digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

The Grace of Rachel Maddow watch!

youtube.com — David Frum makes a completely illogical argument that Rachel's show is the same as the hatred being spewed at McPalin rallies, and she doesn't let him get away with it, but she stays classy.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Muzikal203, on 10/14/2008, -14/+401I respected Rachel before, but now I'm completely impressed with her. She showed immense class in the face of the assholery of frum.
    • Hecubus452, on 10/14/2008, -41/+17What assholery? It seemed like a very substantive, interesting discussion.
      • Fordi, on 10/14/2008, -1/+68Which started with a direct insult. Were that O'Reilly and not Maddow, there'd have been a freak out.
      • RodBorn, on 10/14/2008, -12/+24I agree. He didn't seem like an ***** at all. It was very intelligent what he was trying to say...although

        1) Rachel out classed him
        2) He came across as Andrew McCarthy tweaked out in Less Than Zero.
      • nan0bug00, on 10/14/2008, -2/+35While it was substantive and interesting discussion, the topic certainly could have been breached in a more cordial manner. He started with a veiled insult and attempted to ambush her with a topic at best only vaguely related to the original discussion.

        What he was saying is true to some extent, although hearing him speak about it is a little ironic given his past. Conveniently he wants to increase the level of discourse at this point when the views he represents are coming under harsh scrutiny. Could we see him balance his argument by asking Sean Hannity to stop foaming at the mouth and giving anti-semites a podium? Then at least he would have some credibility.
      • biotch, on 10/14/2008, -2/+16He was trying to wash some of the negative backlash McCain is receiving on to the democratic ticket as if they are both engaging at the same level. While it is true that both sides behave poorly, the frequency of hateful ignorance has escalated at McCain rallies and is by no means equivalent.
      • flashback99, on 10/14/2008, -3/+22What a slimeball. Throwing out concealed insults at rachel maddow's show and then ***** and changing the subject every single time she called him out on it.

        Maddow ended well.
      • solidcube, on 10/14/2008, -0/+13You are stupid, yes? Frum did nothing but spew talking point nonsense. You don't go on a news show and insult the show and its host and then expect anything CLOSE to this level of politeness and poise from the person you're talking to. Think of how Falafel Boy would have handled this.
    • veskris, on 10/14/2008, -8/+28That was some very level headed discussion considering the accusations he was making against her. I think both were more civil than 90% of those on cable news regardless of whose opinion was right (except during his last comment).

      However, I do agree with him that making fun of republicans doesn't help the tone in politics, although Maddow was right in calling him out on trying to make an equivalent argument

      You'd be crazy to say that Maddow's style of news leads to the racism you hear at McCain rallies, but it does foster a level of resentment between political parties that needs to stop. This is why I stopped watching Olbermann's program.
      • SquidProQuo, on 10/14/2008, -0/+11How Fair and Balanced of you to say so.

        I think it's entirely appropriate for one political party or point of view to thoughtfully deride and make fun another if the other side is as out of touch and corrupt as is the case with these Republicans. The level of resentment is already there. Rachel has just been providing a reasonable and humorous outlet for frustration that might otherwise manifest itself in less positive ways (like Billo's idiocy). Fortunately for all of us the Democrats are more peaceable and won't throw the kind of anger and rage filled temper tantrums that have always (or at least since Reagan) been a Republican hallmark.
      • Hoodooz, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2If Frum had been vocal about raising the level of political discourse at any time during the past 8 years of the Bush administration, his argument would have carried more weight - as it is, bringing this up at this late date and particularly by pointing a finger at Maddow rather than a more deserving O'Reilly just tells me he's full of crap.
      • uncleosbert, on 10/15/2008, -0/+1it should always be eminently acceptable to parody the message offered by either party. what frum is suggesting is totally ironic given the continual howling i hear about "the politically correct left".

        from mr. david frum:

        "OK just caught debate rerun on CNN. What can one say about John Edwards's performance? He certainly did not make Al Gore's error in 1996: With his repeated and worshipful descriptions of John Kerry—not to mention Edwards's moist good looks—you have to say that he would fill the role of First Lady much better than Teresa Heinz is likely to do. It would all have been very impressive—if Cheney's scalpel had not so swiftly and mercilessly sliced Edwards's living liver out of his body, impaled it quivering on a stick, and paraded it before Edwards' soulful eyes before the poor man expired."
        http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODg0MmI2YWQ ...

        just one example of his level of discourse, prior to his party getting its ass handed to it in this election. and now he wants to be serious and polite?
    • northwatuppa, on 10/14/2008, -42/+6I think Muzikal203 pretty much completely misrepresents the interview. Frum actually sounds kind of reasonable and Rachel seems to be accusing him of something he is not doing. She seems overly defensive and a tad self-righteous.

      Btw, I am not a rabid McCain supporter. And I also find Frum objectionable. But, yeah, I don't think he was being as obnoxious as either Muzikal or Rachel make him out to be--at least not in this interview.

      Soooo ... because of the misrepresentation, I was unable to digg it up.
      • mithrasinvictus, on 10/14/2008, -1/+17If she's accusing him of something he's not doing why not just answer "no" to the question he evaded several times?
      • northwatuppa, on 10/14/2008, -14/+1temper, temper.
      • SquidProQuo, on 10/14/2008, -0/+6I don't think she was being defensive as much as she was eager to engage him in this argument. She seemed if anything enthusiastically goading him into that line of discussion, which she seemed quite interested in pursuing.
      • Serphyas, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2@ northwatuppa

        Speaking of misrepresentation; "Temper, temper?" Did you actually read his comment, or did you skip that part and just reply to it as if you were expecting a foaming-at-the-mouth response?
    • MaTT2011, on 10/14/2008, -1/+16I was SUPER impressed with her and to a certain degree her guest.

      While the criticism that political news should ONLY be dry, analytical examinations of modern issues and politicians holds some apparent, face value, validity it is in no way substantial given both the nature of television of and the nature of people, especially the masses. Technically the only responsibility these channels/shows have is to their investors to provide a profitable product; using dry analytical dialogue is not going to do that in any way. These channels have to level with, they have to connect with, the audience they are trying to pour information to and thats why shows like the daily show are such great examples of modern political information being fairly effectively smuggled into an entertaining package. Not everybody is a political expert, though it would be nice if that were the case it most certainly is not. Until then, and even afterward, there will be room for intelligent, creative and well thought out satirical commentary.

      But ultimately this kind of "to the point", polite (more so by the host of the show) and mutually beneficial exchange of ideas is great for everyone involved and its nice to see that there is still the potential for it in modern television (to a degree, at least). But lets not fool ourselves; this will ALWAYS be the exception and never the rule. Its still all about the benjamin's.....hence why fox news still exist. And her guest really didn't respond at all to the objections or counter arguments being raised...but at least this was a step in the right direction even if it was a step taken primarily by the host.
    • jemka, on 10/14/2008, -5/+8I had no idea Chris Kattan's older brother was in politics.
    • topgigmedia, on 10/14/2008, -1/+16The irony? The very thing he was accusing her of doing (being negative) he was doing (name calling) and she kept it all above board in her rebuttal. That dude is clearly a bright guy, but a tool none the less.
    • KyleGoetz, on 10/14/2008, -14/+4I didn't see asshollery. I like Rachel Maddow, but Frum had a very good point. He essentially did what Jon Stewart did on Crossfire, except in this case Frum is being denounced while Stewart was praised.

