democrats. They can't do nothing right in her eyes. And having Arianna Huffington on to blather about how awful Obama is, to me, totally defeated the purpose, as he had just signed the small business bill on that very day. And on that very same day, the Republicans filibustered another jobs stimulus (The Kerry-Durbin bill.) Most recently, Senator Stabenow's "99er" relief bill. Then again, Obama is "just not into" the working class and the middle class, even though he finally put Elizabeth Warren in a very high position, got rid of Orzag and Summers, and now Rahm. He still can't do anything right. They'll find something else to go after him on. Rightfully so, in many instances, but depressing nevertheless.

I don't know. Sometimes I think she's just too hard on the party and it adds to the disillusionment of the viewers. I walk away more depressed than I came and often cannot watch her because everything is so pessimistic. To her credit, she admits that she is a Debbie Downer.

To the Rachel Enthusiasts: please note that I have been listening to Rachel--both podcasts and now TV--for many years. I love and respect her a lot. I just sometimes think she's off-base with her constant criticims of the party.

[dembotoz]

6. i am happy that Rachel is sometimes over the top

so is keith

Msnbc must not become the house organ for democrats

repubs have fox but damnit we are better than that

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

19. Yes, and I hope that Rachel realizes this, too. There is no Faux-equivalent

for the Democrats, and that was the central point. Even the mainstream media is unfriendly to Democrats. That may be their own fault because people like fighters.

Mike Malloy says this all the time--that people are willing to support candiates who fight for their principles and stand up for those principles, even when voters themselves do not agree with their philosophy.

And I've heard Democrats say to be that the Democratic Party has failed them because they simply refuse to stand for something--even on arguments that they win; even on policies that Americans agree with THEM on. It's terribly frustrating, so I totally get where Rachel is coming from. I get it. But on this issue, I just don't.

[gkhouston]

38. I have no doubt that she's keenly aware of a lack of Faux-equivalent.

What she seems to be doing is pointing out what could be done with the tools already in hand. I don't find her over the top because some of the Dems are truly running incredibly stupid campaigns. The more you want them to win, the more frustrating it is to see them pursuing strategies that seemed doomed to failure.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

41. Indeed, some Dems are running destructive campaigns. The only saving grace is that

Republicans are also running stupid, ineffective ads in some of these places.

I think I may be the only one who thinks Grayson better tread likely. In my liberal congressional district, in which Chris Van Hollen represents, the ad may work, but not in a Republican-Independent dominated district that Grayson represents.

[stopbush]

8. Obama's address at the UN was covered live by most of the media.

I know because I watched it. And I believe I saw a highlight reel of him signing the small biz legislation into law.

The difference is that these things are covered in a limited way. They're shown live with a few follow ups, at best.

Compare this to the way the media covered bush. They would cover campaign stops as if they were policy stops. Bush seemed to be on TV 24/7, while Obama gets more limited coverage.

On edit: Rachel is starting to annoy me. Not because of any message or position she's taken, but due to her presentation. She's repeating her points more times than Robert de Niro repeats lines of dialogue. The story you reference is a case in point. I guess she's decided we're all dim-witted and need things driven into our brains through repetition to get the point.

I drift away from her show when she goes into that mode, just like I drift away from KO's show when he gets off on some tangent.

[Ozymanithrax]

11. Because we are limited to two parties, to remain in power a party must...

attract members outside of their philosophical core. Republicans had this problem when they were in power, and were pushed to ideologically purify the party. Democrats gained power by electing people who are either centrists or right of center folk that would never be elected by an ideologically pure Republican Party.

Because a national campaign requires everybody to follow the same line, it would be a death sentence for the blue dogs and probably lead to a Republican take over of congress.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

20. Interesting! That's a very, very logical take on this issue. Thanks! n/t

[Enrique]

12. Rachel doesn't understand the MSM?

how likely is that?

Say what you will about Rachel, but she probably knows something about the MSM.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

21. That' was probably hyperbole on my part, but listen to the video.

I posted it here. You listen to it and come back with what you think.

I dig Rachel, but her argument was that since Faux supports the Republicans, why can't the Democrats run similar campaigns?

