It seems too obvious to state, but as long as people like Zimmerman put emphasis on "left vs. right" or "reactionary vs. concessionary," they funnel attention down to the natural dichotomies that emerge in any argument at the cost of the substance itself. Obviously, there are many, like Zimmerman, who want, at all costs, to avoid substance, especially when people get riled up about it. But, anyone who isn't riled up about what's happening to our beloved and blessed country is not paying attention, at least, not the kind of attention that produces constructive resolution. Zimmerman's attack, like so many others that don't talk principle but rather politic, is just a symptom of an alliance which he holds, analogous to the one he accuses Maddow of holding. All of this can be avoided by simply talking principle and not getting all up tight about whether someone's exercised or not. Calm reason will prevail. And if it doesn't, what's the point?

Putting aside the arguments about the 4th branch of our government system: free press, informed public, etc, etc, etc...

MSNBC putting on Maddow is nothing more than the money people finally realizing the truth in their free market creed. I wondered how long it would take them to learn the lesson of efficiency of the market. The lesson we are all suppose to learn from them.

You have 51% of the population electing Bush. You have every network serving the ideology represented by Bush. Yet, it has taken all this time for business acumen to be exercised such that one of the competitors in the free market realizes there is 49% of the population not being supplied, not having their needs met, not being marketed to. Nope, they beat their brains out fighting for a piece of the same side of the pie! How freak'n dumb.

Is this the best we have in business that they could not see the efficient money was not to compete with the 3 other networks for a share of the 51% but to have 49% of the market to them self? 100% of 49% is more than 25% of 51%.

The truth is, is that the Right is blinded by their ideology of life to all other opportunities.

That it has taken this long to realize such by a big American Corporation is proof that we have not been living in a free market, market driven, supply and demand economic ideology as the Right professes. It is proof of the correctness of the label propaganda and dare I say fascism.

it is realy amazing that there are still so many people who see the entire world through -- every last square inch of it -- exclusively through the prism of their specific preference

what they consider to be left or right or serious or unserious journalism.

There was a very similar theory put forth about 'right vs left' radio a few years back. It still hasn't been fleshed out (or is that flushed out) nearly as well as it should be or could be.

I am surprised at Greenwald and the pomp written about Maddow becoming an MSNBC commentator. I really am. I have alot of respect for Glenn but this is a little silly.

MSNBC has become the Misogyny channel and Maddow, apparently willing to do anything to become one of the boys, was right on the floor with them.

Journalists? Not a one. Don't discount the American public by trying to make them so.

I am surprised at Greenwald and the pomp written about Maddow becoming an MSNBC commentator. I really am. I have alot of respect for Glenn but...

-- MaggieFl

It's all the rage! If you're going to take Greenwald to task be sure to tell him how much respect you've had for him first. It just sounds so much more, oh, I don't know, sincere that way.

There is not difference between Hillary and Obama?Obama's radicals friends? Obama's comments: there is no more beautiful sound that the mosque calling for prayers? Our national anthem is a symbol of oppresion in the world? For 20 years he listened to Pastor Wright anti-semitic and anti-american comments? Pastor Wright his mentor? Malcolm X his hero? Is this going to be the President of the United States, a man of ambiguous feelings towards the United States? At least we never had doubts about Hillary's patriotism.

.. a neocon circle-jerk.

And Sacha Zimmerman is a cock. And, appropriately for "even-the-liberal-New-Republic," that is NOT NEWS. So I should be writing for them!

dont tease lwm or he will leave for sure and then what are you going to do?

For Rachel Maddow's naysayers... If not Rachel, then who?

No. Not, why not Rachel. Tell me who would be better. Who?

MSNBC has become the Misogyny channel and Maddow, apparently willing to do anything to become one of the boys, was right on the floor with them.

Journalists? Not a one. Don't discount the American public by trying to make them so.

Were/are you a Hillary supporter? Did you think this about MSNBC before January, when the primary began? Are you saying Rachel Maddow is misogynistic?

Glenn suggested Lanny Davis to one of the posters who said they didn't like Maddow. ;o)

A TIME writer (Jay Newton-Small) referred to Evan Bayh as being "much more moderate" than Obama without blinking an eye. Which prompted some serious (but metaphoric) head-scratching on my part on multiple levels (again, metaphorically).

If Bayh is "much more moderate" than Obama--presumably because he voted for the war and Obama spoke out against it at the time--then what does that make Obama, a screaming liberal? Other than his position on the war AT THE TIME, I see absolutely no reason to view Obama as being any less "moderate" than Bayh or the majority of pro-war, pro-corporate, GOP-caving Dems, considering his senate record and recent stances and moves.

Furthermore, is the working beltway definition of a "moderate" Dem these days someone who is, in fact, pro-war, pro-corporate and GOP-caving? Have the goalposts been moved that far to the right among the beltway gasbag types that their current definition of a "moderate" Dem is essentially yesterday's definition of a conservative Repub?

If so, then what used to be viewed as moderate is clearly, to them at least, far-left these days--anti-war, pro-civil liberties, pro-government honesty and competence, etc. I.e. 60-70% of the country is now "far-left", 20-30% is now "moderate", and the remaining 0-10% is "far-right".

Ok, I'm exaggerating a bit here. But the central point remains, that today's establishment beltway media views today's conservative Dems such as Bayh (who is the second or third most conservative Dem senator and a leading supporter of the war at the time) as "moderates" in the political cente, and anyone even slightly to the left of them as liberal and on the left.

Um, sorry, Bayh is no moderate. Obama--at BEST at this point--just might be one, although he continues to drift towards the center-right axis that Dems like Bayh occupy. Dick Durbin is a moderate. Pat Leahy is a moderate. Frank Lautenberg is a moderate. Obama is sort of one, but less and less so each day. But Bayh is not, and never has been.

Unless you consider going to war on a bunch of obvious lies and extremely thin "intelligence" is moderate. In which case, you're on the wrong blog, and really need to up your meds.

I understand why these "journalists" spout official talking point CW nonsense in their alleged "reporting". They're alternately lazy, stupid, cowardly, obsequious, unprincipled, and constrained by management in what they can say and report on, and how. And, after all, the news media is a business first and an ethical profession last. But that doesn't make what they say and parrot any more true. Idiocy is idiocy is idiocy, period, and needs to be called out every single time.

Ugh.