      I'll admit I didn't watch more than a couple minutes into the video, but that's because I couldn't be arsed to waste any more of my time with a nonissue.
      • solidcube, on 10/14/2008, -1/+11He did not have a good point at ALL. His point was a talking point soundbite. His point, that Maddow is somehow equivalent to the level of political hate demagoguery practiced by McPalin, is an absolute, utter baldfaced lie, and he KNOWS it's a baldface lie.
      • KungFooJesus, on 10/14/2008, -7/+3He did have a good point and it was actually SHE who decided to claim equivalence between her show and shouts of "kill him" at a McCain rally. She kept trying to get him to say that's what he meant and he never did, and finally SHE said those words in her closing statement. Complete lack of integrity in reporting there. Putting words in someone's mouth like that should be left to Bill O'Reilly.
      • visceroth, on 10/14/2008, -1/+7funny you can't be asked to waste any more time, but yet you post a reply without all the information available. If you really can't waste time with a non-issue, than why did you even bother posting?

        And this is a very big issue. It shows that the GOP could start making a shift about how Liberals are "just as bad" as the GOP ticket has been. This is simply not true. As much as we disagree with John McCain and Palin, I've never heard anyone at a rally for Obama call for their deaths. Or traitors.

        What John Stewart did on Crossfire was bring up the whole premise of the show in the first place. Crossfire was a show about debate and in that show very little debating went on. It was more of liberal bashing. Maddow's show is clearly a liberal show and the satire and comedic jokes she makes about the GOP are just her way. But never in that satire or joking manner has she ever raised a level of hate from the Liberal side.
    • gwoydean, on 10/14/2008, -0/+4What's more impressive than Rachel's grace in argument was her subtle way of telling Frum that he has no sense of humor.

    • markur69, on 10/14/2008, -5/+0Rachel Maddow is such a democratic partisan she couldn't see hypocrisy if it slapped her in the face. The only reason she didn't go off on him was that he made complete sense and he could have gone toe to toe with her off camera and she didn't want to be seen as reaching into Oberland. Her pretending that liberals on the left don't talk violence is nonsense. All the domestic terrorism that Ayers committed and others of that ilk in the 60's and early 70's were all very left leaning. Obama is smart enough to have controlled crowds.. To know what questions will come flying. At least McCain lets anybody into his rally's and whether you like what they say or not, its free speech... Guess we might not have that if Miss Maddow says we need to imprison those folks for speaking such hate... hmmm.... maybe we can create more jobs... $3000 for every new Gulag built!
      • topgigmedia, on 10/15/2008, -0/+3Name one stump speech or public appearance by Obama or Biden that the audience was shouting lethal threats against McCain and Palin. You cannot... I rest my case.
    • jcr4nf, on 10/14/2008, -4/+2I don't really understand what was so bad about what he was saying. I'm an independent who's voting for Obama and from my perspective he was being fair. It really just goes to show how partisan people on this site are. You can point fingers all day at others but are incapable of pointing your stubby dactyls at yourselves. It just seems to me that the two had an intelligent disagreement. BUT he was the one who was being critical of his party and calling for more thoughtful discourse and you people jump all over the guy. It's kind of disgusting. And this is the real problem with America, it's filled with narrow minded people on each side of the isle who are incapable of ceding a point, or finding merit in others views unless they somehow align with your own.

      yap yap yap
      right
      left
      left
      right
      rape
      murder
      partisan pundit power
      media backlash
      fear
      fear
      love monger
      anxiety
      LOUDER
      airplane
      LOUDER
      celebrity
      Shh...
      neutron bomb
      fat boy
      skinny bitch
      hate hate hate
      mutually assured ambivalence
      soundbyte
      common sense
      fossil ***** fuel
      rome
  • rharrie, on 10/14/2008, -6/+176Now this is an example of grace under fire. Send Rachel some love at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/
    • reesespc, on 10/14/2008, -1/+17thanks rachel!
    • davidlitts, on 10/14/2008, -2/+10i would totally do her.
      • Namakemono, on 10/14/2008, -0/+7Not sure if she would have you as she is a lesbian. But yes, I'm still totally turned on by her too.
      • mechnoch, on 10/14/2008, -0/+3Sorry to break it to you, but she prefers women. But that said, were she straight and willing, I would totally do her.
      • geodebug, on 10/14/2008, -0/+5I'd tuck it back for her then.
      • Linkin4, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2totally
      • lisaawesome, on 10/14/2008, -0/+4Rachel has made me seriously question my own sexuality. I haven't been so turned on in a long time. Now if only she didn't have a partner already.
      • sealink, on 10/14/2008, -0/+5I'm a straight chick and I'd cross the street for that.
    • tmslak, on 10/14/2008, -0/+5Rachel Maddow is a ***** badass.
    • dmach27, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1you can also follow her on twitter: http://twitter.com/maddow
    • teebird, on 10/14/2008, -0/+6She definitely rates some love for that interview. Frum was smug and condescending and evasive and she held his feet to the fire while giving him far more respect that he deserved.
      • rotundo, on 10/14/2008, -0/+3No, she gave him exactly the amount of respect he deserved -- which was so cool about the interview. It's so rare to see common human decency in political discourse these days.
      • teebird, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2That's really what I meant. Frum was talking down to her and to the audience but she kept the discussion on a high and professional tone while never letting him get away with anything.

  • qi4all, on 10/14/2008, -3/+149Criticism from the "genius" responsible for "Axis of Evil"?
    • FRodriguez719, on 10/14/2008, -2/+20I wonder if he was also the mastermind behind renaming French Fries, "Freedom Fries" as an "insult" to France who did not lockstep behind Bush into Iraq.
      • kmesp86, on 10/14/2008, -28/+1Name one thing France has done for America.
      • arcanesmile, on 10/14/2008, -2/+8you mean, besides the fries?
      • brb1031, on 10/14/2008, -0/+25kmesp86:
        I'm sure you must mean, what has France done for America lately, ignoring our 200+ year history?

        Since 1990, they've brought troops to:
        (a) Persian Gulf War I
        (b) Kosovo. Bringing Serbian War criminals to justice: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-18168502.html
        (c) Afghanistan since the start. But surely they've pulled out since they hate America, right?
        Currently: This year, Sarkozy pledged to increase troops to aid our efforts in Afghanistan.
        Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7315294.stm

        How about standing in support of us, see the story from 9-12 2001:
        http://www.mnblue.com/91201+today+we+are+all+ameri ...

        My question to you is, who forgets the good deeds of an ally so soon?

