Upcoming

- Weekdays - 6pm
- Sunday - 2pm
- Monday - 6pm

TODAY'S SHOW: WEDNESDAY, MAY 14TH 2008

By Vanessa Silverton-Peel

On today's show Rachel is going to be talking to New York Times' political writer John Harwood about his new book, Pennsylvania Avenue: Profiles in Backroom Power.

Also, we have reason to believe that John Edwards is going to be endorsing Barack Obama at approximately 6:30 pm ET.  We will carry that live.  And then Rachel will talk to her politcal guru David Bender about they why and the when on this endorsement.

Comments

(55)

Delegates?

How many does Edwards have? Where do they go? Are they "released" to vote as they wish, or assigned by Edwards?

By argus10x10May 14, 2008 - 5:52pm

RACHEL-YOU'RE DEAD WRONG ABOUT ENDORSEMENTS!!

Dear Rachel:
You are a brilliant woman, but you are still quite young and lacking in the wisdom gained through experience and since you are so cerebral, you are a little lacking in the "Horse Sense" department, too. You have repeated over and over, that you believe endorsements dont mean much--you are dead wrong! Listen to your political guru more often because in his 50s and actively working in politics since the RFK campaign as a boy, he knows his stuff--his senses are finely tuned from 40 years in the political trenches. Please read the following story about what the Edward's endorsement has done for Obama and 24 hours havent even passed!:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_el_pr/obama_edwards

Now, that you've done that, go grab your sweetie and drink a Mint Julep to celebrate the legalization of full and true gay marriage in California today! Our day is coming!

A. Skywatcher

By sirius23groupMay 15, 2008 - 3:35pm

Age isn't everything

Otherwise, McCain would be incredibly wise.

:winky:

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not by the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists"--Abbie Hoffman

By capn_crustyMay 15, 2008 - 3:44pm

Too much age is just, well, too much!

Very true, but sometimes the ravages of time, torture (5 years in the Hanoi Hilton) and senility take their toll! A little age can be good, too much is well, too much. McCain used to be a brilliant man, but now he is just a shadow of his former self.

By sirius23groupMay 15, 2008 - 4:05pm

Something like 37?

I've been confused about Edwards' delegates since he left the race. I was thinking that they can do whatever they want, but I don't know for sure.

Aside: What's with the "celebration" music underneath all the chat in R4TWH? Why can't people just talk about stuff (sans musical underlay)? It's really disorienting.

By slagMay 14, 2008 - 6:17pm

Music

Listen to a "sports-talk" show. Same thing: jazzy music as a background to people talking about what someone needs to do to win. IMHO, the idea on the part of the producers is it's the only way to do to keep Americans interested.

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not by the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists"--Abbie Hoffman

By capn_crustyMay 14, 2008 - 6:26pm

Underscore

In any TV or Film production, music creates a mood, sets a tone. This is no different - it's a form of emotional manipulation. In the case of this show I think their intent is probably to communicate that this show is all about urgent, fast-moving, EXCITING STUFF!!! (even if the words said don't always support that). Unfortunately, we're hearing an audio mix intended for a viewing audience. With the added visual stimulus on TV, it's not as obvious or distracting, but on radio, it's too obvious.

By argus10x10May 14, 2008 - 6:43pm

Rachel You were wrong! and

Rachel You were wrong! and wronger! The WV win doesn't matter and with that endorsement, it is just side noise on the Radio.

By olkainflriMay 14, 2008 - 6:36pm

The news coverage of the WV

The news coverage of the WV win was really minimal and with this edwards endorsement you bet you are wrong!

By olkainflriMay 14, 2008 - 6:40pm

old Rachel Maddow

I want the old Rachel Maddow show format back!!!
So now it is a sport show with load background noise...SH***

By deno@inbox.comMay 14, 2008 - 6:41pm

Yep

I agree. Will the show return to a normal format when this circus is over ?

By jtsciraMay 15, 2008 - 3:06am

Jeez!

MSNBC may have it's drawbacks, but I don't think they'd cut to friggin commercials just as Obama brings Edwrads to the stage!!!!

