Cue sound of chickens clucking nervously.

No juevoes at all!

You're kidding, right? After the last five days, the "Palin and McCain" campaign is afraid of it's own shadow.

no going on Maddow is of a piece with Palin STILL not having done--and probably never doing--a news conference before the election

sad to say, the MSM, having quite forgotten its journalistic and moral responsibilities as the Fourth Estate, will keep silent

In some areas they opt for choice.

Rachel's great, but why is it right that Dems boycotted Fox, but wrong that McCain's camp avoids Maddow? She's just as "Fair And Balanced" as FoxNews.

My wife absolutely loves Maddow. She is not so excited by Olbermann. Why? Maddow tells it like it is respectfully but without being (what is that McCain word--that's right) deferential. She also comes off as being very, very knowledgeable. It is hard to put anything past Dr. Maddow. She is a breath of fresh air. She is virtually unique on television right now.

I can't imagine any surrogate would want to spout daily talking points with Maddow. She would cut the surrogate to ribbons.

In fact I would imagine that any Democrat who tried a mindless dish of talking points would be made to feel very second rate by Ms Maddows follow-up questions. It is no wonder McCain's people are afraid of her.

They're afraid they'll catch teh gay.

Ron and jimbo are both right. They're afraid of her smarts and they don't want to be seen with an openly gay person.

Maddow? Gay? Who knew? I did actually and I don't care.

They won't go on because they are trying to kill the show. The last thing they want is 2 highly-rated shows with a reality-bias.

Wilco, didn't Obama go O'Liely's?

I REALLY wish MSNBC would put Rachel online as with Keith.

Of course they're afraid; all these republican sycophants can spout off are their party's talking points, never with any depth or true conviction. I've been very impressed by Rachel's depth of knowledge and wisdom. She and Keith are certainly much more fair and balanced than fox news, as they (Maddow and Olberman) will call a democrat out just as quickly as they do a republican. They won't do "hard hitting" fluff pieces as hannity did with palin.

In a similar vein, if you haven't seen Stewart's interview with Tony Blair, check it out. A more skillful, yet respectful, 15 minute vivisection, you will seldom see.

"Wilco, didn't Obama go O'Liely's?"

Sure, and up until that point last week he didn't, right?
He was treated like garbage for months and months and then relented and agreed to an interview.
Does this recent appearance then mean there never was a boycott? Or did his boycott simply end?

All I'm saying is that she is journalistically biased, just like Fox News.
And it's a little hypocritical to attack the McCain camp for not going on her show when for a year and a half there was a bit of a boycott on Fox.
Also, it's hypocritical, as Steve pointed out, to suggest that someone who won't go on Fox necessarily can't take on the terrorists, as Fox and terrorists are so very similar.

They have reason to curl up and mewl: She is too smart for them.

Meanwhile, Barack visits with O'Reilly and suffers that dolt's palpable insolence. Can you imagine McCain or Caribou Barbie visiting with Rachel? Me neither. She has a polite manner and a head full of facts. That is not deference they can believe in. How about instead: a Sean Hannity doughnut with sprinkles on top?

But the larger picture wants mentioning:
This really is just more dumbing-down of the two highest offices in the land.

To wit: The GOP has spent the last 10 days arguing the "the Bush doctrine" isn't an idea worthy of a Vice President's forebrain. In other words: Empty-headed-ness is a virtue. Similarly by not meeting with any sort of oppositional press they are arguing that the "marketplace of ideas" is a quaint relic of the past.

Meanwhile, just in case that get called on this, they have planted the Stump-The-Candidate seed. You see where they are going with that don't you? The republicans will try to claim all policy questions directed at Palin are simply mean attempts by the press to play gotcha. Here's the milieu they are angling to create here: She is not empty-headed! The questions are rude! They are unfair posers! What is this? Jeopardy?

It is all about dumbing-down expectations and the required skills for the highest elected offices in the land. Or if you will: Putting intelligence last.

I can't think what they're afraid of. After all, they'd certainly get a more courteous reception than a Democrat could expect to find if he or she were interviewed by Hannity or O'Reilly. There, it's constant interruptions of, "No, that's a lie. Whoops! lie again. Beeeep!! Lying, folks. Oh, sorry, you were going to lie just then, I could feel it."

