Maddow showing how, when under pressure, how to conduct an interview properly.

Poor fucker. Every time she raises her superior views on him, he looks like he's trying to hold in a painful fart

If this doesn't make it to the top 15, then I'm voting McCain. Kidding.

God that thumbnail image is classic!
"I don't think that's a relevent question."

She is a class chicka no doubt... put her up agains the pretty heads at fox any day... gezzz what a butt kicking that would be.

Although to be fair i though the gentlmen she was interview had some good points as well.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Wow, there were real sparks there. You could tell that she really took personal offense - and to be fair he did have some valid points about raising the level of discourse all around.

Maddow is so in the tank for the Dems that it does almost seem like propaganda. And she can be very sarcastic and flippant - which I enjoy - but I can see how it would enrage people on the right.

Bush speech writer?

It all makes sense now.

oh, so it's all Rachel's fault... the world now makes sense again, phew...

Spawning racist hate on Obama, in order to see harm done to him. Thinking that the people will rally behind McCain if something bad does happen, is stupid.

To allow this sort of stupidity and hate at your rallies is foolhardy, and it is not practicing what you preach, and it is backwards especially since they are rallying behind the christian right. Hating is not christian, and wishing for hate is a sin.

That is the duality of Religion, because religious people use what is good about it to their advantage and forget about what is bad about it.

Imagine if she was more like BillO. She would have been shouting "shut up" over him while he was trying to get his point across.

This interview is proof that civilized discourse can exist in the media even when their is disagreement. They both composed themselves very well. I wish more politically charged interviews were like this instead of the fuster-cluck that we normally get.

I think what shocked me most was how intelligent Frum sounded, despite taking the immediate tack of trying to de-legitimize Rachel and her show.

The minute I heard him come at her hard, I knew this was going to be a YouTube moment, because Rachel's no shrinking violet, nor is she a blowhard who interrupts and shouts down people (unless they interrupt/shout at her first).

I wish all of the battles between opposing sides came off like this: intelligent, calm, collected, but still filled with passion for their points of view.

The fact that Frum managed to successfully move the bulk of the conversation away from real issues, and onto impugning Rachel's journalistic integrity is the only thing that kept this from being truly perfect.

Are there any videos of David Frum talking to a conservative host about the same issues?

Maddow is so in the tank for the Dems that it does almost seem like propaganda. And she can be very sarcastic and flippant - which I enjoy - but I can see how it would enrage people on the right.

I'll take sarcastic and flippant over SCREAMING IN SOMEONE'S FACE AND TELLING THEM TO SHUT UP any day. I can see how joking about republicans could maybe piss them off. Now can republicans see why screaming at people and talking over them might piss them off.

Then again maybe humor is equivalent to anger.

What a pro

>> ^curiousity:
> Are there any videos of David Frum talking to a conservative host about the same issues?

the only other sift so far was when he was on The Daily Show. took a bit to find it, but i was sure i saw it here, in support of what was his new book at the time.
his name wasn't in the tags, so i just added it.

his most recent of *books, An End to Evil, was co-written with Richard Perle.
so yeah, don't dig his policy but upvote the civility, if not honesty.

but that's what happens when a major foundation of your political philosophy
is embracing noble lies.

Adding video to channels (Books) - requested by my15minutes.

Frum may have sounded intelligent, but his points were almost nonsensical.

He made the argument of false equivalency, which is something conservatives do often, e.g. they punch you in the nose, and you slap them on the wrist, and it means it's all equal.

A bad example, but that's basically what he did: he equated Rachel Maddow's show with somebody shouting out "kill Obama."

Frum is a loathsome creature who is in many ways responsible for the mess that is the Bush administration.

And for him to promote Paul Wolfowitz, who has already admitted to lying about the reason to invade Iraq, accentuates the point all the more clearly.

I <3 Rachel Maddow. I know she likes chicks (which I think makes her even more awesome), but few women make me smile the way she does.

She handed him an intellectual ass-kicking, and she did it a completely civil manner. He bashed her show, and clearly she took offense, yet she handled herself the way you'd expect a Rhodes scholar to. She's a smart cookie, and this is a prime example of just how mentally tough she is.