      • deathweaver108, on 10/14/2008, -0/+22@kmesp86

        You mean like help us win the revolutionary war?
      • BishkekBuddy, on 10/14/2008, -0/+23@kmesp86 - My first and foremost response to your insipid question is this:

        The Statue of Liberty





      • SquidProQuo, on 10/14/2008, -0/+14Perhaps the question should not be of what has France done for the Unites States but instead when has France stood on the right side of an issue. I realize that in this country, where True Patriots® assume and insist that our country is always right, that question doesn't ever get asked.

        One might respect France for NOT supporting the Unites States in those cases where this country has acted like a bully.
      • nosecohn, on 10/14/2008, -0/+12kmesp86:

        Uh... Yorktown. Between the defeat of Cornwallis at Yorktown and the heavy funding of the Revolutionary war by the French, this country might not exist without them.
      • rotundo, on 10/14/2008, -1/+1The other day on a dating site I saw a girl who had this in her profile:

        "No French guys! You wouldn't help in the war so you don't get and American girl!"

        I threw up in my mouth a little when I read that.
    • cplusplus, on 10/14/2008, -0/+3Yes, calling those countries "evil" was one of the stupidest of the Bush reign.
      It implies that the only solution is to bomb them because you can't negotiate with them.
      It shows world view where there are no subtleties. Kinda like McCain's.
  • sjnorth, on 10/14/2008, -3/+251How can a Bush speechwriter complain about the 'level of discourse' in this country? What percentage of the words he's written to be spoken to the American people are complete lies, and were the basis for death and destruction? 70%? 80%? 90%? Spare me your crocodile tears.
  • sharpfork, on 10/14/2008, -5/+155Rachel Maddow is my hero. She stood toe to toe with Frum and called him on his equivalency BS- all with composure and grace.
    McCain and the right wingers are trying to downplay the venom and hatred that they have unleashed by throwing down what my four year old might say: "he did it too." Of course, the charge is BS.
  • jeffbw, on 10/14/2008, -2/+57Somebody call Camarillo, one of their patients has escaped. So, the chowderhead who invented the Axis of Evil wants us to have "adult discussions"? And he wants Rachel to "interview" the man most responsible for the utter disaster in Iraq? I suppose he'll expect to get PAID, too?
    • hlwdjsd, on 10/14/2008, -0/+11Are you kidding? I would LOVE to watch Rachel tear Wolfowitz a new one, with total class, of course, and with no ad hominem attacks, either, just tearing him apart on the issues.
    • bogslug, on 10/14/2008, -1/+0The Camarillo State Hospital is now UC Channel Islands.
    • FullSunDesigns, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1Actually, it's Cal State University Channel Islands....and it's a very beautiful campus. The student-teacher ratio is very low and the expertise of the teachers is very high.
  • splendifferous, on 10/14/2008, -6/+190Rachel Maddow is causing the level of public discourse to decrease? Really? REALLY? OMG, you must be f**king kidding me!!!

    "SHUT UP!!!" "CUT HIS MIC OFF!!!" "F**K IT WE'LL DO IT LIVE!!!" "Hey M'fer, I want more iced tea!!!". Does any of this ring a bell? Would David Frum ever consider accusing Bill O'Reilly of this on his program? What a f**king hypocrite.

    Can you hear all the fundamentalist right-wing republicans screaming "HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?! A BLACK PRESIDENT?! B...B...BUT, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A PERMANENT MAJORITY?!" You might not hear the words come out, but you can see it in their demeanor and hear it in their intonation. Keep screamin' Dave. I'm a very good listener. I will never interrupt you. It is hard to talk when you are laughing so incredibly hard!

    What a classy way to defend yourself against another type of smear! Keep up the great work Rachel.
    • nomojunkscience, on 10/14/2008, -8/+3You see it differently when you aren't a partisan kool-aid drinker
    • morgino, on 10/14/2008, -1/+4I'm so sick of people equating republicans wth racists, so tired.
      • Spiffjiggins, on 10/14/2008, -1/+2Most republicans in politics won't distance themselves from their base. So anyone outside their party sees what they see. Racism and bigotry. It's like someone coming over to your house. From the upstairs of your house someone else yells some audible racial slur and you stand there and say and do nothing. What are they going to think of you? You CLEARLY tolerate it. Must be some viewpoint that you agree with.
    • splendifferous, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1nomo: Please enlighten me. Just exactly how does a nonpartisan kool-aid drinker see it?

      morg: I use adjectives for a very specific reason; to better describe the noun that they are modifying. In this case, the noun is "republicans" and the adjectives are "right-wing" and "fundamentalist". So this statement only applies to republicans that are "fundamentalists" and "right-wing". I have family and friends that are not racists but ARE republicans (some even voting for McCain). Therefore, the adjectives preclude them from this subset of republicans. In effect, all that really needs to be said is: "if the shoe fits, wear it". Also - EQUIVOCATION FAIL!!

  • eggsackley, on 10/14/2008, -5/+47Well f@$kin' done, Rachel!
    • TheAtomicMoose, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1he looks like his face had a stroke... the right side is sliding down... anyway, she was above his petty baiting and pwned him...
  • Tehrab, on 10/14/2008, -28/+9I'd have frank and candid political discussions with her....
    • Fordi, on 10/14/2008, -4/+12Show a little respect for a brilliant political mind.
      • SifuMoKung, on 10/14/2008, -1/+14Fordi, Show a little respect for someone's carnal admiration for a person that has no reciprocal desire. I have to say, veiled innuendo is always more appealing then the alternative, "I'd hit that." Wasn't she defending a sense of humor anyway?
      • driver3108, on 10/14/2008, -5/+3Haha, you called her brilliant!
  • OneHoopyFrood, on 10/14/2008, -4/+101What an arse. Frum tried to ambush Maddow.

    And she pushed back, hard.
    • Fordi, on 10/14/2008, -2/+21And the funny thing is, she was so cool about it, if you weren't paying close attention, you'd never have noticed.
    • neilk85, on 10/14/2008, -3/+1that's what she said...
  • abarefootboy, on 10/14/2008, -6/+88A courageous, intelligent and beautiful woman shines her light and the spider scampers back under the trash can in the alley.
    • rbohlig, on 10/14/2008, -26/+1haha, what woman were you looking at?? I thought that was a video of two men?????
      • Gallowspoling, on 10/14/2008, -0/+19wow, threatened by strong women much? To suggest that her composure under fire is unfeminine shows a bit more insecurity then you might have wanted.
      • Berkana, on 10/14/2008, -0/+12She's got short hair and is a lesbian, but she is intelligent and courageous, and is certainly more attractive than the other political commentators. It's an immature thing for you to joke about her appearing to be a man for having short hair or for being a lesbian.
      • flashback99, on 10/14/2008, -2/+4I bet you're into transvestites. You obviously can't tell the difference between women and men.
      • SquidProQuo, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2wow, I'm stupider for reading that...thanks
      • ironiridis, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2@flashback99 It's difficult to tell who you're addressing here, but either way, your comment is really offensive. Someone who is "into transvestites" shouldn't be persecuted for their sexual preferences or desires.