By argus10x10May 14, 2008 - 6:47pm

JeezI

Argus10x10 - I'm with you. That was particularly annoying.

By sharon adlerMay 14, 2008 - 7:52pm

Distracted

First they noticed that she was making an impact. She had listeners and she educated them on everything for righ-wing talking points to right-wing spin. Her listeners learned all about what they had been missing on the corporate media. They acted, they voted, they protested. She became very popular. They knew they had to do something but what? We'll hire her and give her a platform on one of our shows, they exclaimed! WHA??? the bosses said. Yes, we'll hire her for a 'political' show! Brilliant! We'll have her talk at 90mph trying to get a word in edgewise over blustery Bucanan and Lil' Stretch. She'll have to talk about races and numbers and speculate on who's voting for whom. We'll put her on every night. She won't have time to do her radio show. Brilliant, they all cried. And so it was. A once great source of inspiration and knowledge has now become a corporate pundit. Soon, they say, we'll give her a big raise. When she's hooked on the money, we'll make some subtle suggestions to her. You know, about improving her ratings. She'll resist at first and we'll back off. But sooner or later, we'll have her trust and her ear. Then she's ours. No more radio show, no more inspiration, no more information. Just speculation on who's voting for who. The End.

By doubledave27May 14, 2008 - 7:26pm

"The End"

Bye.

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not by the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists"--Abbie Hoffman

By capn_crustyMay 14, 2008 - 7:28pm

You mean like Keith...

... Olberman? I don't think he is a bit of a sell out. I honestly think that Rachel could do exactly what she does on TV and she will still get ratings. I think that the way she talks and explains issues (poking fun and a stick at the underbelly of the rrrrrrrright wing machine) will bring her excellent ratings.

By cool_princessieMay 14, 2008 - 7:39pm

Oh! And I forgot...

Rachel got the second highest cable news rating when she sat in for Keith Olberman..... which means she'll have NO ptoblems with that at all (captn, I didn't pell check in honor of good grummur).

By cool_princessieMay 14, 2008 - 10:06pm

Shaym on ewe

Hang yur hed an waller in remorss.

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not by the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists"--Abbie Hoffman

By capn_crustyMay 15, 2008 - 12:36am

oh rachel

you just missed your sidekick 'ol Paddy boy oh what a racist web he weaves
his true colors were just showing thru I wish you could been there
to highlight his racism and bigotry and call him out on it.

By ajlaytonMay 14, 2008 - 7:35pm

The Conventional Wisdom

What's the deal with the crusade to prove you were right and the conventional wisdom was wrong on the effect of the Indiana/NC primaries? The conventional wisdom was not that Hillary was going to drop out. It was that super-delegates would begin to come forward to end the race since Clinton was basically mathematically eliminated. This was correct. No one really takes Clinton's campaign seriously anymore, besides Clinton (maybe).

Get over yourself. That is all.

By ewedelMay 14, 2008 - 7:44pm

Conventional Wisdom

Ewedel - you are so correct. Rachel tries to say she is neutral but she is always showing her hand in small ways. She is right Clinton is not leaving this race.

But that is all - Hillary is hoping to win Oregon, Kentucky, Montana, South Dakota in addition to Puerto Rico. So now these are the most important "swing" states - before it was only big states that mattered - now a small state counts - why because Hilliary won. So Hillary believes the superdelegates are as uninformed as the LIV in WV and will buy her argument. They might if she does indeed win all the remaining states. I can only hope that folks in those states are wiser and that they support Obama as they did in North Carolina and even Indiana.

Rachel you sound as strident as Clinton when you keep crowing about conventional wisdom. It is unfortunate that the MSM has nothing substantive to say so that they spend their time trying to outdo each other speculating about what Hillary or anyone else is thinking. You participate in that as well. As ewedel says - get over yourself!

By sharon adlerMay 14, 2008 - 8:06pm

Ugh you still don't get it

It doesn't matter what Clinton thinks, she has lost this primary. The only question is how hard is she going to make it on the party. Don't patronize "the common wisdom" when the common wisdom is right.

You ask the question "Does she mean what she says"? WHO CARES! She's been absolutely awful during this whole process and I have come to expect nothing less than the worst sort of politics from her.

I frankly feel you are humoring her too much.

By pdxgeekMay 14, 2008 - 7:47pm

Watvh Out !

We should all listen carefully to Hillary's speech in WV. :

"This is for a solemn, crucial purpose: to elect a president to turn our country around, to meet the challenges we face and seize the opportunities. It has been a long campaign, but it is just an instant in time when compared with the lasting consequences of the choice we will make in November. That is why I am carrying on, and if you give me a chance, Democrats, I’ll come back to West Virginia in the general election and we'll win this state and we'll win the White House. "

She is saying that SHE Hillary Clinton is the only person who can SAVE America, implying that Obama cannot win and cannot provide the leadership to turn thigs around- AND ONLY SHE CAN. Come on ...

Talk like that is megalomania - it is saying that SHE is the ONE and ONLY SAVIOUR of America! That's a scary potion to take as opposed to saying that she is "Qualified" for the job and that it is up to the voters to decide whether she or Obama have what it takes to deiver the change. It is the speech of a tyrant - nothing less.

Why can't the American populous see this frightening reality - including you Rachel..

By Canuck3May 14, 2008 - 7:53pm

I kinda wish Randi was still here

Then maybe all the posters who seem to think that "discourse" and "personal (and anonymous) attacks" are the same thing would go back to her blog, where I suspect lashing out thoughtlessly is the rule rather than the exception.

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not by the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists"--Abbie Hoffman

By capn_crustyMay 14, 2008 - 7:57pm

I'm not anonymous.

Go ahead and email me ... pdxgeek@gmail.com
Want my phone number? If you send me an email I'll give it to you.

Usually I like Rachel's show but her Clinton coverage really annoys me. Just like we progressives out Republican politicians, we should also out political hacks who wear a "D" like Lieberman and yes... Clinton.

By pdxgeekMay 14, 2008 - 8:33pm

So your name is "pdxgeek"?

The point which you seem to be missing is that your opinions are not going to given much credence when you flail around, hurling insults and "tough talk". This blog has traditionally been a place where differences are aired with respect (often even towards obvious trolls). When we disagree, it's usually done with the attitude that the other person is not a vile, cowardly, despicable sell-out but perhaps merely mistaken.

Try the reasoned approach, rather than the self-righteous rant. That is, assuming you have enough strength of your convictions where you don't need to lash out.

BTW, I wasn't necessarily addressing you...yet I can't help but notice you're the one responding.

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not by the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists"--Abbie Hoffman

By capn_crustyMay 14, 2008 - 8:40pm

If you think I've been hurling insults...

... I dare you to sit in a yahoo chatroom for 30 minutes.

I will give every argument the respect it deserves, but don't go crying about a little bit of strong language. That is of course unless you like whining about such things, because this is a free country and a blog that is open to the public you have as much right to whine as I do for being opinionated.

I do of course reserve my right to laugh at you.

By pdxgeekMay 15, 2008 - 4:25pm

"Crying" and "whining"

I note that you resort to emotionally loaded terms rather than reason. This doesn't put your message--such as it is--in a good light.

And please, don't give me any of that "free country" rhetoric. There's a world of difference between calling for decorum and respect, and demanding anyone who talks tough be ostracized.

BTW, I have been on Yahoo! chats before--and quit finally, because so many of them feature the same kind of "tough-talkers". Nothing to be gained there except irritation.

But hey, laugh away--keep in mind, however, that I reserve the right to ignore any of your baiting, empty comments from now on.

Click.

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not by the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists"--Abbie Hoffman

By capn_crustyMay 15, 2008 - 4:44pm

I kinda wish Randi was still here

My name is Eric Wedel, hence the "ewedel". I believe the person that repsonded to my comment is probably named Sharon Adler. And I assume your name is Cap'n Crusty and that calling people's opinions "thoughtless" is not a personal attack.

Guess what: some of the real issues, ripe for political discourse today are personality traits. Like hubris. I believe Rachel demonstrates overwhelming hubris in her crusade to show us all that she was right and Russert was wrong.

Admittedly, I do so not because it is relevant to any policy discussion or to change your mind, Cap'n Crunch, but because I am a listener of the show and I am providing my feedback for why I am going to stop listening when I hear the same tired thing over and over again, regardless of whether I think it is correct.

That being said, I think most of us would agree that hubris within the Bush Administration has been responsible for as much of what ails society today as any single policy decision.

Thank you for administering the comment board. You should get over yourself too.

By ewedelMay 15, 2008 - 8:14pm

Well, I sure have been slammed mightily, haven't I?

Let's all play "gotcha".

While I'm getting over myself, perhaps you can also consider whether or not you're protesting too much. As I suggested to the other poster who also (over?) reacted to my little comment, there was nothing I said that pointed to any specific person.

BTW, in the interests of accuracy, pointing out thoughtless behavior and calling someone "thoughtless" is as different as saying "Rachel, I disagree", and "YOU'RE WRONG!" or "You're a sell-out!" Not exactly lofty rhetoric designed to engage, but rather deliberately combative in order to...well, the poster would know best why he/she stated it in that manner.

And the name is Bill Smee...but you see, Rachel already knew that.

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not by the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists"--Abbie Hoffman

By capn_crustyMay 15, 2008 - 8:23pm

TRMS blog

I recognize, as do others, that we humble posters do not own or administer this blog. It's TRMS' blog - content control belongs to Rachel, her staff, and AAR.

That said, some posters have been around these parts for awhile (years). Not the least of these is Cap'n, who has a well-established track record of thought-provoking, humorous posts on a wide swath of topics.

Those of us who participate regularly on TRMS blog are drawn to its civility, consideration, intelligence, and, yes, quirkiness. For me the thing that makes TRMS blog different (and infinitely better) than other electronic fora and chatrooms is the respectfulness demonstrated by the posters towards each other. We don't always agree, either with each other or Rachel, but when we express our differences, we are careful to do so in a way that addresses the *issues*, not personal attacks.

As Rachel draws a wider audience, I am not so naive to think that the tenor of the blog won't evolve. But we will still strive to keep TRMS blog posting aligned with the high standards and quality of TRMS itself.

By chemgirlMay 15, 2008 - 9:37pm

Good morning, shipmates!

And what's good about it, Mr. Smee?

Here we are, collecting barrrrnacles on this miserable island.

While his nibs plays ring-around-the-rosy with Peter Pan!

*arrrr*

By Buxtehude_BarbarossaMay 16, 2008 - 12:58am

You stand as one of the few people...

...to make that connection. Now keep a listen for that damnable clock tick-tocking!

:winky:

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not by the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists"--Abbie Hoffman

By capn_crustyMay 16, 2008 - 1:02am

Happy Birthday. Bob Maddow!

And at least 35 more!

:cheese:

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not by the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists"--Abbie Hoffman

By capn_crustyMay 14, 2008 - 8:20pm

Happy Birthday. Bob Maddow!

I didn't know :-(

I know Rachel's B-day, because it is close to mine. I didn't know about Bob's, though.

Happy Birthday!

Hey, is Susan feeling better? You mentioned she wasn't doing well.

~~good vibes to Susan~~.

By tasukibeth1May 15, 2008 - 12:56am

Birthday brigade

Indeed: Happy Birthday, Mr. Maddow!

===============

Wait a second, alchemy is not chemistry?

:cheese:

By chemgirlMay 14, 2008 - 9:02pm

Olberman's rant tonight

What a baffoon and liar this guy is. And how seriously he takes himself. I got an eyebrow waxing today. He needs one too, as he is not too cute for a boy.

Love,
HR

By Half RepublicanMay 14, 2008 - 10:57pm

I love the Olbermann

Is there something specific that you had in mind? I didn't hear Keith say anything that wasn't true. George W. Bush is arguably the worst thing that has ever happened to this country. Your name is "Half-Republican", which I am cool with. However, to give this idiot a free pass for the deaths of over 4000 soldiers in a country that had no ill will towards us...how can you excuse that? How can you allow it?