How is McCain still staying more or less even in the polls? Are they only sampling Republicans? How could anyone seriously think this train wreck represents a serious shot at the presidency?

Also, it's hypocritical, as Steve pointed out, to suggest that someone who won't go on Fox necessarily can't take on the terrorists, -Wilco

Yes, its hypocritical, but what they are actually doing is mimicking a talking point used by the republicans.

Even Jay Leno repeated it:
Apr 11, 2007 ... "How are you going to stand up to terrorists if you're afraid of FoxNews?

koreyel,
Re stump-the-kandidate, I think that's overreading. It was just a little spontaneous bridge that she slipped in out of insecurity. Our Sarah is unscriptable.

"why are they afraid of a smart, highly-rated talk-show host?"

Asked and answered.

I have been going on MSNBC's site http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/ every day to seen Maddow's shows. This morning her show did not come up on the list. Not to be paranoid, but . . . .

How is McCain still staying more or less even in the polls? Are they only sampling Republicans? How could anyone seriously think this train wreck represents a serious shot at the presidency?

GW Bush lowered expectations so far that a thickish stick of wood could be made to look Presidential, if sprinkled with a little of Prozac.

Can anyone tell me why ABC has been out in front amongst the msm on most of the Palin stuff?

I don't accept the symmetry between Maddow and the Fox shouters. It's true that they all wear their ideological biases on their sleeves, though Maddow probably wouldn't maintain the risible charade that she's a centrist (as O'Reilly claims he is). More importantly, I've never heard or seen Maddow personally disrespect any invited guest, the way O'Reilly and Hannity uniformly treat any liberal stupid enough to appear on their shows.

The last time McCain dared appear in public with a live and breathing, non-stepford woman, was when he was asked about Viagra and birth control and answered with an agonizing ten seconds of squirming silence accented with groaning noises, and finally an answer of "I don't know enough to answer the question."

But it does seem odd that none of the trained McCainBots TM can handle Rachel Maddow. Personally I hope they send Pfotenheimer to see her one day so we could watch that strained smile of hers strangle her head.

"I don't accept the symmetry between Maddow and the Fox shouters."

I agree. Maddow argues persuasively and respectfully with facts. The Faux News shouter browbeat with distortions and smears.

Not. the. same. thing.

I in no way believe that Maddow and Fox are behaviorally similar. That was not my point at all. I'm sorry for making it seem that way.
Maddow will argue for her side, Fox makes it personal. They are disrespecful and rude, Rachel is always professional.

Oops, now I recall that the "Spanish" interviewer was a woman, but then it's another example of how the non-stepford woman simply causes McCain to lose all control.

Also, not to forget the View appearance. My non-stepford wife keeps correcting me...beam me out of this quick.

"It is all about dumbing-down expectations and the required skills for the highest elected offices in the land. Or if you will: Putting intelligence last."

Bill Clinton's magic? He was able to take the criticism of his rambling speech in 1988 and use it to re-hash his message in a *folksy* way. He could switch it off and on when needed. Bush was a bubba through-and-through and lookie! 8 years of stupid.

Barack needs a Bubba intervention. He has to be able to bring it down to the masses. And if Pops gets in a zinger or two, (read from a Post-It Note up his sleeve), Barack has to be ready to slam it down his throat (can't wait to see McCain's face when this happens - you know? where he looks like he's grinding his molars to the bone?). In a mannerly manner, of course.

I am a McCain/Palin supporter and I watch FOX News as well as CNN and MSNBC. FOX is definitely more fair and balanced presenting people from both view points; CNN is a close second and then MSNBC. I agree that McCain and Palin must go on Maddow because she has huge ratings and merits an interview.

Mark said:

"How is McCain still staying more or less even in the polls? Are they only sampling Republicans? How could anyone seriously think this train wreck represents a serious shot at the presidency?

I know this is anecdotal and totally unscientific, but I live in "Bush" country (rural southwest Michigan). He came here twice while running in 2004 - to a town of about 12,000.