        I know that your comment was in good humor, but if you're going to defend a lesbian, why not defend everyone persecuted by the heterosexual majority?
      • lisaawesome, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1I'm not going to get worked up over this but jesus christ are we ever going to evolve past the point where an outspoken woman with short hair isn't immediately branded as a butchy dyke? It says a lot more about the kind of "man" you are when you are so put off by a woman holding her own. I invite you to grow a pair. And if you can't I will lend you mine. xo
    • algaeturd, on 10/14/2008, -0/+8Spider? I think you're being too kind. This man is a treasonous rat and nothing less.
      • rotundo, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1Nice job degrading the conversation to the same level they were both criticizing in the show.

        I don't like him either, but he's not a "treasonous rat".
      • ironiridis, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1I don't agree with you, therefore you are a terrorist. Quid Pro Dumb.
  • SzaszMan, on 10/14/2008, -3/+58Rachel Maddow, you rock my world.
  • Ant7, on 10/14/2008, -3/+46Simply put...awesome. I am really impressed. -> insert remark about brains and beauty here
  • RodBorn, on 10/14/2008, -2/+54DATE: 10/13/08
    SUBJECT: First adult discussion/debate takes place on national TV regarding the presidential election.
    • sealink, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2I wish I could digg you twice. Or at least give you a cookie.
  • Pusod, on 10/14/2008, -6/+73if rachel maddow didn't swing the other way i'd totally ask her to marry me!
    • heronimous, on 10/14/2008, -1/+13i hear you buddy.. queue starts here..
      • spaceman84, on 10/14/2008, -0/+14I'd kill both of you before you had the chance.
    • SifuMoKung, on 10/14/2008, -2/+10Don't let her sexual preference stop you from making a proposal she would refuse. Were she not a Lesbian, she would obviously be in love with me. (I would have to break her heart, however, as I am happily married.)
      • orbitaldiamonds, on 10/14/2008, -2/+11Haha, I swing both ways, and my husband would be *thrilled* for us to bring her in as a third.

        She's my "TV Girlfriend" while he's deployed. ^___^
      • diggboi, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1Ummm.......you win. Whatever it is we're playing, you win.
    • msaunders1028, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1ME TOO!!!!
    • Otab, on 10/14/2008, -2/+0Yeah me too!She's the smartest woman with non-traditional orientation i i've ever seen yet.
  • MakanGuru, on 10/14/2008, -8/+30ok i hate to say this, but it fits so perfectly

    PWNED!
    • Udog, on 10/14/2008, -1/+6I think you meant Rachel MaddOWNED.
      • teebird, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1I like it.
        Remember that word you just coined.
        We might need it a few more times before the election season is over.
    • neilk85, on 10/14/2008, -1/+7re: ok i hate to say this, but it fits so perfectly

      that's what she said...
    • nomojunkscience, on 10/14/2008, -6/+1It's amusing because if you aren't a liberal you are laughing at her during that interview watching her try to hold it together. Enjoy your rose colored glasses
      • teebird, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1Do you have any ideas worth anyone's time to read, or do you just go around making witless snarky comments under other people's posts?
      • rotundo, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2But she did hold it together and maintained the dignity of the discussion. If you can't recognize that as an impressive rarity in these types of interviews, then you are the one wearing colored glasses my friend.
  • jimbo92107, on 10/14/2008, -3/+48I just can't wait for Sarah Palin to appear on Maddow's show and explain again how that report of her abuses of power weren't really abuses of power.
    • RodBorn, on 10/14/2008, -0/+15...because in Sarah Palin's fairyland all frowns are turned into smiley faces with juuuust a little sprinkle of fairy dust
    • terracottapai, on 10/14/2008, -0/+8^_~
    • vat0r, on 10/14/2008, -0/+7I think it's safe to say that won't happen considering the fact that the McCain campaign has only made available one person to represent them on Maddow's show since it started. Apparently they are afraid of her intellectual jujitsu.
    • Namakemono, on 10/14/2008, -0/+5Palin doesn't belong in the same room with someone of Maddow's intellect.
      • rotundo, on 10/14/2008, -1/+1I disagree. I think she very much belongs in that room. I want to see her try to demonstrate presidential intelligence and knowledge.
  • TheMachine1, on 10/14/2008, -4/+22I watched it on TV and the precise moment he attacked her show I thought to myself she should just completely ignore that and continue focusing on questioning him not defending herself but it upset her a little and she had to address it.
  • IllBeBack, on 10/14/2008, -5/+38Clever girl...
    • rbohlig, on 10/14/2008, -2/+14Dugg for Jurassic Park reference
    • mrgreenjeans9, on 10/14/2008, -1/+2Dugg for the Silence of the Lambs reference
    • tillerman00, on 10/14/2008, -0/+5are you calling Rachel Maddow a six-foot turkey?

      (obscure, dark-eyed fat kid reference)
    • gatorfree, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2Dammit, even Nedry knew better than to mess with the raptor fences.
  • gnocchi1442, on 10/14/2008, -11/+68How many wedgies do you think David Frum received during his high school years?
    • Fordi, on 10/14/2008, -2/+18Given his hump-back? I'd say he's still getting 'em.
      • gnocchi1442, on 10/14/2008, -2/+13I guarantee, if I ever see him that waistband is going right over his head.
      • gowingsgo, on 10/14/2008, -1/+6@gnocchi1442

        Don't forget to say "O'DOYLE RULES!"
    • tillerman00, on 10/14/2008, -1/+4I'd wager he got his ass kicked a few sweet times too.
    • McMagic, on 10/14/2008, -1/+4Obviously not enough,
    • appleofdischord, on 10/14/2008, -0/+263.
  • mrshare, on 10/14/2008, -10/+27Frum is a toupee-wearing neocon scumbag whose "foreign policy" views have damaged this country deeply. If I saw him at a party or something, I would literally kick his ass and drag him through the streets.
    • orbitaldiamonds, on 10/14/2008, -1/+3Now, now, there's no need to get violent, or even rhetorically violent--we'd be sinking to the level Frum seemed to be accusing us of.
    • rotundo, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1Yeah, it's basically comments like yours that make me ashamed of this place. You are doing exactly what both Frum and Maddow were criticizing. Get your violent hatred under control or get on a pill.
  • drinklord, on 10/14/2008, -33/+28I like Rachel Maddow, and I don't like Bush's speechwriters. That said, I watched this video and am not seeing it the same way that most here are. I see this as a small-minded assailant (Frum) getting the otherwise brilliant host knocked off-balance... and keeping her defending herself (at worst) or parrying (at best) instead of interrogating him as she otherwise would.

    She becomes flushed, and her voice bounces like mine does when I get very nervous.

