Skip to main content

                          rachel maddow photo: Rachel Maddow 080902_Rachel_Maddow_vmed_130p_wide.jpg

Starting yesterday, the talented Rachel Maddow will be authoring monthly columns for the Washington Post. In her first, she highlights a little-remarked upon aspect of the 2012 Presidential campaign--that George W. Bush, "history's actor," the last Republican to hold the White House, presiding over our country for eight seemingly endless years--was nowhere to be seen.

It's an appropriate introduction for Dr. Maddow. The shadow of Bush looms not only over today's Republican Party, but on all of us, and especially on Maddow herself. In a real sense she owes her career--and Markos owes the success of this site--to the depravity of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Bush made no noteworthy appearances for any candidate in 2012. He was a non-entity at the Republican National Convention. Not even the corporate media that had fawned over his worst excesses seemed interested in what he thought--about anything. His was the "name that shall not be named," terminating the lofty aspirations of his heir apparent brother and bringing the family dynasty to a screeching halt. For a two-term President to have been utterly shunted by his own Party to the silent dustbin of history is a singular accomplishment. Maddow points out that no former Bush official holds any major visible position in today's Republican hierarchy:

[B]y the time the Bush era was winding down, the whole administration, including the president, was stewed in terrible, Cheney-level disapproval ratings. And now, almost no one who played a significant role in that administration is anywhere to be found in electoral politics, beyond the tertiary orbits of Punch-and-Judy cable news and the remains of what used to be the conservative “think tank” circuit.
2012 simply cemented the consensus felt by the GOP in 2008, that the Bush name carried the toxicity and accompanying shelf-life of a nuclear meltdown:
The 2008 Republican presidential primaries were like some odd eight-year cicada hatch in which the candidates went underground in 2000 and then birthed themselves after Bush and Cheney were gone, as if the intervening years had never happened.
The Bush legacy is so tainted that it has spawned an ideological shift in a GOP that, however dimly, recognizes that the face in the rear-view mirror is too hideous for most Americans to bear.  Hence the outsized rise of the Libertarian elements in the party (perceived by Maddow as having at least the potential to win over a more youthful demographic).  But even of those, the search for viable new leaders is crippled by the wreckage left in Bush's wake.  The damage done by Bush to his own party is historic in and of itself.

She believes that the Bush experience contains a cautionary note for the Democrats as well. While President Obama's tenure is hardly likely to leave the negative blowback on the Democratic Party that Bush foisted on the GOP, the President's legacy to his Party is something he should be aware of and working on at this point in his second term.  The rise of a more progressive breed of Democrats, particularly in the Senate, ought to inspire that effort going forward.   And although hailed by the corporate soothsayers as the inevitable nominee in 2016, Hillary Clinton thus far (in Maddow's eyes) simply hasn't generated the grassroots enthusiasm one would expect from the Democratic base:

Unless Vice President Biden’s presidential hinting suddenly takes a turn for the serious, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton is the obvious inheritor of the party’s mantle. But, as in 2008, the Beltway may be overstating her inevitability. The grass roots aren’t all with her, frankly, and it’s yet to be seen if she’s interested in trying to win them over. Mainstream press may buy big-dollar donors (and more mainstream press), but it can’t buy the passionate volunteers and activists and excitement that are the oxygen for a winning campaign and sustained, effective leadership.
The bottom line? The President should be concerned about the legacy he leaves when he departs the Oval Office. And if Hillary is to inherit that legacy, she will first and foremost need to answer to us.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (174+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pinto Pony, xanthippe2, CwV, ericlewis0, translatorpro, Youffraita, puakev, OLinda, LynChi, theKgirls, nupstateny, gizmo59, artisan, pixxer, Bethesda 1971, highacidity, fb, annieli, Siri, nailbender, LillithMc, ichibon, Molly Weasley, hungrycoyote, dannyboy1, maggiejean, FlamingoGrrl, sawgrass727, Steveningen, ChemBob, miracle11, JayC, dsb, blueoregon, nomandates, IndieGuy, greengemini, Josiah Bartlett, radarlady, 2thanks, We Won, roses, SheilaKinBrooklyn, asterkitty, unfangus, Mimikatz, MartyM, PatConnors, here4tehbeer, MarkW53, kevinpdx, Matt Z, mattc129, TexDem, 1BQ, La Gitane, wader, serendipityisabitch, el dorado gal, slowbutsure, elwior, wasatch, tofumagoo, JayRaye, Jim R, ceebee7, Alice Venturi, boran2, Dolphin99, Themistoclea, sunbro, mconvente, Laughing Vergil, Libby Shaw, Sapere aude, side pocket, cotterperson, Superskepticalman, fumie, NJpeach, TheDuckManCometh, nirbama, YaNevaNo, where4art, anodnhajo, codairem, petulans, smrichmond, shopkeeper, stevenwag, Shockwave, juca, catly, filby, LakeSuperior, Sylv, Terre, Dodgerdog1, msazdem, MarkInSanFran, lcrp, Alise, peacestpete, VA gentlewoman, gloriana, Evoculture, aunt blabby, Grandma Susie, StellaRay, zapus, Aaa T Tudeattack, NYC Sophia, The Sheeping of America, eagleray, CJB2012, rapala, Eric Nelson, pvasileff, salmo, onionjim, Eikyu Saha, Puddytat, Sonnet, EdSF, Involuntary Exile, BarackStarObama, randomfacts, oldcrow, gramofsam1, BeninSC, JVolvo, MRA NY, riverlover, karmsy, monkeybrainpolitics, spooks51, jamess, belinda ridgewood, ladybug53, dmhlt 66, grollen, ChocolateChris, shesaid, ZappoDave, Habitat Vic, Smoh, 417els, bnasley, begone, Eddie L, DavidMS, thomask, Larsstephens, sc kitty, Jeff Y, chantedor, Lujane, buffie, postalblue, jnhobbs, MaryIllinois, RUNDOWN, SadieSue, The Marti, mujr, tinfoilhat, Says Who, 3goldens, skyounkin, Linda1961, DSPS owl, magicsister, DonnaSC, Miniaussiefan
  •  Good diary, Dartagnan. Thanks (33+ / 0-)

