As I much as enjoy watching Rachel, her skills as an interviewer make me cringe at times.

[LLStarks]

For the surprising amount of time allocated to that interview with Art Robinson, Rachel had zero patience or care for even the most basic of non-drive-by-length interview etiquette.

For as much of a nut that Art is and despite how little I care about what he has to say, I don't even think Rachel gave him a single courtesy softball to state his platform or mention anything about the economy or other important issues.

Also, the punchline that the candidate is a nut doesn't need to be said directly to their face; the interview itself will say it through the tactful delivery of tough questions.

Rachel's snarkiness is one of her best attributes, but she needs to drop it when she interviews people.

[babylonsister]

1. You're kidding, right? Did you think Robinson was ruder than rude,

talking over her and interrupting when she was trying to ask a question? Oi vey.

[mrcheerful]

2. You said that better then I would have, since when does Rachel need to pandor to

wing nuts and let them spew their talking point nonsense, wtf its the Maddow Show not fox and friends.

[LLStarks]

10. Never, but she didn't even give him a fair shake.

When you preface an interview with taking a candidate to task, you have to let them dodge or answer the question.

She just wouldn't let it go or move onto the next subject.

Whenever she has a Teabagger on, she's hostile; whenever a Democrat like Howard Dean or Alan Grayson (prior to this week of course) came on, she'd be chill and have some laughs.

[shraby]

35. Rachel wasn't rude, the guy was being aggressively rude to

her. Every question she started to ask he talked over her and even called her names. She wasn't able to ask one single solitary question without his heavier voice drowning her out with nasty remarks against her.

[Incitatus]

37. I didn't see the interview you are talking about, but did you really just say she should led people

dodge questions?

[LLStarks]

3. They were both rude. The whole tone of the interview was negative. nt

[movonne]

13. Rachael was not rude....maybe at the end when she had enough

of his ravings...

[Gabi Hayes]

14. I agree, in a way.... he was obviously a total jackwad, out of his mind, to boot, but

I turned it off after about two minutes (maybe less)

she could've taken the higher/calmer road, perhaps, though that may have meant hardly saying a word, seeing as how he wouldn't shut his cakehole. it was a tough spot, and, though he deserved a smackdown, I don't think Rachel looked so swell, either

what good does it do to have jackasses like him on? I know she needs the gets, but just putting up that jerk's own words are more than enough to show what a hypocritical, lying maniac he is

he dragged her down into his own psychotic morass

[nashville_brook]

4. huh, really?

[Cronus Protagonist]

5. Welcome to DU

Few will agree with you, but if you can keep the lid on, you might have some eye popping fun here!

[LLStarks]

18. I'm really sick of getting "Welcome to DU" posts whenever I wear my Indy Progressive hat. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. People being friendly bothers you?

Wow.

[LLStarks]

27. No, but I only seem to get welcomed when I make controversial threads. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. Then don't make controversial threads

Seems simple enough.

[lumpy]

29. Methinks you enjoy being controversial. It's a sure way to get

answers to posts. Right?

[apocalypsehow]

36. I disagree with your OP, but I must concede that the "Welcome to DU" replies are thinly-veiled

attempts to brand you as something that is against the DU rules to suggest.

I've noted every one of the posters in this thread who have done so are the usual suspects: folks who think their semantic cleverness masks something other than basic cowardice.

It doesn't.

[quinnox]

6. Didn't see this interview, but she has never seemed like

a good interviewer to me. I agree she lacks skills in this department.

[Seedersandleechers]

7. Rachel was great!

Interviewe couldn't/wouldn't answer any questions. He was an ass!

[RagAss]

8. It was her responsibility as a citizen to slap that assclown around.

[CommonSensePLZ]

23. (+1) and she wasn't rude

He was, and I was watching the whole thing thinking "Man, this guy is full of it!"

Instead of answering a single question all he did was play the victim. It's not below the belt to ask a politician what their beliefs are, as far as science, especially when they're claiming to be, and I quote (or am I taking his own words out of context!) "A great scientist."

He said toward the end when he ran out of excuses for his stalling that he still believes radiation is good for people (I guess the aftermath of WWII in Japan isn't good enough counter-evidence) and totally tried to dodge his claims that AIDS isn't a real disease and that gay men had a shorter median lifespan than straight at the time of a study HE quoted just from acting own their nature, and that all you need to do to deactivate radioactive material is dilute it and that it could actually be good for people!

He has no debating skills and after seeing him on that show I'm doubtful of his scientific accreditation, and possibly his mental health. If he'd spent 80% of the time actually explaining something instead of accusing Rachel of being "sarcasm" while quoting his own texts and words I might actually have some respect for him.

There's too many wanna-be leaders running this year and too many Americans seem to have lost their standards.

[lumpy]

30. I'll go along with that. The Mad Scientist thought he was going

to have free TV time to do his campaigning. He needs slapping around for being such a dick.