    In other words, because he managed to avoid discussing much real substance and instead caused Ms. Maddow to spend 10 minutes on the defense, I see this as a victory for Frum, which is not something that I'm at all delighted to say.
    • Lexaburn, on 10/14/2008, -5/+14Frum clearly came on the show with an agenda. Whether the agenda was underhandedly legitimizing stale GOP talking points or getting the goat of Maddow is aguable. The plain and simple fact is that he persisted in being a prick, and she was never thrown "off-balance." More or less, Frum was struggling to commit to the theme of the segment because his wiring is fried. The neocon agenda is de-legitimized, yet here he is attempting to push it still after so many squandered opportunities to have things go right. He sheepishly admitted setbacks in an attempt to pass his own provably flawed judgment sound. He was the one who was flustered. Maddow had nothing to defend and she capped off that fact with the mention that Wolfowitz would, perhaps, never visit her show. Just because Frum is trying to save face (or do someone a favor) doesn't mean he got the one-up in any way, shape, or form.

      Watch the segment again, and tell me how Maddow got bested when it was Frum who had nohing to add to any discussion on this election. Well, besides reluctantly reflecting on the fact that he had a hand in the devastation of his own party. His condescension is a mask hiding guilt. What he attempts to pawn off on McCain, he had a hand in, as well. Frum needs to step the hell off.
      • davidlow, on 10/14/2008, -2/+5"Off-balance" in this case means that he caused her to abandon her prepared line of questioning, so he went from being backed into a corner to being permitted to frame the discussion. He didn't look good doing it, to be sure, but if Rachel got any of her REAL questions in it probably would have been much worse for him and he knew it.
    • MicrosoftBob, on 10/14/2008, -2/+9"I see this as a small-minded assailant (Frum) getting the otherwise brilliant host knocked off-balance... "

      Knocked off-balance? Did we watch the same video?
      • drinklord, on 10/14/2008, -4/+5Did you hear her voice cracking? Do you think she wanted to be discussing what they discussed? In the clip, she even admitted that he forced her to respond to his points instead of driving the agenda herself. Clearly off-balance.
      • lapsedlawyer, on 10/14/2008, -2/+7Umm...no, I DIDN'T hear her voice cracking. She addressed his stupifying equivalency point in the same measured -- albeit less condescending -- tone in which it was delivered. And she did drive the agenda: She got Frum to look like a fool for even suggesting humor and sarcasm were the same as threats of violence and racial slurs. Frum's point, after all was that "both sides do it" and then preceded to call a Democratic president with a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress "dangerous." Rachel in her questioning deftly highlighted the absurdity of his hypocritical "equivalency" argument. Now, if she'll only do the same to Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a.k.a. the Queen of Equivalency.
      • SquidProQuo, on 10/14/2008, -1/+1Dude ... she's a wonk. (in the best way)
        She loves this *****.
        What I heard was barely contained glee at the prospect of jousting with this jerk on that issue.
      • bruce86, on 10/14/2008, -2/+3He voice did change and she clearly felt threaten. She handled it well, but i have to agree she was thrown by Frum.
    • UltraDavid, on 10/14/2008, -2/+6Yep, I totally agree. Watched it on her show this evening and thought the same thing. Frum got away without talking about anything serious while doing a pretty good job at making it seem as though he's the serious bipartisan one. The dude has no real policies and the policies he's fought for in the past have been disastrous; for him, not talking about anything real is better than talking about the reality he's helped crap up. He even succeeding in getting Maddow, and intellectual opposite, pissed at the same time, although she did a pretty good job of trying to hide it. I totally picture him laughing out loud as soon as the camera left him.
    • algaeturd, on 10/14/2008, -3/+9Seriously. I think you took a wrong turn at the link or something. She was poised, confident and, as usual, intelligent with her reply. Just because someone doesn't get up and start yelling and screaming doesn't mean they lost the debate. The best part was how she said it to his face instead of waiting for him to leave.
      She has bigger nuts than 95% of news people out there because she's not afraid to call people out in front of them and stand her ground. THAT'S good journalism.
      And you can't best her. She has more knowledge about history, politics and government than the entire FOX news team combined. EASILY.
    • Xaqu, on 10/14/2008, -4/+7I honestly have to agree with you, which kind of sucks. Beyond that, regardless of whether or not Frum is a dick he did make a point (whether for rhetoric's sake or not) about both parties needing to stop being such snide entertainment-news jackasses and start having real conversations, which I am all for. Sure, the repubs certainly have a bit further to go than the dems but it's a valid point nonetheless. Capitalist, money-minded, news for entertainment's sake bullsh*t has become one of the greatest downfalls of this country.
      • MicrosoftBob, on 10/14/2008, -2/+2"...regardless of whether or not Frum is a dick..."

        No, he's a dick. And now trying to be a dick in sheep's clothing.
    • verdantinvidia, on 10/14/2008, -1/+7Umm I have a slightly different thought. To me, it seemed that Frum actually had a good point (hypocrisy or not, a good point is a good point), and that Maddow recognized that and felt compelled to respond. I think it was beautiful that she could honestly express that reaction of "knocked off balance"... because quite honestly, if you do care about raising the level of discourse, then that is the proper reaction to an accusation of that sort. It showed she really cares.
    • Atario, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2It is true that Frum managed to avoid talking about how his party is imploding for as long as Rachel would no doubt have preferred, but the fact of the matter is that if a guest won't talk about something, no host can make him. She did, however take him to task for what he did want to talk about, which was how she's the one who's really guilty of his infractions -- ridiculous on its face.

      In short:

      - He was a dick for not talking about the agreed topic.
      - She handled him with more aplomb than his whole party put together.
      - Go Rachel.
    • Lexaburn, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1Frum had no point and was supposedly (stressing "supposedly) venting frustration at the party he himself had a hand in ruining. He's trying to pass responsibility for the party's lack of a resonant message onto McCain's campaign, when the fact is, the only message Frum, McCain, and the entire party can ever relay has been discredited to the fullest. So he goes on Rachel's show to vent frustration at the fact that she's cracking wise, partisan-like, on what can be perceived as serious matters. Man, the dude's five seconds from being John Boehner two weeks ago. Cry Rachel and her audience and damned river, ya weasel. If the GOP was in any position to be taken seriously to anyone besides the party-faithful, most would come to recognize that Frum himself in this very segment was denigrating the national discourse by going on her show to bitch about the precious GOP in the first place. Who the hell did he think was watching besides those who like watching Maddow.

      Whatever. Opinions are like nostrils, so indulge in whatever you took from this segment.
    • SzaszMan, on 10/15/2008, -1/+1While I agree that Rachel was "knocked off balance," and while I agree she may have shown some nonverbal signs of surprise at this, and while I even agree that she ended up talking about Frum's false-equivalency argument instead of the points she intended, I think you're confused about what makes for a win or a loss, rhetorically, in this situation.

      Frum's whole argument was that somehow Rachel Maddow's intelligent, light-hearted and incisive style and format is somehow equivalent to shouting for the death of one's opponent, or the various antics we all know too well on shows like that of Sean Hannity or "Papa Bear" (cutting off microphones, calling people 'pinheads,' shouting people down, etc). Frum tried to make this argument, and the more he doubled down on his point, the more Rachel calmly sat there and politely asked him to clarify, while at the same time pointedly and effectively shooting him down... in word, and in deed as well.

