Rachel Maddow said that she isn't a Democrat.
The conversation soon shifted to the "war on drugs," which Gillespie denounced while he was denouncing the Fast and Furious case. Maher agreed that it was a terrible policy. Maddow then chimed in.
"I feel so contrarian I feel like a narc," she said. "Like I'm against the drug war too but I just want to disagree with you the way you talk about it."
"You should not be forced by your Democratic partisanship —" Gillespie said.
"I’m just trying to say a nice thing, and already, ‘You’re a hack!’" Maddow cried. "Listen, dude, I’m not even a Democrat!"
"You will always take the side of a Democrat over a Republican," Gillespie replied.
"No, I won’t," Maddow shot back. "You don’t even know me."
"I've seen your show," Gillsepie said.
"You're spectacular, man," Maddow said. Later, she wondered aloud what was going on. "What are you mad about?" she said. "Why don't we talk about what you're mad about?"
|by Anonymous||reply 100||02/09/2015|
Are any of these people supposed to represent me and my views about anything? I didn't elect any of them to any position. Why atre they talking as if I care what they think? Why are you posting what they say as if they were important?
|by Anonymous||reply 8||06/23/2012|
I detest this aspect of campaigning. Instead of microscopically examining every possible facet of some potentially controversial thing someone said, they should talk about how the hell we're going to fix health care, and why no wall street criminals are in prison.
But the medical insurance industry is too tied in with the corporate media, so all we get is fluff.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||06/23/2012|
Like she doesn't vote Democrat down the line. I've discovered less is more whenit comes to Rachel.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||06/23/2012|
Gillespie is a douchebag.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||06/23/2012|
I just can't get past MSNBC being owned by GE and having those oil corporation promotions on every commercial break. Seeing the first Occupy protesters sentenced to jail time in New York City this past week after the judge said guilty in a make believe trial proves we all should have evolved from liberal tv to liberal activism a long time ago.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||06/23/2012|
Gillespie is all 'look at me, i'm so cool in my leather jacket, and i'm a libertarian, kids! and the government is bad...'
So puerile and stupid. I can't tell if he knows better, and is just an attention whore who lives for these punditry gigs, or he's just kind of dim.
Nobody ever asks these clowns what they think the legit functions of government are.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||06/23/2012|
Rachel is the one show I can bear to watch.
My attitude is this: Those shows are like any other TV show, or soap opera….they are making 250 episodes a year. And not all of them are home runs.
But Rachel does her homework, and although I don't agree with every point she makes, I know that her and her team do relentless factchecking, and I respect and appreciate that.
She's also the one person in the cesspool of those talk shows - either side - who reaches out to people on the other side. She's never rude, or disrespectful. She DOES expect them to answer questions and not just give unrelated PR babble, and they've often grilled her for that (like when she had the Rapture book authors on) but she at least makes an effort, something no person on Fox does.
I find most people dislike her for the same reasons people dislike the grammar trolls on here. They find a way to make it about her, somehow, because it's hard to find fault with the way she does things.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||06/23/2012|
Thank you R16, that's what I instinctively thought about Gillespie the few times I've seen him, but you put it into words better than I ever could.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||06/23/2012|
R19 Please explain your comment. I think you're absolutely wrong, as Ann Coulter talks out of her ass all the time with no supporting facts.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||06/23/2012|
R9 should should choke on a bag of cocks.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||06/23/2012|
Nuanced Thinking Alert: DL Beware!!!
Bill Clinton signed the repeal of Glass Steagall Act, which many people point to as the beginning of the current economic crisis.
Barack Obama signed the NDAA law.
I would never vote for a republican. But I often hold my nose while voting for a democrat.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||06/23/2012|
Gillespie is what I like to call a Kochsucking Libertarian. He's why moral people don't call themselves libertarian (and rightly so, thanks asshole). Nice leather jacket, douchebag.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||06/23/2012|
A good portion on the left are policy liberals and not partisan liberals which is why it's hard for Democrats to organize.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||06/23/2012|
No longer have TV and haven't followed political commentary for years since trying to stay sober. Used to love Rachel.