During that time, a Kerry sign was rare. Now I drive around and all I see are Obama signs - not a lot, but no McCain signs at all.

My gut feeling is that something's up with the polls. My suspicion is that they just aren't reading the electorate correctly - whether intentional or not.

Maddow is brilliant and reasonable. Thus there is much to fear by the GOP. They are doltish and confrontational--hey, that is a good Fox News motto:

"Doltish and confrontational!"

They reported and I decided this would be a better fit.

I don't know why anyone would go on this show. I thought it was Keith Olberman in drag. Like Maher, there is no reason or intelligent discourse, but a litany of cutisms spit out in rapid fire. It is neither coherent nor entertaining. Hardly any help to their ratings. You might as well ask why they won't appear at an Obama rally.

Maddow is unwatchable anyway. Her mush-mouth diction, moronic facial contortions and giraffe-like neck are all major distractions. Maybe that's why y'all dont notice how predictable or insipid her comments are. Or maybe her show "works" on the same marketing stragey as the WNBA.

"My gut feeling is that something's up with the polls. My suspicion is that they just aren't reading the electorate correctly - whether intentional or not."

I have a feeling the media needs a horserace, so things are being skewed somewhat. There are some odd things going on. McCain picks Palin and we get non-stop, wall to wall coverage about the christian right being energized beyond description. There have been zero, no pieces on how energized the African American community must be. But I think there's been an attitude in this country that says everyone gets one vote, but christian conservatives votes count for more, they're like super votes.

Maddow. To be honest, I'm shocked concervatives and Republicans haven't been really out there slamming her for being gay. I was expecting that.

This would be the first thing I would thank the McCain campaign for. I like Maddow's show, in part because she doesn't interview those stale talking point pundits. I can get that 24/7. Advice to Rachel - invite experts, not partisan hacks.

And it's a little hypocritical to attack the McCain camp for not going on her show when for a year and a half there was a bit of a boycott on Fox.

I think it's more that there was a huge media uproar when Democrats refused to go on Fox News, but there hasn't been a peep about Republicans and Maddow. As always, one set of media rules for Democrats, another set for Republicans.

McCain and Palin won't go on Maddow's show because more people will see them in the parking lot of a grocery store than the 21 people who watch this leftist loon.
MSNBC is a joke and their ratings reflect that.
Chet Huntley and David Brinkley must be rolling over in their graves when they see the sorry state of NBC News.

My guess is that they don't want to go to Maddow's show because they want to focus on shows, reporters, that they believe will be reasonably fair. As I recall it took Senator Obama more than a year to show up on O'Reilly. He would not have gone had the pressure not mounted on him. Same reasons I imagine. The glib partisan commentator with a microphone (left or right) who can cut you off fails to present a good evaluation of a candidate in my view.

My gut feeling is that something's up with the polls. My suspicion is that they just aren't reading the electorate correctly - whether intentional or not.

I remember reading sometime during the primaries that self-identified Democrats and Democratic registrations were outnumbering self-identified Republicans for the first time in something like 10 or 20 years. So if the only people you can poll are the ones who still identify themselves as Republicans after the last 8 years of disaster, you're getting the people whose minds won't be changed no matter what.

I actually think Olbermann is interesting; maybe it's because Fox news seems so biased and presents news in a 'holier than thou' way, while Olbermann lets you know that those are his opinions and has fun with it. I know people that watch Fox just because they want to hear the spin and the right wing talking points. Love "The Rachel Maddow Show," that's the truth buster if there ever was one!

all except for the rampant lesbianism and flagrant hatred of all things American, that is

What is your evidence for these accusations, bullshit-spewing republican?

Never mind - you little-brains don't need reason or fact. She's a librul and a lesbian so she must automatically hate America, right? Fuckwit.

He knows her viewer isn't going to vote for him, anyway. Maybe if she gets two.

"I am a McCain/Palin supporter and I watch FOX News as well as CNN and MSNBC. FOX is definitely more fair and balanced presenting people from both view points; CNN is a close second and then MSNBC. I agree that McCain and Palin must go on Maddow because she has huge ratings and merits an interview. "

Posted by: Karen on September 20, 2008 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

Karen, can I buy you a cup of Koolaid?