      Although I was registered Republican just a few weeks ago (and I've never actually registered Democrat), I do admit I'm a fan of Rachel's and have been for a long time, so perhaps I'm biased. But I think you miss the larger point about this interview - Rachel shoved Frum's point right back in his face by intelligently and pointedly disagreeing with him, and doing it at the same time with the very polite, poised, and mature tone he was desperately trying to argue wasn't present on her show. Frum looked like a douche and his blinky, mouth-agape nonverbal behavior throughout the interview was far more of a 'tell' about who lost this little exchange than any brief nonverbal sign of surprise from Dr. Maddow.
  • dankenstein, on 10/14/2008, -5/+18For someone who says that she and her negativity are a problem for this country, he sure has been quite a problem for it by selling lies to the American people through his speeches for Bush. I am willing to bet this douchebag wrote the "Mission Accomplished" speech.
  • sapphire9488, on 10/14/2008, -8/+31Rachel for President!
    • 0zymandias, on 10/14/2008, -0/+4I hear you - Maddow / Olbermann or Olbermann / Maddow would rock.
      • orbitaldiamonds, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1They've got my vote! (regardless of who's on the top of the ticket)
      • driver3108, on 10/14/2008, -1/+1Closer to rock bottom than rock.
  • elliotys, on 10/14/2008, -4/+54A Bush speechwriter calling someone else "divisive"?!?!? ***** hypocrite.
    • SifuMoKung, on 10/14/2008, -3/+2I think it's fair to say that both parties contribute to the divisive environment in our nation today, though I recognize that in this case, Frum was the douchebag.
    • emotecontrol, on 10/14/2008, -0/+5Well, when one party is composed of *****-crazy lunatics who want to bomb the world and funnel America's resources into arms syndicates, and the other is composed of people who don't want to do any of that, it's going to be a bit difficult for the latter party to attempt to bridge the divide with the former.

      It's like saying that the police contribute to the negative environment in the nation by failing to act in a bipartisan fashion with respect to criminals.

      The Republican party is getting so bloody nuts that Republicans are starting to bail. I won't be surprised if they schism into two factions. It's plainly obvious that you cannot fail to be in conflict with a group of people who have no ability to tell the difference between fantasy and reality...even if you have similar political leanings to them. So if Republicans can't get along with each other, why should anyone expect Democrats to come with flowers and chocolates or be accused of divisiveness?
  • mistamoose, on 10/14/2008, -4/+22Awesome, simply awesome. Well done, Rachel.
  • usingpond, on 10/14/2008, -4/+22Haha, she ignored the bait and made him look like a total dick. Well done.
  • peestandingup, on 10/14/2008, -13/+10If I wasn't almost sure she was a lesbian, I'd ask her to marry me.
    • BradHAWK, on 10/14/2008, -2/+7Dugg up because yes she is awesome. FYI, she is lesbian, and has a partner named Susan.
      • orbitaldiamonds, on 10/14/2008, -0/+3For like a decade give-or-take now.
      • rabidsquirrelOG, on 10/14/2008, -0/+3Her partner is the luckiest gal in the whole world! Since I too am a lesbian (Trapped in a man's body), I'm insanely jealous of Susan...
  • Wagnerian, on 10/14/2008, -5/+23It's amazing to see her effortlessly defang a neo-con pig. She is the smartest voice on TV. I hope her show is just the beginning. We need more like her.

    Just AWESOME!
  • ITAvenger, on 10/14/2008, -2/+35I wasn't sure about Rachel at first. I love her, but I thought her delivery was so similar to Olbermann that I wasn't sure about her future. Having seem more of her show I am nothing but impressed with her amazing ability to handle guest like these with grace and poise. A rapier wit and great intelligence hidden behind a disarming smile.
    • SoulDrift404, on 10/14/2008, -0/+6She's a lot more classy than Olbermann. And I'm an Olbermann fan.
      • ITAvenger, on 10/14/2008, -0/+3I'd agree to that. I think sometimes Olbermann's rants can be a bit too heavy handed.
  • db0255, on 10/14/2008, -7/+23Wow. Rachel Maddow was classy, but I fail to see the assholery of Frum. He was tactless yes, but not really an *****...
    • Jrehpo, on 10/14/2008, -3/+4Splitting hairs are we?
    • db0255, on 10/14/2008, -0/+6*****=guy who beat you up in middle school
      Tactless=frum
  • AnimeCwboy, on 10/14/2008, -4/+8DAMN! So when do I get Rachael on iTunes?
  • gospe1337, on 10/14/2008, -4/+10I like his even-handed, fairly calm tone -- regardless of the disagreeable substance at times.
  • bovox, on 10/14/2008, -62/+3Why does Maddow have to look and sound like a dude?
    • DrunkenSavior, on 10/14/2008, -2/+32Why do you have to act and think like a simpleton?
      • bovox, on 10/14/2008, -23/+2Whoa. Chill out. I'm just sayin' ... it's a bit difficult to watch her because she looks like a dude, and has a deep deep voice like a dude. How hard could it be to get a nice haircut and sound less manly?
      • Firgof, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2How hard could it be for you to grow your hair out so that it cups your butt and for you to speak in falsetto all the time?
      • Firgof, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2How hard could it be for you to dress up, put on a smile, and speak in falsetto, bovox?
    • desertDenizen, on 10/14/2008, -8/+9Shut up, *****.
    • BradHAWK, on 10/14/2008, -1/+17Because she just does. Thank goodness that a major network was willing, for once, to put someone on because of her intellect and insight and not just go with yet another brainless Barbie Doll.
    • SifuMoKung, on 10/14/2008, -1/+19Because it isn't 1950. Make your own pot-pie, bitch.
    • dime, on 10/14/2008, -1/+9but we've been dealing with Ann Coulter for years now...
    • orbitaldiamonds, on 10/14/2008, -1/+5She doesn't sound like a dude! And she's beautiful whether it's in the femmy TV outfits she wears or the more-or-less-androgynous stuff she wears the rest of the time.
      • bovox, on 10/14/2008, -7/+1Dude. She's not beautiful. She looks like a dude. If anything, she's handsome.
      • SoulDrift404, on 10/14/2008, -1/+4To bovox: "Dude. She's not beautiful. She looks like a dude."