Olbermann's "firmly worded speech" is the LEAST that this war criminal deserves.

By tasukibeth1May 15, 2008 - 1:02am

To Tasu

I am talking about Olbermann's allegations that Bush intentionally lied about the intelligence, and that Bush bullied other nations. France was bullied by Bush? I just read an Al Gore quote from 2002 in which he reiterated the same intelligence, and he wasn't privy to what Congress saw. Totally irresponsible allegations, coupled with a petulant face with fake passion, made me want to puke. I listened to Randi for about 5 minutes a few days ago, and I actually agreed with something she said. News has been replaced by and large by pundits and opinion shows. Unfortunately, many people think they are getting the news when they are really just getting opinions. That goes for the left and right. Both the far left and right spin facts their way.

Love,
HR

By Half RepublicanMay 15, 2008 - 2:06pm

Re Commander in Chimp

As the son of a Pearl Harbor survivor, and also a Vietnam war vet, I just want to say that Keith Olberman's comment tonight was EXACTLY correct! George Bush is the worst president of my lifetime (even worse than Nixon) and I hope the people of the United States will finally rise up and reject him in full force! He is not worthy of our national respect in the slightest way. Impeachment can not come too soon.

This current war in Iraq is totally wrong, it never should have happened. If the good people of the USA could somehow have been convinced to look through the smoke and mirrors of Bush's administration (which was in no way there by a properly certified electoral decision, anyway) we would have all been breaking out the pitchforks and torches in year 2000!
I am so glad Air America came in to existence to allow shows like Rachel Maddow's to be broadcast - I have listened to the alternative (Rush and Billo) a few times but I would never accept their concept of reality - they are truly the propaganda ministers for the Bush administration.

By domitypeMay 15, 2008 - 2:35am

A good thing about this country....

... is that a guy like Olberman can say stuff like that on national TV and not end up dead somewhere. Not too many places enjoy that kind of freedom. As much as I think that the media did a huge disservice to society after 9-11, I also think that it could have been even worse... having lived in countries where it is makes me say this.

By cool_princessieMay 15, 2008 - 7:12pm

Rachel's Hillary bias

I never fully believed that Rachel had a preference in this primary, but yesterday watching her on that dreadful MSNBC, R2TWH. I heard her refer to NARAL as an pro-abortion organization (it was in context to the orgs. endorsement of Obama)! Now Rachel, you are smart enough to understand the use of language in political discourse. Why did you not call it the pro-Choice organization, which is what it is.

As an intelligent, liberal woman, I am confused as to what is happening to you. It makes me sad to watch, but if you do support Hillary, just come out and tell us. We, your committed fans, would be far more inclined to respect your honesty, than your subtle manipulation that you keep displaying.

By meljomurMay 15, 2008 - 10:11am

ummm.....

Your post is to me proof that Rachel is indeed neutral as she says she is. The reason being is that not too long ago she was accused to being an Obama supporter. So if people are saying both that she is for Obama and then for Hillary, it must be because she is indeed neutral.

By cool_princessieMay 15, 2008 - 12:42pm

Or maybe she really thinks either one could be a good candidate

As she's said many a time.

Personally, I don't agree with her; I think they're both corporate hirelings. But that's another argument.

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not by the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists"--Abbie Hoffman

By capn_crustyMay 15, 2008 - 1:25pm

She has indeed

And I go back and forth myself on that one. Although I have to admit that I am leaning towards Obama. It is really hard for me to trust a Democrat who yells "me too!" when a Repug suggest an idiotic summer-long gas tax break. Or who says the US will obliterate Iran. Or who says that she will win the elections because Americans are racists.... right after saying that only whites are hard working.

Hillary may indeed make a great president. I think that she has some interesting points in her platform, but I cannot help but wonder about her ethics given that she has been tilting according to the winds...... I am pretty desilusioned with her.... regardless of her platform. I don't think she is conducting herself in a way that inspires confidence.