Thanks, ej and others who offered advice on the odd poll results. I hope you're right, because as has been amply demonstrated in the past, all the Republicans need to get is close; Democrats need to win by a wide margin.

Meanwhile, if you're not too busy, take a moment to read Gail Collins' column at NYT; I don't always agree with her, but she can write. It's full of chuckles like Bush "emerging from his burrow" and "looking overmedicated". Funny.

Now I drive around and all I see are Obama signs - not a lot, but no McCain signs at all.

Same here. I'm in Indianapolis, which, while it is arguably the most Democratic area in the state, still I drive around and all I see are Obama signs, Obama stickers everywhere. I have not seen a single McCain sign, and this is the heart of Indiana! We haven't gone blue in decades. It's like the Republicans aren't even trying. Yesterday we went to the Irish fest here, and they had an Obama booth registering people to vote and giving out stickers, and still no McCain booth.

More and more people are registering up as Democrats. A lot of them are groups who don't usually vote, either, like college kids or minorities. If they're only polling people who are considered "likely" to vote, who aren't in these groups... I wouldn't be surprised at all if the polls are a bit skewed.

Uh, Maddow isn't a journalist. She's a talking head. Of what use would it be to appear on her show? She's not fair nor unbiased, and is completely incapable of thinking or saying anything original aside from her tired liberal rant. If that's your point of view, listen away . . .

About that yard sign thing--I'm in Hampton Roads, the heart of Viriginia. McCain signs everywhere, lots of Over and Nobama signs, but not a Obama bumper sticker or yard sign to be found.

[My goodness but this is one determined and mendacious troll with several sockpuppets! Hint for you - I have the IPs and know that you are one person, and am deleting your comments no matter how you sign them. --Mod]

i would not go on msnbc if they paid me money..

Gosh renka, I don't know what the person who books the interviews will do now. This really throws the chessboard in the air now that you are boycotting the network...

Most people (right and left) listen to commentators who they agree with their perspective and conclude they are telling the truth. They listen to those with another perspective and dismiss them as "spinning" or slanting the news.

That's just the way it is.

Most of the MSM on television is slanted, to various degrees, toward the right.

MSNBC has found that there is a waiting left leaning audience with first Olberman and now Maddow. That doesn't mean that MSNBC has lost credibility it just means they are targeting a certain audience.

There are right leaning commentators like Carlson, O'Reily, Hannity, etc.

All of them, left and right, on occasion try to balance their presentation to various degrees but pretty much stay within their leanings. I've heard Olberman take Democrats to task and I've heard O'Reily concede to left leaning points. I don't watch too much of CNN, FOX,, MSNBC, PBS, etc. but I've noticed this.

As much as I think McCain would be a disaster for the world, I can see some of the things his campaign is trying to do. And as much as I want Obama to be President, I'm not completely sold on his authenticity.

That's just the way it is.

As divided as this country is, I don't think having vitriol toward those with another styple or perspective is helpful.

The way change occurs is by everyone, or at least as many as possible, taking the responsibility and position to have it began with - "me."

"FOX is definitely more fair and balanced presenting people from both view points"

Right, Republican *and* conservative.

Sorry, I posted this with no name so I thought I better re-post it in case it was deleted. My apologies.

Stampy said: "Maddow is a leftie extremist."

Actually, the way thinks are generally plotted in "mainstream thinking" the middle is to the "right" skewing all other viewpoints. The "progressives," which is what Maddow appears to be are left to appear extreme.

The extreme left and extreme right (characterized metaphorically as "bomb throwers" - although for different reasons) have more in common than not. They, both the extreme right and left would probably never think of themselves as neither Democratic or Republican.

The progressives are left with essentially no representation because the Democrats, even the left wing of the Democrats are closer to the middle than what a progressive viewpoint could embrace.

The extreme right of the Republican party gets to be part of the agenda since everything is skewed to the right, even though they represent a very small percentage of the population.

[Due to a determined and mendacious troll with a vast array of sock-puppets, the comments on this thread have been turned off. -Mod]