        Wow, your ability NOT to see the beauty in people as they are....is amazing. One of a kind! (a kind I care not to be a part of)
      • bovox, on 10/14/2008, -6/+1Look, I'm sure she's beautiful on the inside, and has a beautiful personality and all that, but c'mon ... I'm just stating the obvious: she looks like a dude and sounds like a dude, so she's not beautiful. Don't get mad at me because you have low standards for physical beauty.
      • DarthKozy, on 10/14/2008, -0/+3sounds to me like someone (*cough- bovox -cough*) is repressing some latent homosexual feelings
      • SquidProQuo, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2It's getting embarrassing to be male in here....
        Sorry Rachel, they can't help themselves.
    • richirwin, on 10/14/2008, -1/+1So she can have sex with your mom?
    • JenniferInMO, on 10/16/2008, -0/+1You'd rather she wear shiny lip gloss and a low cut fluffly blouse?
  • HarrisonBn, on 10/14/2008, -5/+21I dugg this and then made a new account and dugg it again.
  • mynamegoeshere, on 10/14/2008, -7/+7I really don't think McCain is in control of what goes on around him most of the time.
    • MicrosoftBob, on 10/14/2008, -0/+7Which is a damn good reason why he shouldn't be president.
    • orbitaldiamonds, on 10/14/2008, -0/+3He's 72! He's in good shape if he can control his bowels.
  • JoEBlack982, on 10/14/2008, -20/+11I actually had to turn the channel in disgust watching this episode tonight.

    When discussing McCain's recent angry behavior on the campaign trail, she acknowledged that he had backed off a bit and she commended him. But then used some examples to show McCain retreated again and was not "being respectful". She used the guy holding the monkey with an Obama sticker as an example, somehow using him as McCain's ill behavior.

    Completely ridiculous, McCain had nothing to do with that guy.

    When she brought up Troopergate and pointed out in the report that she was unethical, she completely failed to mention she still acted within the law. She spun the whole report into Palin acted unethically, which she did, but she still spun the story completely non-the-less.

    Look, I'm voting for Obama, but I find partisan, umbalanced and biased journalism bad for the media. Digg hates Fox News, I hate Fox News and MSNBC for being one-sided.
    • Boomh4u3r, on 10/14/2008, -3/+4Obama/Biden !
    • heronimous, on 10/14/2008, -2/+9she acted within the law in firing him but was found to have broken the law in putting undue pressure on to him to fire the trooper.. read the report.

      also.. mccain (in seeing vision after the event of the monkey dude) could have come out and strongly denounced such behaviour - in fact he has instead denounced the people who are pointing out such disturbing behaviour (like john lewis)
    • nan0bug00, on 10/14/2008, -2/+5While I do agree with you that the talking head programs on MSNBC have an obvious political slant, to claim that MSNBC's news reporting is biased is a bit of a stretch. I don't know if you ever have the opportunity to watch them during the day, before Hardball, but their actual news coverage is not slanted in any way and they do give fair reporting on the McCain campaign.

      It is important to separate 'analysis' from 'news'. In reporting news, MSNBC is not biased. In their 'analysis', they are. Also, even at their worst they are not nearly as biased as Fox news. Although they may focus primarily on the shortcomings of conservatives, Olbermann has called out Democrats as well as Republicans and at the very least, their attacks are fact based. You won't see Matthews, Olbermann, or Maddow giving a podium to some anti-semite conspiracy theorist who has no facts but a lot of fear and conjecture.
      • gospe1337, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1I think he was talking about the opinion shows sandwiched between the "news". Granted, Rachel is a lot more calm and in the middle than Oberman.
    • jaxcs, on 10/14/2008, -2/+7The guy with the monkey was an example of how low the McCain campaign has degenerated, especially since it started to amp up the angry rhetoric. As to the Palin piece, Maddow is responding to Palin's claim that she was cleared on all ethic and legal charges. This simply isn't the case. Maddow noted where where Palin's claim originates and quickly moves to discredit the claim. In light of Palin's claim, this isn't bias. It's the central point of the story, namely, Palin is lying to your face with a smile.
    • algaeturd, on 10/14/2008, -1/+9Oh, PLEASE. She reported clearly that the behavior of Palin was ruled UNETHICAL. It was. There's no explanation needed. Jesus Christ. You people can't be pleased at all. You read the exact statement released by the committee that ruled her behavior unethical and you suggest it's some kind of slant.
      Why would you suggest that she was 'within the law' on a report about ethics.
      Do you not realize the difference been an ETHICAL judgment and a LEGAL judgement? Because I'm willing to bet that goes without saying.
      Maybe not so for republicans who can't seem to figure out the difference between 'ethics' and 'laws.'
      McCain has led a completely UNETHICAL campaign; but it's been 100% legal as far as we know. History will tell.
    • diggdowner, on 10/14/2008, -1/+4I dunno, I'd like every news show to start off with something like, "I hate George Bush, now here's the news." Better than trying to pretend you don't have a slant, but then again I'm a nut.
    • orbitaldiamonds, on 10/14/2008, -1/+2Actually, Rachel was very, very clear in explaining the difference between being legally within her rights to fire Monagan for any reason, and that abusing her power violated _ethics_ laws.
    • solidcube, on 10/14/2008, -1/+2Joeblack, McCain DOES have EVERYTHING to do with the racist monkey holding the doll.

      Why? Because that is a large demographic that McCain and the rest of the republicans are EXPLICITLY PANDERING TO.

      You're one of 'em.
    • heysuburbia, on 10/14/2008, -1/+2>>Completely ridiculous, McCain had nothing to do with that guy.

      YES, McCain does!

      Rachel made this point very clear. The people yelling out things like "kill him", "terrorist", etc... are directly responding to what McCain is saying. If McCain doesn't immediately stop and address it (like he did with that elderly woman who said she is afraid of Obama because he's "Arab"), then McCain is allowing his speech/rally to become a platform for hate speech and false accusations.

      Obviously, he cannot stop every lunatic from yelling at his rallies and I do applaud McCain for stating that "Obama is a decent family man" and "There is nothing to be afraid of as Obama as president of the USA", but then he'll go do an interview where he spews BS about Obama's "association" with Ayers in the same sentence he says he attacks him on it.

      McCain CAN NOT have it both ways.
  • ashlocke, on 10/14/2008, -14/+3No shouting, swearing, or finger-pointing at the camera? I'm sure her ratings are astronomical. People watch to O'reilly because he makes a pompous ass of himself, and its entertaining for the masses watch. The side-effect of watching him however, is overtime they tend to find themselves agreeing with him on one thing, and then they gradually snowball into buying all his *****.

    As much as I love and agree with Rachel Maddow, and how wonderfully articulate she in her arguments - being articulate and graceful (sadly)gets the channel changed.
    • MicrosoftBob, on 10/14/2008, -0/+5Not in my house.

      ***** the Philistines.
    • lapsedlawyer, on 10/14/2008, -0/+6Check the ratings sometime, Sparky. In the key advertising demo, Rachel and Keith have pushed MSNBC from 21st to 10th, and both their shows routinely perform at least as well as O'Really and Insanity.
      • impei, on 10/14/2008, -1/+1Elections, however, are decided by voters from all demos not just 'key advertising demos'.
    • pintomp3, on 10/14/2008, -0/+4not everyone wants their news in the form of a WWF wrestling match.
  • no12u, on 10/14/2008, -5/+22Rachael Maddow shows us how to handle a prick.

    Go Rachel, you are a star!
    • radix2, on 10/14/2008, -1/+7For a lesbian that is not a bad effort - and I mean that in a double entendre manner.