Gotta remember that phrase when I'm confronted with facts that I dont like.
"Theres some controversy if its true or not". lol...

>> ^curiousity:
Are there any videos of David Frum talking to a conservative host about the same issues?


Exactly. He's a conservative that goes on a liberal show and talks about improving the tone. That's bullcrap. Go on Rush, Hannity, BillO, Savage, Beck, Ingraham, and Boortz before you start talking to liberals about improving the tone.

Here's an exercise for you, Mr. Frum. Imagine a liberal having this conversation on any one of these other shows and think about how the tone would have been different.

Besides her point of MSNBC's rhetoric not being equal to that of the McCain campaign, how exactly was she impressive? Sure, she didn't shout him down, but that's how debates are supposed to happen. Because she didn't fall to Bill O'Reilly's level does not mean she did a particularly impressive job in this interview.

“...you were talking...about the matter of tone in our politics...and, yet, I think we are seeing an intensification of some of the ugliness in tone that has been a feature of American politics in the past eight years, and this show unfortunately is itself an example of that problem with its heavy sarcasm and its sneering and its disregard for a lot of the stubstantive issues that really are important, and I would hate to see Republicans go, probably in opposition, into sustaining this terrible cycle of unseriousness about politics and turning it into a spectator sport...and we're all going to have to do better than we've been doing including in the last forty minutes....”

Knowing what we know about the conservative media--the likes of Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Savage, and all the rest of those assholes--how can anybody begin to take what that man says seriously?

I'll tell you what impressed me most about Maddow: she didn't laugh in his face after hearing such a preposterous claim.

His mother must be rolling in her grave, bless her. This man is an evil jackass.

This just in: It appears the McCain campaign sent two people dressed as squirrels to CBS's "Early Show" this morning to bring attention to ACORN (get it! Squirrels ... acorns!). I'm sure Frum will protest the unseriousness of this stunt.

>> ^T-man:
>> ^curiousity:
Are there any videos of David Frum talking to a conservative host about the same issues?

Exactly. He's a conservative that goes on a liberal show and talks about improving the tone. That's bullcrap. Go on Rush, Hannity, BillO, Savage, Beck, Ingraham, and Boortz before you start talking to liberals about improving the tone.
Here's an exercise for you, Mr. Frum. Imagine a liberal having this conversation on any one of these other shows and think about how the tone would have been different.


T-man hit on the point I was curious about.

David Frum makes such a point of starting the change within one's own actions and party first. This is an excellent point, but I am curious if anyone has seen him on any conservative shows preaching the same points.

So, is this an honest position or a just a hypocritical one? I would have loved if Rachel Maddow had ask him for an example of how he has championed this cause within his own party, especially with conservative TV hosts.

Lady, CHANGE THAT HAIR.

That guy needs to stop blinking so much! It's a clear sign of deception or at least avoidance.

>> ^budzos:
Lady, CHANGE THAT HAIR.
That guy needs to stop blinking so much! It's a clear sign of deception or at least avoidance.


...or 4000 watts of Kleig Lamp.

When did he equate her show with racist pigs? I thought she did that herself. He was talking about how her show did nothing to improve matters. She just rationalized her shit because McCain/Palin's shit is worse. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Don't get me wrong, he's a stuck up asshole, but I watched this twice, he never said what she alleges. He never said her show was equivalent to racist death threats, just that she was wrong too.

>> ^Payback:
When did he equate her show with racist pigs? I thought she did that herself. He was talking about how her show did nothing to improve matters. She just rationalized her shit because McCain/Palin's shit is worse. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Don't get me wrong, he's a stuck up asshole, but I watched this twice, he never said what she alleges. He never said her show was equivalent to racist death threats, just that she was wrong too.


It looks like you missed Rachel's point (or perhaps you just disagree). The Republicans have some absolutely outrageous position, such as supporters who use threatening language. The Democrats have something that can be seen as a counterpoint, such as Rachel Maddow's less than serious tone when talking about important issues. Republicans (usually aided by traditional media) state that both sides are at fault, and the Democrats are calling the pot calling the kettle black because they have their own problems.