[secondwind]

9. You can't be serious! Rachel was fair and square and pulled no punches, just

what a good interviewer should be!!!

Rachel was AWESOME!

[bullwinkle428]

11. He started with at least 10 refusals to answer her question about

the anonymous financing of his campaign! How the fuck can you accuse her of lacking patience?

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. I thought she was great as she always is

He was an ass. She made him look even worse.

[karnac]

15. robinson was prepared. unlike rand paul

He KNEW rachel was going to try to get to say something that would hurt his campaign. I would expect nothing else from rachel.

Don't really know if he did. i stopped watching after 5 minutes. i wanted to scream at the TV.
he seemed to enjoy the battle.

if after five minutes was anything like i saw, he WILL claim victory over the "liberal media"

but we know better. :D

[LLStarks]

20. Preparation, my ass. Behind that "I have advanced degrees" smile, he was sweating. nt

[babylonsister]

24. Wow, there's a mixed message.

:eyes:

[lumpy]

32. He ended up doing more harm to himself than Rachel ever

could dream of. He was on the defensive about statements and theories he had written and apparently still believes in, but are unacceptable by todays knowledgable standards.

[Gold Metal Flake]

16. No, you are wrong.

But thanks for letting us know who you are! :hi:

[LiberalAndProud]

17. I'd welcome you too, but I notice you've been around for a while.

Really, you thought Rachael was rude? I haven't seen the interview, but I'm thinking maybe that was a good thing for my blood pressure.

[Dappleganger]

19. Sacrilege!

I'll bet if she were a guy you wouldn't call her snarky, you'd call her clever.

[LLStarks]

21. Nah. To me, snarkiness implies a satirical intonation and wittiness. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

22. She was amaing and doing a great service!

This Robinson is nuts. He wants to end public education, and gee, he's in the business of selling a homeschooling program! He's taking money from invisible Beltway shell groups, he is so awful that I consider the Republican Party of Oregon to be a bunch of drooling simpletons. The man is a self serving bag of ill wind.
His mailers have been so filled with falsehoods and slanders and misinformation and pure bile that I actually removed it to the outside recycling at once, as if it was off gassing suspect aromas. Poisonous bilge.

[radiclib]

26. OK I'm going to assume that you are sane

Assuming that is the case, I'm forced to despair of any hope for humanity if someone of sound mind could possibly characterize Rachel's comportment of this interview the way you have.
Or maybe there's a parallel planet where "patience", "courtesy", "etiquette" and "snarkiness" have different meanings. And I completely missed the thought balloon where she called him a "nut".

:shrug:

[lonestarnot]

31. WTF are you about?

[tularetom]

33. We must have been watching different interviews

On the one I watched she was more than courteous but every time she asked a question the guy got defensive and started to accuse her of taking statements he made 15 years ago out of context.

She's fine, and she finally just gave up and laughed it off.

The guy is nuttier than squirrel shit and he proved that tonight.

Rachel done good. She has nothing to apologize for.

[KansasVoter]

34. Well, when you have your own show you can do those things! -1

[countmyvote4real]

38. I just watched the replay and can't agree with you.

I thought she was beyond patient with a guest that had no interest in being interviewed at all. His only intent was to stonewall, filibuster and smear the host along with his opponent. If the purpose was to get to know who Art Robinson is, I think he succeeded in spades in showing us the jackass he really is. He failed this job interview.

[mrcheerful]

41. Yep I too re watched it and right from the start the dick wad started playing the victim of

the liberal media card as soon as Rachel welcomed him to the show. His whole take was what I wrote yesterday has no bearing on my running for office spiel, all he wanted to do was talk about how evil the other guy was and not answer any questions about himself or what he has said publicly unless he could use wing nut talking points and be allowed to invent any evilness of the guy he was running against. Sorry, like I said this was the Maddow show not Fox and friends where they never question a persons beliefs or distortion of the left.

[countmyvote4real]

44. Lord knows his positions could have evolved in the ensuing 15 years.

IMHO, that would be worth taking a second look at his candidacy. Not a chance to reconsider was offered by Robinson. I don't know if he fears being tagged as a flip-flopper or just can't stand up for evolution of any kind. And he claims to be a scientist, but he just comes off as a crank.

[cherokeeprogressive]

39. Never, EVER criticize Rachel. Never.

[Binka]

40. Welcome to IGNORE

Watched the show and you are just WRONG. Well, unless you have an agenda. Don't care. Bye.

[DirkGently]

42. She actually did an amazing job, with the most illl-behaved interviewee imaginable.

[TheKentuckian]

43. Puh-lease

How namby pamby are people supposed to be? She was beyond patient.

[kimi]

45. IMHO, I didn't see Rachel being snarky

Just trying to get the guy to own up to his own statements. Granted, we don't all have crystal clear vision of what we wrote 15 years ago - still, personal views shouldn't evolve that much, should they?? :shrug: