but I actually prefer it to Countdown. Sorry, Keith...

The night she eviscerated the churlish and bitchy David Frum with her razor-sharp reasoning without so much as breaking a sweat...goosebump time. Amazing!

Then night she called out Sarah Palin for LYING about the results of Troopergate, I stood up and cheered.

When so many "pundits" are just talking heads regurgitating talking points, and when so many TV hosts are just teleprompter-reading hacks, Ms. Maddow has been nothing short of revolutionary.

Bravo!

to me about the Times' article was that it described her simply as "a former AIDS activist," while neglecting to mention her academic background. Surely that is more relevant to her success as it denotes some level of intelligence and is, thus, more reflective of her approach to political analysis. "A former AIDS activist" is well and good, but tells us virtually nothing about those skills.

What a joy it is to tune-in to a liberal host / commentator who is assertive, funny, super sharp, and cordial to all of her guests (whether they be liberal or conservative). Her verbal jujitsu on Frum was a thing of beauty!

It's a rather far-fetched notion, but in much the same way that Keith Olbermann's hero Edward R. Murrow had his group of disciples (known as "Murrow's Boys"), I'm hoping that Maddow is the first in a line of sharp, assertive, humorous "Olberman's Boys and Girls".

Keith Olbermann is a complete partisan hack compared to Rachel Maddow. She is the pundit equivalent to Barack Obama. She puts her faith in the idea that people are smart enough to listen to a real argument with actual facts. And holy shit, it turns out she's right! Her show is 100 times better than Olbermann's.

She has a terrific smart show. She treats her guests with repect and doesn't talk over them or shout them down. Rachel dealt well and appropriately when some goon speechwriter for Bush attack her by comparing her with terrorists. She was polite but she did not let that crap pass. I think the guy was Frum who attacked her. He was snarky and rude and looked sneaky. She put him in his place and did it politely. Go Rachel!

to the pundit line-up. I like the way Rachel Maddow covers some of the same material that Olberman does, but in her own way. She has a unique on-screen personality.

Rachel is a hit because she's smart and articulate, charming and funny, a gorgeous lefty heartthrob and unafraid of telling the truth, all while acting like a grownup. She listens with seriousness to people she disagrees with but can stand up for herself against poisonous, hypocritical toads like David Frum.

Did you see her call Sarah Palin a liar? Now that is refreshing TV. We the people are hungry for an educated, progressive viewpoint. She shares our outrage at the state of our Union, but she makes us laugh.

She's as sharp as anyone on TV, and quicker on her feet than most. She's telegenic as all get out. Hot, even. And entertaining to boot.

And doubling the ratings of "Verdict with Dan Abrams", while a good thing in its own right, is damning her with faint praise - the Abrams show was terrible.

She's smart, great with interviews, and not afraid to disagree with Pat Buchanan in a civilized manner. Much better than Dan Abra's' 'Verdict'.

She is not shrill,

She is well informed and intelligent,

and as you say, she had great guests.

My only complaint is that she is a little too much like Olbermann, but she will develop her own style with time.

P.S.(She is not like any of the talking flame heads on fox. She would fail if she tried. Intelligence and truth are her tools of the trade.)

P.S.2 (I love it when she calmly, politely and routinely dismantles Buchanan when they go head to head.)

Dr. Maddow is a real treasure. I'd been listening to her on Air America for years and always found her work deeply engaging, but I must say she's even better on TV. Cable TV news shows can now and then produce hosts who are clever, or pithy, often masking their relative shallowness. But in Dr. Maddow’s case, we have a rare blend of agreeable good humor and wit harnessed to a manifest intellect. I can see why the Right hates her so much.

She's cute, and great for a partisan host, but alas my TV time is a little more limited than would allow for me to see one side of the story, so I tend to watch Anderson Cooper who's seemed to be barely liberal leaning but hides it well and always gives a fair shot to the conservatives as well as everyone else. When they get to have Joe Biden on, they specifically state that they tried to get Palin as well but she declined, so they get another important Republican member on, last time they had Rudy Giuliani on when they couldn't get her.

So while I used to call myself independent and I'm registered so, I should probably change that to Democratic, but I still like more news and less opinion, or if there is opinion, at least it can be even from both sides so I can decide who's opinion is closer to my own. And that's the problem with Fox News, who probably shouldn't be considered news, but should call themselves Fox Conservative Opinions.

Perhaps the appeal lies in having guests who have something to say on the subject and some actual background knowledge, as opposed to a central office list of talking points? (That goes for either of the main parties, incidentally.)

You know when straight guys really, really like other guys, they call it a "mancrush"? Well, I don't know what you call it when a gay guy really really likes a woman, but whatever kinda crush you call it, that's what I have for Rachel Maddow. Her most attractive attribute isn't her hair or her eyes or her smile -- all of which are grand -- but it's her intellect that steals my heart. She's so effing smart! And poised and thoughtful and she's the epitome of grace under pressure. There I go, burbling like a teen-ager. Sigh. Be still my heart. . .