This is a false equivalency. The Republican problem is an order of magnitude worse -- The Secret Service has had two investigate two seperate claims of threats against Obama's person at rallies now, while they have never had to investigate Rachel Maddow. As such, they deserve to be called out, even if there is a smaller skeleton in another closet. By suggesting that both sides need to clean up their act, expressing his disappointment, then pointing the finger to the other side of the aisle, David Frum is enforcing the concept of false equivalency.

Besides, the first thing that David Frum did was call out Rachel Maddow for her tone with regard to the campaign. When Rachel confronted him with some other examples of the tone of the McCain campaign, he had no response and dodged the question. Just because he's refusing to own up to the term "false equivalency" doesn't mean he's not employing it.

What I really liked about this interview (which sadly, you rarely see these days) is a professional interviewer, handling herself well under "pressure". But most importantly... she let him speak.

Don't be afraid of what someone that disagrees with you is going to say. Let them have a voice and then be prepared to argue your stance.

Nice stuff!

look, if your suprised or shocked that some far right hicks from the southern united states shouted racist comments about a black man, than i would love to know what rock you have been under. thats to be expected!

Rachel Maddow's TV show seems pretty close with the Crossfire "partisan hackery" side of tv media. When it guises its self as a balanced source for anyone to get updates on the political situation it isnt good for your country. its fine as a show for democrats, such as myself, who want the occational laugh, but wont pass as much else. tease all you want, rachel, but to be balanced you have to tease BOTH SIDES.

maybe i am getting it wrong though, maybe she is very open that her show is not balanced and is geared to show the flaws of the republican party? if so, i have fooled myself.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

^ I don't think Rachel claims to be fair and balanced. It's an editorial type show with a definite slant. It's not news - it's opinion. More like a TV version of the Huffington Post.

>> ^DavidRaine:
It looks like you missed Rachel's point (or perhaps you just disagree)...

Oh no, I completely agree the "liberal" media is no where near the "conservative" media when it comes to the type and depth of "guilt" in this arguement. I'm just saying that the kettle, while being horrifically black in this case, doesn't give the pot a right to not be as white as possible.

Just take the two campaigns as example. McCain's campaign is far dirtier than Obama's. Although the Dems have been "dragged" down into the muck occasionally by McCain's omnipresent attack ads, Obama's campaign has been at it's most effective when it sticks to the issues and avoids character assassination attempts.

Frum looks kinda frum-py in this interview. First thing that came to mind. I'm sure it was a childhood nickname.

As to the interview... I'm finding it hard to watch this long interviews. My tolerance of election coverage is becoming quite low.

That...

was....

awesome!!!



It almost exploded at the end.

I have so much respect for her, not just for what she said but how she actively listened and let him talk. And made her counter-arguments with wit and poise. We need more of this. Would upvote twice if I could.

>> ^DavidRaine:
It looks like you missed Rachel's point (or perhaps you just disagree)...

>> ^Payback:
Oh no, I completely agree the "liberal" media is no where near the "conservative" media when it comes to the type and depth of "guilt" in this arguement. I'm just saying that the kettle, while being horrifically black in this case, doesn't give the pot a right to not be as white as possible.
Just take the two campaigns as example. McCain's campaign is far dirtier than Obama's. Although the Dems have been "dragged" down into the muck occasionally by McCain's omnipresent attack ads, Obama's campaign has been at it's most effective when it sticks to the issues and avoids character assassination attempts.


It sounds like we're largely on the same page here and I just needed an excuse to rant for three paragraphs in my previous comment. *smile* While I agree that Obama's best ads are those that stick to the issues and his plans, I also think these attacks and the false equivalencies have to be addressed lest they gain traction (as they have over the last few years). After all, Kerry tried the "nothing but respectful" card in 2004 and he was decimated by Republican attacks.

Very classy *femme.

Adding video to channels (Femme) - requested by Krupo.

* dead?

*dead

This one good?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1uj2c0l9fA

however it is *.long

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by doogle.

>> ^doogle:
dead
This one good?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1uj2c0l9fA
however it is .long


That one works. I forget how the original was edited.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by oxdottir.