Even Maddow's coverage seems anti Obama to me.

[dumpdabaggers]

She did not challenge the RNC guy much at all.

[flamingdem]

1. The answer was in her statement that they finally got someone from the RNC to show up

so she's going easy on him ..

[Pirate Smile]

2. It is a night to not watch. They have their conventional wisdom crap and they are sticking to it

even when it is completely idiotic.

The more things change, the more they stay the same - even when it is a channel supposedly aimed at Dems, we still get the same stuck on stupid crap.

[Cha]

4. Anyway, it is what it is..

and in spite of all the media fog crap..the White House(and we) still have some good news to digest.

They are so predictable it's boring.

[pinto]

3. Eh. It's a TV commentary show. I don't think her job is to be necessarily pro-Obama or anti-Obama.

Her overall politics are pretty clear, and from what I catch of her stuff, they're not set in that narrow a focus or framework.

:hi:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

5. Rachel is always courteous to her guests.

I think she is doing fine.

[MIprogressive1]

8. +1

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

10. ...to her detriment. She performed horribly against the FAIR guy. I can't get over how bad of a

debater she was. She was right and correct, just a very bad debater and made that FAIR guy into a sympathetic figure.

[NatBurner]

13. that fair guy was just too loud and pushy

he NEVER stopped talking and he constantly interrupted and his volume was on 10

the only way to get a fair debate with that type is to turn his mike off, but that's the hannity approach

rachel got her points across imo

[jezebel]

6. It reminds me of the post debate nights back in 2008 when they would say how bad Obama did in the

debates, until the post debates polls would come out and then they would spin the other way. Especially Howard Fineman. Sickening.

[Cha]

7. Don't they get paid the big

bucks to be able to see for themselves what's going on? You'd think..just once they'd want to have an intelligent analysis that didn't involve FEAR and Sucking up to gops.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

9. Rachel is horrible at going after the Repukes. And she isn't necessarily kind to Obama, either. n/t

[Enthusiast]

11. She defends Obama when

he is unfairly attacked by RW liars. But she calls him out when he takes a decidedly corporatist position. Just right.

[Puglover]

12. Very well said!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

17. That's true. I like that about her. I just don't think that she's good in a debating

situation. She's good at commentary. But get her in a room, side by side with the wingnuts, and they treat her as if she knows nothing. She does, but isn't really forceful enough. They bring passion which makes them appear to be winning. I need more passion and less jovial, giggliness from Rachel. It's time to take it to these wingnuts and Republicans. We have the facts on our side.

[marshall]

15. Questioning authority doesn't change when your guy is the authority

It's a full time job no matter who is in charge.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mass]

14. What did she say?

Because it takes a certain twisting of facts to say the results were good for president Obama. The candidates he supported in Democratic primaries were defeated or held back for a run-off by more progressive candidates. It is difficult to avoid this fact.

This said, what would be wrong is if she said that this means Obama must go to the right.