My response is that the Democratic Party doesn't have the same level of support and therefore could not run similar campaigns.

[Uncle Joe]

13. Do we have a video of this particular show that you speak of?

Thanks for the thread, Liberal_Stalwart.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

16. Surprisingly, I found it...

http://vodpod.com/watch/4530682-rachel-maddow-democrats-miss-the-national-forrest-for-the-local-trees

[OHdem10]

22. The Democrats on the Hill choose not to use the Media..

It is not the Media's fault.

If you think about it, and it hurts for me to
have to say this. The Democrats do not come across
as organized and in charge. They are the Party
in Power. Only the Centrist, DLC and Blue Dogs
Count. There is not unity between the Groups.
How many Blue Dogs, Centrists invariably vote
with the Republicans. Look at how they diss the
Leaders.

They do not have one unifying message to push.

Many in the Media, if they vote, vote Democratic.

I cannot fault Maddow for pointing out the truth.

If the Leaders are not comfortable on TV, they should
have surrogates who are out selling the Democratic
Side on Issues. There is never a shortage of Republicans
on TV and they do not have a party Leader.

It would appear that Republicans when they decide
to run for office, start prepping realizing they
will have to be on TV.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

39. Refer to response #8. A very poignant point was made. Note that I didn't

suggest that most in the media vote Republican. I don't care how they voted in the past or present. The media is owned by five mutinational corporations. Corporations tend to prefer the line that preserves the status quo. This cannot be disputed. And while a company like GE has graciously allowed liberals like Ed, Keith and Rachel to have an opinion, the vast majority of the mainstream media is outright hostile to Democrats.

I'm not sure what came first: the hostile media or Democratic cowardice. My guess is that seeing how the media reacts and treats the Democratic Party, notwithstanding the MAJOR point that it is corporate owned, I would guess that there are many in the Democratic Party who simply don't see the point in trying. That doesn't mean that they don't. It does mean that the ones that don't try may be driven by cowardice.

As for the messaging, the Democrats suck at that. Always have. Much of that may be due to the fact that are forced to appease too many consituencies. Collective messaging is one of its major, major flaws.

[Life Long Dem]

24. What?

I think she is great. I'm just happy she is on our side.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

33. Your allegiance and passion for Rachel and the good job that she does

has prevented you from recognizing that I did not say that she isn't great and doesn't do a great job.

Comprehension is key.

*sigh*

[Life Long Dem]

47. Oh okay.

Sorry about that. She is doing a great job.

[jgraz]

25. Rachel is not "bashing". She's expressing her opinion.

Democrats and progressives are lucky to have her where she is. How much worse off would we be without her perspective?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

34. In my view, the delivery of her "opinion" amounts to bashing sometimes.

This isn't to suggest that she isn't great at what she does because she is.

I just don't agree with her argument here. Like her, I have an opinion, too.

[blondeatlast]

26. THIS is the kind of discussion I'd love to see more of here. No cliquiness, no

name-calling, just reasoned discussion.

Rec for that alone.

[JuniperLea]

31. Excellent point...

This thread should be studied by the admins... it's a very good example of good conversation and idea exchange in a very adult manner.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

36. Thanks for the compliment. It's hard to get some people in this thread to

understand the difference between a disagreement with someone you highly respect (Rachel) and outright ad hominem attacks. My thread represents the former, not the latter, but some people are quick to jump because their love and respect for Rachel will not allow them to accept criticism of her.

Sound familiar?

[AtomicKitten]

27. Rachel is wicked smart and respectful and that promotes healthy debate.

That's the way it's supposed to be done. I say we leave the screaming, snot-rockets, and hyperbolic bellyaching to the loons.

I :loveya: Rachel.

[blondeatlast]

28. You have some reasonable critiques, but Maddow does have a reasoned critique.

I think the Dems should run BOTH types of campaigns; national for the reasons she described and local because many of our state reps in DC don't represent their states well (see: "my" senator, McCain).

Rachel is more right than wrong here, but you have a very good point as well, LS.

[BoneDaddy]

29. Rachel can annoy me at times

but I do like her attempt at objectivity. I am glad she doesn't buy into the Dem cool aid when it is offered

[ladjf]

30. I think that Rachel is doing the best job of enlightening the American

voters of anyone on TV.

Your views seem rational and valid. My suggestion to you is that you start working hard on getting them published Nationally. Perhaps you could add a balance that would be constructive.

[JuniperLea]

32. I hear her concern where I don't think there need be concern...

And have labeled her a worry wart in my own mind. She does spur debate and conversation with these worries, however, and I like that.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

43. And to her credit, she readily admits that she's a "worry wart," but she is

causing me to grey prematurily and I'm becoming a "worry wart." Sometimes I have to step back. I do listen to her podcast and watch her daily, and that may be too much Rachel does in one day.

Goes to show that while I still may not agree with her on this and other issues, I obviously respect her. We political scientists have to stick together...

[JuniperLea]

51. Yes, that could be too much Rachel!

I love her to bits, but can only take her a little at a time. She's brilliant, and I'd love to see her debate a few RW pundits. It wouldn't be fair, however, because the only RW pundits that are dumb enough to take her up on such a challenge would surely bring no ammo to this battle of wits.

[mkultra]

35. having democratic ideals and Republican effectiveness is an impossible mix

people should know this.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

45. That's a very interesting take. I often wonder if Rachel understands that

everywhere in the country is not like Boston or San Francisco...or where I live in Liberal Bastion, MD. I know that she realizes this, but it seems as though she's such as idealist and is so passionate about her beliefs that it's difficult for her to step outside of that to recognize the world that we're in right now. Our leaders are facing death threats every single day, for goodness sakes.

[treestar]

42. We should not have believed those pundits were on our side

They are merely against everyone - when they were against Bush, it was for ratings, now they are against Obama for ratings. They have no political affiliation; just what gets ratings.

I hope she has no influence, at least.

[Caliman73]

49. I don't think she is bashing, but she can be a bit narrow in her view.

I have been watching and she has been frustrated because Democratic candidates are not framing the issues. I do see where she can come across as caustic in her enthusiasm and frustration but I agree with most of what she is saying. The Democratic candidates have a great deal to run on. They can continue to hammer away at the Republican's desire to benefit the rich at the expense of the rest of us. They should have pushed the tax vote and they should make the Republicans actually filibuster in the Senate floor. The Republicans' message is rotten to the core but which is why they don't run on it instead choosing fear and greed. The Democrats need to frame that message and make the Republicans own it.

[treestar]

59. So many always tell the Democrats they aren't handling it right

Now I remember her talk me down stuff, she always thought Obama was going about it the wrong way, and that every sally from the Republicans was going to sink us.

If she wants to manage campaigns, she should get some experience at that. Maybe the Democrats do know what they are doing. Or, at least, her opinion that they are blowing it is something I take with a grain of salt. If also flies into that idea that the voters are putty, it's what the candidates do that makes them vote. Sure you can influence it some, but give people some credit for deciding on their issues. And these elections are local, too. Each Democrat has a different constituency. How can she know what each one of them should do? Maybe they are planning it based on what they and their volunteers and assistants know rather than relying on pundits, comedians and commentators.

Michael Moore was at this too. How can he know how to handle a campaign? If I were running, I'd get advice I needed from people who did that.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

69. You make a compelling point. It's one thing for us to sit back and complain about what

Obama/Dems are doing; it's altogether another thing to govern.

We can go back and forth about what the Dems do wrong all we want, but one thing that is indefensible is that the Democratic Party attempts to govern. Republicans don't govern. They want power. They don't want to govern.

[USArmyParatrooper]

46. Rachael's criticisms of Democrats and Obama are *constructive*

And the majority of the time I actually agree with her. While I've butted heads with Democratic bashers on DU, I certainly don't disparage Maddow's criticisms. She actually wants the Democrats to win because she sees the value in keeping them in office.

[Caliman73]

50. I agree. She is trying to get them to see.

Her delivery can come off a bit overzealous at times, but it is because she truly thinks she could help. I don't see how taking her suggestions would hurt. Dean's 50 state initiative surely helped and that involved a national strategy.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

70. On this one issue and some others, I don't think her criticisms are "constructive"

I love her, too, but on this, we disagree. But I do think she truly cares about Democrats staying in power...

[BzaDem]

55. While I abhor most of the Democratic bashing here, I actually think Rachel is pretty reasonable.

She is great compared to Huffington, Greenwald, essentially all of FDL, etc. Her criticism is actually constructive. She does not take clinically insane positions (i.e. we should have let the economy collapse instead of the bailout, we should have not passed the healthcare bill that ended up passing, we should not have passed FinReg because it didn't "go far enough," etc.)

She hasn't (to my knowledge) advocated voting for a non-Democrat in a general election.

Her criticism is generally policy-focused, with an eye on what can actually get done (rather than with what sounds nice but has no connection on reality).

[USArmyParatrooper]

57. Bingo. You

[Bullet1987]

60. Your argument is exactly why Democrats shouldn't capitulate to the Rigt

Which is what they do and have been doing since Obama came into office. He needs to call the system out...not make deals with it. That just compromises your entire political footing. That's why the strategy of te Obama administration has been faulty from Day 1. Rachel, Cenk, Shultz, Olbermann...they understand this as do many "professional Left" Dems. Others still live with their heads in the sand hoping things will work itself out.

[Dappleganger]

63. So, in other words you want her to stop "whining."

mkay

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

71. No, and stop being so sensitive. I disagree with her on this issue. I think she's wrong.

But I do think she does a great job in what she does.

Let's be adults, please?

[Dappleganger]

75. I'm an adult. You're the OP who was ranting.

[Raine]

64. Rachel is trying to straighten their asses out

because she wants them to succeed. I'm glad she does and I wish more would!

[Caretha]

68. "she is way smarter than me"

STOP RIGHT THERE! Nuff said.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

72. Thanks for being so adult about this. You really added something intelligent to the conversation.

[depakid]

73. Since the Obama administration (along with many Dems in Congress) have no intention

of de-consolidating and re-regulating the corporate media at all, they get very little sympathy from me for their predicament.

This is especially so since Clinton- rather than re-regulate, essentially ceded radio to the far right to the detriment of communities all across the country.

Far as I'm concerned, they deserve what they've gotten and will continue to get- until they figure out that it's worth doing something about.

[leftstreet]

79. +1

[Iggo]

78. Do you mean Rachel Maddow?

[Forkboy]

80. She's the only one on tv worth a fuck these days.

[DeltaLitProf]

81. We on the Left discuss things and push each other forward

That's what she's doing. We're never going to have the party discipline of the Republicans. They are authoritarian personalities.

We just don't believe in stifling our own arguments in the interest of a compromised version of our best impulses. To do otherwise would actually hobble what makes us attractive to independent voters. We wouldn't win as often if we weren't a big healthy mess of ideas and strategic plans to carry them out.

[Flubadubya]

84. So what you are saying is, "We're screwed!"

And we should just lie down and take it? The MSM is not our friend and there's nothing we can do about it. That's kind of like saying, "If you're gonna get raped you might as well just lie back and enjoy it".

I see you think Rachel is wrong to advise Democrats to campaign like Republicans because the media is not on our side, but I don't see you offering any alternate solution that will help us Democrats get our message out better. It's one thing to criticize Rachel... at least she's proffering ideas, but it's another to altogether say there is no chance in hell for the Dems, which is what it sounds like you are saying. What do you think Dems should do, then, to get get our candidates elected? Don't just criticize Rachel.

[gateley]

85. She's just frustrated at what she sees - as we all are. We vent a lot like that, too. nt

[eleny]

86. Guess what? She isn't your sock puppet.

[LWolf]

87. I heard you out.

And I am unmoved. I've never listened to "Rachel." I don't let media talking heads of any kind do my thinking for me, and I don't spend my very precious and limited free time listening to them. When I want music, I've got an ipod. Other than the ten minutes it takes to get me out of bed at 4:30 am every work morning, I don't listen to the radio.

I haven't seen Democrats on tv because I don't turn on tv "news" or talk programs.

Yet, somehow, I'm able to stay informed and form my own opinions about things.

What, exactly, are you so upset about? That someone in the media isn't an approved mouthpiece for the party, or that candidates and elected Ds don't make use of the media as a propaganda tool as well as the Rs do?