The Rachel Maddow Show is much better with a live audience!

[Towlie]

By appearing before a live audience, Rachel Maddow has transformed her show to take on some of the characteristics that make The Daily Show so popular, yet her show isn't burdened with the stigma of being a comedy show. She remains credible because she doesn't appear to be attempting to be funny, like Jon Stewart. She reports ridiculous things that the Republicans say and do, and the audience laughs. She reports good news for Democrats, and the audience cheers. He regular show is boring compared to this.

I think this is an experiment that has succeeded and needs to continue indefinitely. Agree?

[movonne]

1. I do!!!

[lonestarnot]

2. Amen! Continue!

[Richard D]

3. i actually don't like it.

Seems less serious, more entertainment oriented and lacks the credibility of her normal show.

[stray cat]

4. I will watch regardless - one of the few commentators that ponders facts instead of empty rhetoric

[glinda]

5. I like it for 1x a year. Quests are too short of stay like being marched out

for show and tell. I think some nuggets of info have come out but feel format is lacking depth and cohesion all together. It is fun though for just once a year.

[Motown_Johnny]

6. I would like to see it once a week

I think that would help keep it fresh

[lob1]

7. The danger to Rachel is that people may start to think of

her as a talk show host, not a newswoman. I think if she did it all the time, she'd lessen her own credibility.

[Dappleganger]

8. This is definitely my favorite format...

it seems that the guests are far more energized as well.

[Toucano]

9. I think it's novel, but distracting.

I prefer the studio, although this does make a change.

[Frustratedlady]

10. Yes, I loved it and hope it is an experiment that worked.

She has a great personality and way of getting her point across without yelling and she doesn't insist on interrupting her guests. She has come a long way.