      Rachel is great and was very cool in the way she handled Frum's spinning.
    • SifuMoKung, on 10/14/2008, -0/+6That would have made a great headline.
      • orbitaldiamonds, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2I wish I could digg that more than once!
  • calroot, on 10/14/2008, -2/+35David Frum is trying to appear as taking the political high ground on merit, facts and issues, when it was him who seeded partisanship and false accusations during the Bush administration. This guy has no credence whatsoever.

    David Frum is such a douchebag.
  • Vito82, on 10/14/2008, -31/+4I actually thought she acted less than professional. And that Keith Olberman could have done a better job. I think that Frum had a fair point about her show, and she tok it far too personally.
    • pygmy, on 10/14/2008, -3/+12less than professional? watch it again.
      • Vito82, on 10/14/2008, -10/+3She let her own ego, get in the way of keeping on topic. It's rare for a show like hers, which let's face it. Is all jokey, and silly, to have serious issues brought up in an environment where they can be discussed thoughtfully. All Frum was trying to do was yes insult her, but also start a frank discussion of ideas, without the silliness her show usually involves.

        She instead let the insult lead her off topic, and made her defend her own lack of political knowledge and maturity. Keith could have turned on serious mode then. She just tried to, and failed. She sounded like Sarah Palin swehn she is asked a question. She just repeats the same phrase over and over, till she thinks the questioner has given up.

      • orbitaldiamonds, on 10/14/2008, -1/+5@ Vito82

        Lack of political knowledge?

        She's a Rhodes Scholar, with a Doctorate in Political Philosophy!

        Lack of maturity?

        She's one of the few pundits who is capable of disagreeing agreeably.
      • solidcube, on 10/14/2008, -2/+4No, as soon as Frum started trying to slip lies by, the topic became the lies of the McCain campaign and of the Bush administration. She called him on his LIE and she didn't let him weasel out of the question.

        You don't like this because you're used to the milksop, softball interview questions thrown by the in-the-bag scripted "interviewers" on Fox, CNN and elsewhere. In this situation, Maddow showed us exactly what the racist, xenophobic McPalin campaign has been run on.

        Nothing but demagoguery, fear and racial division.
    • drinklord, on 10/14/2008, -4/+5Even if his point wasn't fair, and it wasn't, she let him control the agenda far too much. I still maintain that he won, since the goal of any Bush speechwriter is to distract. She let him distract her, despite what you hear on Digg.
      • Vito82, on 10/14/2008, -3/+4I agree, his point came out of nowhere. But she should have laughed it off or ignored it. Instead she let it get to her, and made her change the discussion to what was a minor point he just happened to throw out there as a cheap shot.

      • lapsedlawyer, on 10/14/2008, -1/+4His point was that there is an equivalency and slippery slope twixt sarcasm and humor on the one hand, and yelling "Kill Him!" and "Off with his head!" and racist Curious-George-as-Obama dolls on the other. She did a great job of forcing him to defend himself, and he couldn't; he had to keep talking around the point and she corralled him back into the hole he'd dug for himself, making his call for "civility" look like the partisan ploy it was.
    • nomojunkscience, on 10/14/2008, -1/+3I agree he really got to her
    • driver3108, on 10/15/2008, -0/+2I agree with Vito82. Frum was trying to make the point that he believed BOTH sides needed to be more honest and mature in their campaigns. He denies that her show is equivalent to hateful people at McCain rallies and then she keeps putting words in his mouth by insisting that he thinks they are the same. She is blatantly telling lies about him. Whether you like him or not you cannot bash a man for bringing up what he believes is a huge detriment to our country (which I believe he and Maddow both love dearly) and trying to get people in the political circuit to discuss it. Simply give reasons WHY you disagree.
  • mrhedges, on 10/14/2008, -5/+14... Bush had a speechwriter? He could read? I thought that was just made up non-sense... like the toothfairy, and Jesus.
  • Pinwiz11, on 10/14/2008, -3/+24Love her SO. MUCH.
  • Natealus, on 10/14/2008, -3/+26Rachel is an amazing person. I am so glad she is getting the success she deserves.
  • dubdope, on 10/14/2008, -4/+15i'm impressed by her ability to deliver honesty and truth. i had a flashback of stewart on crossfire.
  • CryTekEmployee, on 10/14/2008, -8/+13i'd do her.
    • FreeTalkLIve, on 10/14/2008, -2/+8She would do you with a strap on dildo.

      How you like that mess boy?
    • loculi, on 10/14/2008, -0/+2Uh yeah, I like Rachel and all but she looks like Ralph Macchio.
  • hlwdjsd, on 10/14/2008, -3/+45What makes Frum's argument completely ridiculous is that Maddow actually does discuss the issues, and the facts. Yes, she does present them in a playful way, with some sarcasm. But it's not sarcasm for sarcasm's sake, it's all to emphasize the issue and/or fact that she's presenting. Her behavior during the Frum interview was exemplary--none of that petulant interrupting and shouting down that we see elsewhere. She let him speak and then she refuted his points, while staying rational throughout. Frankly, I didn't think I'd ever like a commentator more than I like Olbermann, but Maddow is seriously challenging him.
    • nosecohn, on 10/14/2008, -0/+7Can you imagine any left-leaning policy maker as a guest on O'Reilly or Hannity getting treated nearly as respectfully as Frum did after calling out the host? And he has the nerve to call HER divisive?
    • mmmtoblerone, on 10/14/2008, -0/+3I like Maddow more than Olbermann, actually. I really enjoy Olbermann for entertainment value, but I think he is a little over the top in his rhetoric. Frum would have a better argument that Olbermann could stand to raise the level of discourse, though he still is nowhere near the "kill him" level that Palin delights in. The thing I appreciate about both Maddow and Olbermann is that they do not try to hide their leanings. That's also what pissed me off about Frum. Does he think we don't know who he is and will assume he is the level-headed harbinger of adult discourse? Do intelligent adults really classify others by where they lie on the axis of evil? The only difference between Frum and the Palin rallies is that the McCain campaign is now putting Americans on the axis of evil for having different power and economic interests from theirs.

      I hate O'Reilly because he gets on my nerves. But I'd be fine with him doing what he does if he was just up front about his biases. Let the conservatives have their entertaining commentary, just as liberals have theirs in their more dramatic figures, just don't call it an impartial news report.
  • medfreak, on 10/14/2008, -3/+48There was so much douchebaggery on Frum's face it was sickening.
  • cougar618, on 10/14/2008, -0/+4Maddow actually invites and talks to people who have different opinions about the subject matter, unlike KO, and thats why I like her show. Keith needs to do this, but his show is other wise alright.
    • kmesp86, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1Some of Keith's editorials were really abrasive. If he stayed level-headed during a discussion I'm sure he would do fine. I would like to see Maddow or Olbermann take on O'Reilly, Savage, or Limbaugh
  • swimtwobirds, on 10/14/2008, -2/+3dame.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 153 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.