You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (81)

PLAYS: (272)

Following the news that President Obama has rejected all four of the proposed policies on Afghanistan from his military consultants, Seymour Hersh joined Rachel to discuss his latest article at The New Yorker, Defending the Arsenal.

MADDOW: Tonight's breaking news, "The Associated Press" reporting that President Obama has rejected all of the options given to him on the way forward in the war in Afghanistan. Any decision he makes about Afghanistan will, of course, have to take into account our friend-nemy across the border in Pakistan. And as Seymour Hersh details in this week's "New Yorker" magazine, U.S. dealings with Pakistan specifically on issues of fighting the Taliban and keeping that country's nuclear arsenal out of the hands of militants, they're going from complicated to full-on Gordian Knot territory.

Joining us now is Seymour Hersh, staff writer for "The New Yorker" magazine.

Mr. Hersh, thanks very much for coming on the show tonight.

SEYMOUR HERSH, THE NEW YORKER MAGAZINE: Sure.

MADDOW: Before we talk Pakistan, I do need to ask your reaction to this breaking news from "The Washington Post" and "The A.P." tonight that the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, now says, "Don't send more troops because of Afghan corruption," and the president, tonight, reportedly rejecting all of the options that have presented to him for sending more troops.

HERSH: Look. It could be huge. Of course, it's very early, but it could be huge, simply that the president is finally saying, "I'm taking control."

The one thing that mystified a lot of people, a lot of my friends on the inside was this decision to let General McChrystal write a report. We always compare Mr. Obama that to President Lincoln. But Lincoln did not let George McClellan write a report on how to win a war against the South.

There's no general in history that will write come back, given that assignment and say we can't win. This is basically a war at best that's going to be a stalemate-a 10-year stalemate, you know, x thousands and x the money, et cetera.

And so, Obama is just putting his foot down, and that's great. He's saying-he's making a political gamble in a sense. I-it's a little too early to say, but he's-he's grabbing it. He's grabbing it, and he hasn't been grabbing it until now.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (85)

PLAYS: (305)

Rachel runs down the list of intelligence leaks by Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the man who the Republicans feel is the best choice to be the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. This was a follow up from last night where Maddow focused on the leaking of Maj. Nidal M. Hasan's email conversations with cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi.

As Think Progress noted, Marcy Wheeler also reminded us today of some of Hoekstra's finer moments.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (2532)

PLAYS: (5977)

Rachel Maddow wins my semi-famous "Don't Sugarcoat It" award for her talented muckraking in this segment. It's becoming abundantly clear to everyone in the left-wing activist community that without loophole-free campaign finance reform we are unlikely to change anything in Washington lobby/legislator love-fest. With an assist from blogger David Sirota, Maddow exposes the business lobby that would attempt to hide their desire to continue to import products made from child, slave, and prison labor. Given the American public's unending appetite for cheap plastic junk, it's easy to see why those profiting from that hunger would want their gravy train to continue. Sadly, Maddow must remind us, all of us, that, um, slavery is wrong, even when it occurs across the oceans.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1371)

PLAYS: (1156)

Joe Lieberman claims that he 'wish[es] people would come out and debate me on the public option instead of questioning my motives' when asked about the money he's receiving from the insurance industry. That's news to Rachel Maddow Joe. If you're looking for someone to debate you about your motives, I hear she's still looking for a response from your office.

SCHIEFFER: I’m going to ask you this question because I want to give you a chance to respond to it. Some of your critics say that the reason that you are so dead set against the public option is because there are so many insurance companies headquartered in your home state in Connecticut and they’ve been some of your biggest supporters. What have they given you this year, $400,000? Something like that? Has that had anything to do with your position on the public option?

LIEBERMAN: No. I wish people would come out and debate me on the public option instead of questioning my motives. If they look at the record, I have never hesitated to get tough on insurance companies when I thought they were wrong. When I was attorney general of Connecticut, I filed an antitrust action against the Connecticut insurance companies.

A few years ago when there was a patient bill of rights in the Senate which the insurance companies opposed, I supported it. Right now, I’ve said that I will support the removal of the antitrust exemption that insurance companies have. That’s not the reason.

But I will say this. This recommendation of a public option, a government health insurance company, takes our government down a road that we’ve never gone down before.

In other words, we believe in a market economy. It’s what’s created the great American middle class. But it doesn’t have a conscience. When it behaves badly, we regulate it, companies. We sue them. I’ve been angry at oil companies. I never had the idea that the government should go into the oil business to make oil companies behave better. I think this would be a terrible mistake.

Rachel Maddow said this at the end of her interview with Glenn Greenwald the other day:

MADDOW: I also want to tell our viewers that we invited Senator Lieberman to come on the show tonight. His office did not even bother to respond to our requests.

But, Senator Lieberman, you should know you have an open invitation as you long have had to come on the show. I promise you will get a fair shake. Actually, at this point, I promise to not only buy you a shake. I will buy you a cookie if you come on the show.

We won't be seeing that happen any time soon. Lieberman won't get the kind of softball interview he received from Bob Schieffer if he comes on Maddow's show.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1978)

PLAYS: (5336)

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1978)

PLAYS: (5336)

Rachel Maddow talks to Glenn Greenwald about Joe Lieberman's threat to filibuster the health care bill if it contains a public option, Evan Bayh quickly following suit and the financial gain being made by both men and their spouses for doing so.

Maddow: Sen. Lieberman has made it very clear that he plans to oppose health reform that includes a public option. He’ll filibuster it in fact which would be historic. What do you think is motivating him?

Greenwald: Well I think you have to look first of all at a Research 2000 Daily KOS poll that was taken last month that shows that a margin of 68 to 21% of Connecticut voters, the people who he’s essentially representing, favor a public option. That’s a 47 point margin which is almost impossible to find on almost any other issue. So when you ask why he’s doing this, it’s clearly not because the people he’s supposed to be representing favor it.

I think clearly what it’s about is primarily that fact that the industry that he’s serving by doing this—by preventing competition with the public option—is an industry from which he receives very substantial benefits. He’s drowning in campaign contributions from the insurance industry, the health care industry, the pharmaceutical industry—more than $2.5 million.

In early 2005 his wife was hired by a large P.R. firm, Hill & Knowlton, in the pharmaceutical division, which at the time was representing the health care giant Glaxo in major legislation before the Senate. And several months later Joe Lieberman was on the floor of the Senate offering legislation that would directly steer huge amounts of incentives to that company in order to develop vaccines.

So I think what you’re seeing here is the kind of legalized corruption, legalized bribery that runs the United States Senate; only in this case it’s particularly sleazy and transparent because Lieberman is ready to gut the major initiative of the Democratic Party.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1332)

PLAYS: (1448)

Judy Thomas in the Kansas City Star has an amazing piece (picked up by MSNBC) about the online fund-raiser being planned for Scott Roeder, the right-wing extremist who shot Dr. George Tiller in the head in his church:

An Army of God manual. A prison cookbook compiled by a woman doing time for abortion clinic bombings and arsons. An autographed bullhorn.

These are among the items that abortion foes plan to auction on eBay and other Web sites in a fundraiser for Scott Roeder, the Kansas City man charged with killing Wichita abortion doctor George Tiller.

“This is unique,” said Regina Dinwiddie, a Kansas City anti-abortion activist who will sign the bullhorn. “Nobody’s ever done this before. The goal is that everybody makes money for Scott Roeder’s defense.”

One abortion-rights leader called the auction deplorable and said it could lead to more violence.

“The network of extremists promoting and defending the murder of doctors is contributing to escalating threats against clinics and doctors across the country,” said Kathy Spillar, executive vice president of the Feminist Majority Foundation.

Roeder, charged with first-degree murder in the May 31 shooting of Tiller, is scheduled to go to trial in January.

Perhaps even more appalling is the line of defense they hope to pursue in the courts with this money:

Leach and others would like to help Roeder hire a lawyer to present what is known as a necessity defense. That strategy would argue that Tiller was killed to prevent a greater harm — killing babies. Other anti-abortion activists charged with violent crimes have tried to use such a defense but with little success.

Yeah, let's legalize killing abortion doctors. Sounds like a job for Antonin Scalia. One can only hope this defense has zero success, as it has in the past.

Rachel Maddow also featured a segment on this story last night on her MSNBC show, including an interview with the attorney for Tiller's family, who says he'll move to have the court attach any funds they raise on Roeder's behalf:

Continue reading »

The wingnuts do get themselves all worked up, don't they?

The fringey-right are upset at the news that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow attended an off-the-record briefing at the White House:

A day after key White House officials declared the Fox News Channel wasn't a news organization, President Obama met with MSNBC personalities Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.

Talk about your delicious hypocrisy.

Fittingly, the news was broken by FNC's Bret Baier during Tuesday's "Special Report" (video embedded below the fold with transcript, relevant section at 1:45, h/t Hot Air via NBer Thomas Stewart):

BRET BAIER, HOST: And finally, during this morning's off-camera White House briefing with reporters, ABC's Jake Tapper asked Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the ongoing White House attacks on FOX News Channel.

After being asked about the charge that FOX isn't a real news organization, Gibbs answered, quote "We render opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness of that coverage."

Tapper: "That's a sweeping declaration that they're not a news organization. How are they different from say, ABC, MSNBC, Univision?"

Gibbs: "You and I should watch around 9:00 tonight or 5:00 this afternoon."

Tapper: "I'm not talking about the opinion programs or issues you have with certain reports. I'm talking about saying that thousands of individuals who work for a media organization do not work for a news organization. Why is that appropriate for the White House to say?"

Gibbs: "That is our opinion."

Well, the White House's strong opinions about our opinion shows - - Glenn Beck runs at 5:00 p.m. and Sean Hannity at 9:00 p.m. -- apparently do not extend to similar shows on other networks.

A White House official confirms to us that the audience for Monday's off the record briefing with President Obama included MSNBC personalities Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.

Hmmm. So the White House thinks Fox isn't a news organization because it has a perspective, and specifically points fingers at Beck and Hannity.

What does the Adminstration think Olbermann and Maddow have?

I guess it's not a problem for a new organization and its members to have a perspective so long as it's one the White House shares.

They seem to miss the big difference between people like Olbermann and Maddow: They attempt to gather and present facts on their shows. Sometimes they slip up, but it's not usually intentional. Get it?

And they're suffering from memory loss again:

The guest list included Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz, Michael Medved, Laura Ingraham, and Mike Gallagher. (Rush Limbaugh was unable to attend.) Friday’s off-the-record talk, set for 30 minutes, ended up lasting 90 minutes, where Bush told his guests that the war on terror has to be about right versus wrong, “because if it’s about Christianity versus Islam, we’ll lose.” He also showed them the pistol Saddam Hussein had when he was captured.

TrueSlant: Hire Rachel Maddow to fix Meet the Press.

The Zoo: A Question to Ask, with an interesting comment thread

Mad Kane: Bystander President

Kickstarter: A 'geekoid novel for smart people' seeks funding

Hot Chicks With Douchebags: I hope this is the most difficult decision I have to make today. Who is douchebag of the week (exceptin' Jon Kyl)?

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1699)

PLAYS: (3229)

This one had me chuckling. After all of the air time Liz Cheney has been given on Morning Joe and some of the other MSNBC daytime programs, her new group, the ironically named "Keep America Safe" is running an ad saying that Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz and Keith Olbermann are afraid to debate her.

From The Plum Line-New Ad From Liz Cheney’s Group Bashes Olbermann, Matthews As “Afraid” To Debate Her:

The implication being, of course, that the MSNBC gang is running scared from Ms. Cheney. If memory serves, though, Ms. Cheney has repeatedly been granted a platform on … MSNBC, again and again and again, to defend her pop’s legacy and champion policies that don’t even exist anymore.

Looking forward to the lily-livered liberal network crew’s response to this one. Maybe they’ll invite her on again a bunch more times to discuss her contempt for them.

And from Benen:

Earlier this year, Liz Cheney spent so much time on the cable news networks, I think she had her mail forwarded to the green rooms on N. Capitol. At one point, the "liberal media" had the former State Department official on 22 times in 24 days. Not only were many of these appearances on MSNBC, but when people like me started complaining about the news networks turning Cheney into a right-wing celebrity, Liz Cheney's biggest defender was ... MSNBC.

And now Cheney wants to turn the network into a punching bag?

Also, I couldn't help but notice that Liz Cheney's ad targets Olbermann, Matthews, and Schultz, but seems to have left out one high-profile MSNBC host: Rachel Maddow. Indeed, Rachel has invited Liz Cheney onto her show many, many times, and yet, Cheney has declined every opportunity.

To borrow a phrase, why doesn't Liz Cheney want to talk substance? Why doesn't she want to debate the issues?

I would be surprised if Cheney hasn't been invited to appear on all of those shows, although I'm not sure why any of them would want to give the likes of her some air time so she can spend the segment interrupting and talking over them. She doesn't debate anyone. She filibusters and talks over anyone she's on the air with so she can get her talking points out without actually answering any questions. If they put her in a debate box off the set with a mute button they might get a word in edgewise.

I wonder if her cohort Bloody Bill Kristol wants some face time during prime time on MSNBC as well? I'd absolutely love to see him come on Rachel or Keith's shows.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1213)

PLAYS: (5876)

Rachel had an extended segment with America For Prosperity (AFP)'s Tim Phillips tonight. AFP is yet another of those 501 organizations on the right funded by the insanely wealthy, founded for no specific purpose other than keeping taxes as low as possible and government out of their day-to-day activities as much as possible. The amorphous nature of the group means they can quickly adapt to whatever issues are popular at the moment and likely to draw the most cash donations. Mostly though they're a tool of a the Republican Party. The past president of AFP went straight from Koch Industries to the AFP, and then onto the McCain campaign as a spokeperson, Nancy Pfotenhauer. Enter Tim Phillips.

Prior to becoming the AFP President Phillips main claims to fame were as a political operative, with connections to Ralph Reed and Jack Abramoff. Phillips was instrumental in the infamous Max Cleland-Saxby Chambliss race for Senate in 2002, often described as one of the dirtiest campaigns ever. Since becoming president of AFP they've been involved in every conservative cause, from drilling on ANWR in Alaska and denying Global warming; to helping organize the Tea Party movement (along with Dick Armey's Koch-sponsored sister group Freedom Works); to now taking an active role in opposing health care reform under the "Patients United Now" ad campaign, with one of them the infamous Shona Holmes ads. Phillips makes regular appearances on all the cable news networks but especially Fox News, of course. His "aw shucks" manner plays well there and he's fairly adept at denying the reality of his work as some homespun, grassroots organization when it is anything but. Phillips is among the slimiest of this faux movement, and Rachel rightly calls him out on his foul history.

A larger quote is below this one but here is a snippet of the exchange where Rachel tells Philips what she thinks of him and his kind.

Maddow: I just want to know who you are and I want America to know.

Phillips: Sure.

Maddow: And I have to tell you—because we’re making this about you and me is that I personally think that you and the folks who do what you do are a parasite who gets fat on Americans’ fears. And I hope that…

Phillips: That’s very hurtful and disappointing…

Maddow: I know…

Phillips: You certainly have a right to say that and it’s wrong.

Maddow: And I know that sounds hurtful. That’s why I paused before I said it but I want…

Phillips: And you’re wrong and you’re disparaging a lot of Americans who are out there fighting the good fight Rachel.

Maddow: But I want—I want…no. It’s different.

Phillips: Sure you are.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1380)

PLAYS: (7223)

I do think that the wingnut glee in the IOC deciding to award Rio with the 2016 Olympics has really been a perfect example to show how reactionary the republicans and conservatives have become. Actively cheering something that would have helped an American city (and American jobs and the economy) just because they perceive it as hurting the president? Serious derangement.

On Meet the Press, Rachel Maddow just can't believe the level of Obama Derangement Syndrome necessary to cheer against an American victory:

The unseemly cheering on the right for America losing the Olympic bid I think is going to be the taste that lingers a long time after this failure. Certainly, the President tried to get something and he didn’t get it, and people who hate the President feel like that’s a cause for celebration, but to see, for example, the Weekly Standard, post “Chicago loses! Chicago loses! Cheers erupt at Weekly Standard headquarters” I think says a lot more about the Weekly Standard, says a lot more about the right right now than it does about this loss.

I know that facts are pesky and frequent ignorable and non-essential things for conservatives, but all four final candidate countries were represented by their respective head of state. If Obama hadn't gone, the right would have excoriated him for losing the bid because he didn't show. And it's the same hubris and American exceptionalism that dismisses that King Carlos of Spain and Japanese Prime Minister Hatoyama were also snubbed. So there was no scenario in which Obama could have not gotten slammed by these wingnuts.

And it is in that Catch-22 that the wingnuts lose even more supporters, because these idiots are happy for failure for this country just to score some cheap political points, as Republican strategist Mike Murphy so aptly proves.

These are the people to guide America? I don't think so. They don't care about America. They don't care about Americans. It's the same mentality that fights against real health care reform, and helping struggling homeowners over insurance companies and financial institutions. And try as they might, Americans saw that "party over everything" attitude in 2008 and voted accordingly. And if the right keeps letting the wingnuts control the dialog like this, I have no fears over 2012 either.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1305)

PLAYS: (8835)

While discussing the success of Sarah Palin's book Mike Murphy echoes David Brooks with his statement that "the noisiest parts of kind of the conservative media machine have far less influence than the mainstream media machine that covers the Republican world thinks they do". Murphy needs to tell that to those sour-grapes Palin voters hitting those tea bag protests across the country. I also wonder if he thinks there's a difference between the "conservative media machine" and Fox News?

Rachel Maddow rightly points out they're not going to be able to dismiss Palin that easily and need to answer for the brand of conservatism that has elevated her to the position she has in the party, 2012 nominee or not.

MURPHY: No, she will sell a lot. I'm, I'm going to buy it. I'm going to wait for it to get spell-checked, but then I'm going to buy it.

GREGORY: Right. And she's number--I should point out, I mean, number one on the best-seller list for Amazon.

MURPHY: Yeah. No, no, look, she has a constituency. She'll never be the nominee, I totally agree with David. I agree with Steve Schmidt, it would be actually a disaster if she was the nominee. I do wish my friend Steve felt that a year ago when a lot of people were asking John McCain to put her on the ticket. But the truth is--and I'm going to agree with David here, too--the noisiest parts of kind of the conservative media machine have far less influence than the mainstream media machine that covers the Republican world thinks they do. These radio guys can't deliver a pizza, let alone a nomination. And you can case study that out in the last election. So I--the question is whether or not our party will learn, when we have a pretty good midterm victory due to Obama's mistakes this time, that turning up the volume is not the reason that we're going to do well, I believe, in the midterms. And the fact is to get all the way, there are a lot of things we have to do to modernize conservatism to be successful.

MADDOW: I, I do think that there's a little bit of reckoning that needs to happen on the right for Sarah Palin's success. I mean, she was the vice presidential nominee, she is going to sell a kazillion books and she is the biggest brand name in Republican politics still right now. And she's chose--the person who's writing her book, her last--the last person who she co-authored a book with was called "Donkey Cons" and it was co-authored with a guy who's widely believed to be and I believe him to be a white supremacist. So she's chosen Lynn Vincent, who's written a book with a white supremacist, to write her book, and she's the biggest name in Republican politics.

MURPHY: Oh, but, Rachel...

MADDOW: And you can dismiss her and say she's not going to be the nominee, but I do think the right needs to sort of answer for what's happened to conservatism.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (78)

PLAYS: (349)

MSNBC's Take Two web extra with Rachel Maddow and Mike Murphy. Rachel is asked if she'd ever consider running for office and Mike Murphy gives his picks for who the GOP front runners will be in 2012 presidential election.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (72)

PLAYS: (258)

David Gregory asks his panel on Meet the Press about Alan Grayson's remarks on the House floor this past Tuesday and whether "there's a level of shrillness in the debate that is not helping America".

As Rachel Maddow points out, this type of rhetoric is so common with the GOP that it's hardly noticed, but when a Democrat does it everyone's suddenly paying attention to it.

David Brooks responds by trying to say it's all just a media circus and by doing his best to try to distance the Republican party from the likes of Beck, Limbaugh and Levin. Brooks is right about the media circus, but he's wrong about America being a "center-right" country and he's wrong about the influence of right wing talkers on the Republican Party. Just because a few of them are trying to distance themselves from Glenn Beck's madness doesn't mean they're not still dancing to their tune.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1512)

PLAYS: (2287)

Via Raw Story, Rachel Maddow points out that in a move to make himself the Republican presidential candidate in 2012, the so-called "sane, centrist, future of the Republican Party" Tim "Fear the Mullet" Pawlenty is putting together the usual assortment of Republican scum to run his political PAC:

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty has signaled with the creation of his Freedom First PAC that he has his eye on the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, however, believes that far from making him a credible candidate, the list of Pawlenty's consultants and strategists represents "a who's who of some of the worst Republican scandals of the past decade."

Maddow pointed in particular to Pawlenty senior advisor Terry Nelson, a former deputy chief of staff at the Republican National Committee "known for being the guy in charge when the infamous New England phone-jamming
case went down."

That dirty tricks maneuver sabotaged the Democrats' get-out-the-vote operation during the 2002 New Hampshire election and helped elect Republican John Sununu to the Senate. Nelson was the direct supervisor of RNC regional director James Tobin, who was convicted for his role in the case.

Maddow went on to describe how Nelson then left the RNC to beoame a media consultant, hired an advisor to the Swiftboat Veterans, and was behind the notorious race-baiting "Harold, call me" ad that helped defeat the 2006 senatorial campaign of Democrat Harold Ford but was condemned even by many Republicans.
Story continues below...

Pawlenty has also hired former White House political director Sara Taylor, who became notorious in 2007 for her role in the US Attorney scandal and her inability to recall anything of significance when called to testify before Congress.