By cool_princessieMay 15, 2008 - 4:36pm

So THAT'S what that was!

I just thought it was the brown acid.

http://www.kval.com/news/tech/18973384.html

What? Oh, 1868.

:cheese:

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not by the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists"--Abbie Hoffman

By capn_crustyMay 15, 2008 - 1:51pm

You Might Be A Racist

The race for President of the United States of America will be between Sen. Barack Obama of IL and Sen. John McCain of AZ. There are some stark differences between these candidates. Plenty of sensibly logical reasons to oppose or support either of them. Sen. Obama is fresh on the scene and does lack some experience. Sen. McCain is older and more experienced but change seems to be the mantra this year so either attribute can be used for and against each candidate.

Both Senators have colorful relationships with arguably nefarious individuals. Ayers, Keating - Haggee, Wright all dubious associates of both candidates. Guilt by association should probably be left to parolees and ghosts of the McCarthy era.

However, if at this point your argument against Sen. Obama is based in a flag pin - YOU might be a racist.

-If your argument has anything to do with patriotism or lack there of, YOU might be a racist.

-If you believe Sen. Obama might be an undercover Muslim you might be an undercover idiot and a racist.

-If you think Sen. Obama is a separatist or a black supremacist in any way YOU are probably a racist.

-If you think the son of mixed parents, raised by a single mom that went to school on scholarships and student loans is too elitist to be president - YOU might be a racist.

In short there are many good reasons to not like either candidate and it is your prerogative to chose any number of them. But if you find yourself making an argument based on any of the above or anything else equally petty then you may want to do a little self examination and determine what your true motivations are

Damon
Los Angeles, CA
eldamon@gmail.com

By eldamonMay 15, 2008 - 2:56pm

Yesterday's buried lead

The Nation's John Nichols was on Lee Rayburn's show yesterday, talking about how nuts the Republican convention will be. The Ron Paul delegates are planning to force debates! Since both these guys are Friends of Rachel, can we get one of them on to talk about this soon??

Schadenfreude

By lizvocalMay 15, 2008 - 3:50pm

Calif. Gay Marriage

I would like to hear comments from Rachel or other Mass. residents, on life in a state that has wedded gay people like Mass. Is it really infringing on all those straight New Englanders???

By rettayoungMay 15, 2008 - 4:17pm

PAXIL ADDLED STEPFORD WIVES RAMPAGE IN CALIFORNIA!!

re: California's legalization of full gay marriage today, I am getting a true bang out of watching the interviews on the TV machine of the bug-eyed, big-haired,fundamentalist Stepford Wives, pacing back and forth and weeping, wailing and gnashing their teeth while hysterically crying , "Oh no, now my own marriage doesnt mean anything, anymore." It will be fascinating to see where that line of logic will carry them over the next few months. Any one want to wager that more than a few might end up living in some wild mountain Amazon camp where they run naked, participate in drumming circles on the full of the moon, eat organic vegan foods from their garden and end up being rapaciously ravaged by Wild Womyn of Wongo on an regular basis? ;)
And what a contrast to the dancing in the streets of the Castro, in The City!

By sirius23groupMay 15, 2008 - 4:18pm

heh heh

... you said naked..... Rachel, are you all blushed now?

By cool_princessieMay 15, 2008 - 5:15pm

The Portland TRIBUNE?

It's the Portland OREGONIAN...unless the host-jock is talking about some other Portland, OR.

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not by the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists"--Abbie Hoffman

By capn_crustyMay 15, 2008 - 6:24pm

TV Host

The TV host is too worried about the number of questions he asks his guests instead of the content of their responses. He's a rookie. He needs to calm down and let them dialog....

By rettayoungMay 15, 2008 - 6:51pm

McCain has a MAGIC WAND!

By sunsawedMay 15, 2008 - 7:52pm

did he get into Bob Dole's

did he get into Bob Dole's Viagra again???

By lizvocalMay 15, 2008 - 10:52pm

Comments

(55)