Would someone please explain to me on what basis Booker criticized Obama for attacking Romney's atrocious practices with Bain?
|by Anonymous||reply 25||06/23/2012|
She said last night that she never takes sides. BULLSHIT.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||06/23/2012|
Libertarians just like being assholes. That's their deal. They don't believe in government for any reason. The free market will cure all.
I wish they would find a country where they could ply this ideaology until their heart's content. The problem is they are all in the wrong country, but instead of leaving and finding some country that's willing to practice this douchebaggery they stay here and try to convince us all what a great idea it is with their sparkling wit and dazzling personalities.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||06/23/2012|
R22 makes a good point. Obviously one has to support the Democrats because they are better the Republicans and because they do SOME good things while the Republicans do NONE.
But today's Democratic Party is a shell of its former self. There are several books out there documenting why this is. Over the past 50 or so years, the Democrats have allowed themselves to be pushed farther and farther to the right by the Republicans. They have allowed the New Deal and Great Society to be rolled back and no longer fight for major social programs or policy initiatives.
Obama and Clinton are farther to the right than FDR, LBJ, Eisenhower and Nixon.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||06/23/2012|
The Primaries are this Tuesday in New York. We know she's not a Republican and since Independents can't vote in a primary, if Rachel shows up at her WestBeth polling location everyone there will know the answer.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||06/23/2012|
Compared to Obama, JFK was a right of center Republican.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||06/23/2012|
R33, what on earth are you going on about? What can you possibly take as "whining" in R31? Do you even know what the word "whine" means? Because I have to wonder...
|by Anonymous||reply 34||06/23/2012|
r29 Rachel is a resident of Northampton, MA. If she votes, she's voting there. You're not going to find her voting in NY.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||06/23/2012|
Thanks for confirming that you're a complete moron, R36.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||06/23/2012|
r29, Rachel lives in the West Village and works in Manhattan five-days-a-week which is 240 days a year. The law requires physical presence of 183 days to prove residence in a state. If she claims Massachusetts as her home, the Bay State and IRS should be on the alert.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||06/23/2012|
She's a liberal, not a democrat. No big news there. She's more informed on the issues than most of the politicians we're cajoled into voting for.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||06/23/2012|
if she's catholic she's probably a christian socialist
|by Anonymous||reply 41||06/23/2012|
Calling you a moron isn't whining, wingnut troll, it's an irrefutable statement of fact. (Correct that to "childish moron".)
You get right on that, R39.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||06/23/2012|
R44, that would be a huge loss for this country and The American People.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||06/23/2012|
He's so handsome and all you guys fawn all over Anderson Cooper. I just don't get it.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||06/24/2012|
The guy in the fake leather jacket did get Rachel and Bill to start bad mouthing the democrats...
|by Anonymous||reply 48||06/24/2012|
That's because you're an ignorant idiot, R49.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||06/24/2012|
I can't blame her. I'm a neo-liberal, not a Democrat. Dems are pussies. I want the right called out for every lie, every hypocrisy and I don't want to pay for shit in red states. I want a bowl of popcorn and an Eames chair as I watch natural disasters take down the middle of the country with zero federal aid going their way. Let's see how self-sufficient they really are when they don't have the blue states paying for them.
I'll pay for my blue state welfare mothers. Hicks can pay for their own states.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||06/24/2012|
"Can not" is one word, you dumb fuck.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||06/24/2012|
So, how many of darlings have now put a curse on RM because she is not a Democrat?
Come on now...fess up sweeties.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||06/24/2012|
R55 = More evidence that everything conservatives and republicans say about liberals or democrats, is actually just projection of what is true of themselves.
I have to wonder what it's like going through life getting everything so completely backwards.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||06/24/2012|
R56, are you EVER going to learn how to use a comma? EVER?
R56 = 40 year old racist loser. He admits it.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||06/24/2012|
How can she have been an Eisenhower voter when she wasn't even born then?
And Eisenhower was in power at a time when everyone was banning gays, so there's no point in singling him out for that.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||06/24/2012|
Ignore the freeper troll. Go fuck yourself, r60.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||06/24/2012|
everyone knows Rachel is Lesbian American
|by Anonymous||reply 63||06/24/2012|
Rachel has been out for ages.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||06/24/2012|
r60 is clearly a Rove-ian disinformationist. Don't take the bait.
Rachel is a fact-based reporter and analyst. She is not an official PR arm of the democratic party. As she said on Bill Maher, what she believes in personally is really beside the point, her job is to report and comment on various issues and policy considerations.
Sadly 'balanced' now often means 'consider the stupid/illogical perspective'. This is often spouted by a Republican. Just because Rachel doesn't often include the stupid/illogical perspective doesn't mean she's officially a Democrat, even though it might seem that way, because she doesn't usually give airtime or consideration to the stupid people, who just happen to usually be Republican.
Got it? It's really not a partisan thing at all.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||06/24/2012|
[quote]Obama and Clinton are farther to the right than FDR, LBJ, Eisenhower and Nixon.
And yet she bashes Clinton, but keeps sucking Obama's dick for Michelle.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||06/24/2012|
I'm not a Democrat either. I only vote for and donate to Democratic candidates; however, I absolutely refuse to give money to the DNC.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||06/24/2012|
[quote]Libertarians just like being assholes. That's their deal. They don't believe in government for any reason. The free market will cure all.
Wrong (well, the part about being assholes may have some truth to it). Most libertarians believe in government doing what government does best, AND NOTHING MORE.
See, that's really not so hard to understand. Try not to get confused again.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||06/24/2012|
I have never seen Rachel's show but I loved her in the clip before Real Time. Fake leather Jacket Guy did make her look bad..
Demos are pussies but what other choice do we have?
|by Anonymous||reply 70||06/24/2012|
R69, except they think the government doesn't do anything well, so....
Because it's clear that they hate the concept of single payer universal health care, and yet it's clear that government DOES do that well (Medicare in this country, or any number of systems in other countries, all FAR more efficient and cost effective than our private system).
They're very short sighted, and completely ignorant of history, and how and why things like social safety nets evolved, regulations, etc.
There's a reason most libertarians are upper middle class white men with a good education. They have no clue about their own level of privilege, and have no concept of how half the people in this country live. They don't take into account illness, disability, mental illness and disability, or anything else. They're extremely self-absorbed and selfish, and very quick to volunteer other people for suffering the consequences of their ideology.
Never mind that never in the history of the world has any sort of "libertarian" social order ever worked.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||06/24/2012|
r61 saying "How can she have been an Eisenhower voter when she wasn't even born then?" reminded me of Hillary Clinton claiming to be named after Sir Edmond Hillary. One problem. She was born six years before he climbed Mount Everest and was unknown until then.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||06/24/2012|
Libertarianism my work in a place like Idaho where there are more cows than people. Otherwise it's a selfish fantasy.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||06/24/2012|
"What are you mad about?" she said. "Why don't we talk about what you're mad about?"
This is good. It should be said to all of the foaming-at-the-mouth Republicans, "libertarians," and psychos that are on TV.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||06/24/2012|
R71, is there anything you don't think government does well? Perhaps we can start by agreeing on some of these and you might find you're more "Libertarian" than you think.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||06/24/2012|
Nick Gillespie ruined the show. That's what he does. He doesn't just have opinions, he has to interrupt and talk over everyone else and shout people down and try to make them answer his assumptions about them.
Asshole. I'm adding him to my list of Bill Maher guests who, when I see their names in the crawl a the beginning of the show, I go watch something else.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||06/24/2012|
Amazing interview with her in Rolling Stone. Lots of behind-the-scenes stuff and a great pic of her and her gal.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||07/06/2012|
The Rolling Stone article has some great material but the bit about women and lesbians (or any minority, really) not being aloud to show anger is quite to the point.
[quote]"Anger is like sugar in a cocktail," Maddow tells me. "I'd rather have none at all than a grain too much."
[quote]But this time, apparently, she lets a grain too much show. "Rachel, I love how passionate you are," Castellanos says, coolly pivoting the argument from the facts to her barely contained fury.
[quote]"That's really condescending," Maddow replies.
[quote]This is Maddow's battle with television: to try to bring a different, more objective model of inquiry to a world of political talking points. Later that week, conferring with her staff, Maddow recounts what had actually flickered across her mind in that instant with Castellanos. "I wanted to say, 'Are you saying I'm cute when I'm angry?'" she recalls. "But I didn't, because when you're a woman on television, you can't even say the word angry."
Fucking spot on. She delivers facts and does so tactfully.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||07/06/2012|
Corey Booker is a revolting mess of a rightwing republican disguised as a democrat. Rachel let him off the hook. I will never trust her again.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||07/06/2012|
Lesbians who want Rachel inside you, I'm curious, are you speaking of her hand?
|by Anonymous||reply 85||07/06/2012|
You're silly, R74. It's possible that's what Clinton's parents told her. At any rate, I hardly see it as a major offense. It certainly doesn't rise to the level of some of the rather enormous lies we've been told in the course of politics and government.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||07/06/2012|
R1: Pretty much. I've been watching her since the start of her show, too, and agree with her outlook, being an Independent whom is very socially liberal.
I actually saw that episode and Gillespie looked very foolish. He was taking contrary positions the entire program just to prove how "open minded" he was. *nods with R16's depiction*
|by Anonymous||reply 87||07/06/2012|
are the photos only in the print edition, R82?
|by Anonymous||reply 88||07/06/2012|
r84. I don't know the interview you're speaking of but I love it when she has conservative guests one. For all I've seen she does well with them, meets them point by point and she retains control of the conversation without being a bully.
These kinds of conversations are changing the shouting back and forth rhetoric that dominates most media. She brings conservative viewers to the show and, well, at least leads them to clearer (more factual) waters – even if they don't want to drink it.
I have heard that Olberman's people changed the tune of his show after they realized how good Maddow was doing.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||07/06/2012|
Yes, of course, r88 but if you google you'll find them. Look on tumblr.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||07/06/2012|
She's been all over the Obama Administration about this Drone shit. Her program has been one of the most outspoken about it.
|by Anonymous||reply 91||02/08/2013|
She is a democrat. I wonder has she ever voted for a Republican. Because she always likes to tear them to pieces on her show. If it quacks like a duck- it is a duck. Stop trying to play cute.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||02/08/2013|
fuck off r92.
People who are liberal can vote Democrat or they might vote for a green party ticket, or something.
We're not all lockstep party-or-die morons like Rethuglicans.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||02/11/2013|
The cuter thing is that r92 really believes there are only 2 parties in this world.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||02/11/2013|
Bullshit r95. Its the Republicans that are calling themselves "independents" or "libertarians" because they're too embarrassed by their own sinking party.
|by Anonymous||reply 96||02/11/2013|
Rachel said "Moo" tonight. I don't know why yet. I am a big proponent of the bovine race. I supose this might mean anything. I'm waiting for the commercials to end so this will all be explained.
I don't get out a lot.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||02/09/2015|
So far we've had an owl; plus some hints of quacking; and a teaser for a couple of bears, but nothing of the bovine persuasion.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||02/09/2015|
Damn it! There was no mooing or even an allusion to mooing for the remainder of the show. Nothing, absolutely nothing. I want my 34 minutes back. And I trusted her, too.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||02/09/2015|
It's impossible to have any brand of serious discussion if Ed Gillespie is part of it. The man simply has no credibility.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||02/09/2015|