    for a very clear, well-written nutshell analysis of Rachel's article and where the Democratic party stands this far out from 2016. I'm definitely not gung-ho for HRC. I like her and think she certainly has the cred and experience - but I'm mostly concerned about her economic positions (think Bill Clinton and the DLC). We haven't heard anything about that yet, of course, but I would feel a lot more positive about her if it weren't for her husband's long shadow. I'm not thrilled with the idea of him as First Dude. His interests lie elsewhere now. I certainly am open to persuasion, but the arguments had better be pretty damned convincing.

    Let the flame wars begin! ;-)

    „Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.“ - Bertolt Brecht

    by translatorpro on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 08:20:38 AM PST

    •  I think a lot of us are with you (26+ / 0-)

      We'd rather have a President Clinton again than a President Jeb Bush or a President Christie, but we'd also be pretty happy with someone besides a President Hillary C if given the opportunity.

      The uniqueness of having a woman in the presidency is tantalizing, and a strong woman like Hillary would be far preferable to most other options, but the DNC is still looming around her and I don't like that at all.

      Do we hold our nose and vote for her then hold her feet the fire and hope she listens, or do we look at our other options and cheer them on instead?  There are too few alternatives right now to make any predictions.

      About the only person I'd 100% vote for in the primaries instead of Clinton would be Elizabeth Warren, and she's not going to run.

      The Cake is a lie. In Pie there is Truth. ~ Fordmandalay

      by catwho on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 09:09:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  My sentiments, too. (12+ / 0-)

        Hilary's association with Bill Clinton (LOL) worries me. He's a fatcat now, and spends most of his time with Richie Riches. Some of the stuff that comes out of his mouth scares me.

        48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam> "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." Edna St.V. Millay

        by slouching on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 10:52:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bill Clinton saved Obama in 2012 (0+ / 0-)

          How quickly self-righteous fanatics forget

          •  Saved Obama in 2012 . . . (0+ / 0-)

            then nearly scuttled him earlier this year.  Bill is only in it for himself.  He saved Obama to prove to himself and his supporters he still had the power to do so.  He is a deeply flawed character who became President because the Baby Boomers decided it was time one of their own took the oval office.  I seem to recall that he was declared inevitable by the press even though he lost the first several Democratic primaries.  I've always assumed that this was a ratings ploy to draw in the potential audeince of 36-50 year olds (at that time).  I consider myself a progressive.  The progressive cause can do much better than Bill.  Hillary has had to build her career on diplomacy and appeasement, and we've seen with her healthcare attempt, and, more recently, with Obama's presidency, how well that works against with the post-Reagan hyper-conservative Republican machine.  Every concession is immediately recast as the starting point for negotiations, rather than a move to be matched.

            We need somebody more comfortable with conflict, or we're going to keep having the highchair tyrants of the GOP getting their way with there screaming and crying fits, refusing to eat their vegetables and not letting anybody else enjoy their dinner or get enough sleep to concentrate effectively on the important work to be done.

            •  Hillary Clinton (0+ / 0-)

              Hillary Clinton is a corporate whore.
              I'd like to believe otherwise but the facts speak for themselves.
              Elizabeth Warren is the strong tonic this country would currently most benefit from.
              She's principled enough to change her mind about running if enough people can convince her of how badly her brand of no nonsense fearlessness is truly needed.
              The intelligence she displays by not wanting the job makes her all the more admirable.

      •  Enough with the dynasties... (8+ / 0-)

        we need fresh Progressive blood in the Executive. Now, if we could just convince Russ Feingold to throw his hat in--he's got the cred and the chops to handle the grinder. I like Elizabeth Warren, too, even though she doesn't rate all that progressive. Hope she changes her mind about running. I don't think any GOP candidate stands a chance against either of them.

        •  We need her in the Senate, though (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lujane, translatorpro, vernonbc

          She has just started coming into her own power in the Senate and there is still much good she can do there.

          The Cake is a lie. In Pie there is Truth. ~ Fordmandalay

          by catwho on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 09:57:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  We only lose her if she wins. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I'd rather see her in the Oval Office, anyway, because I think she could do even more good there. I'd take my chances on getting another progressive to replace her in the Senate. Heck, maybe instead of the White House, Feingold will run for and win back his Senate seat from the far right Johnson--that would balance things out. If Warren loses, she still keeps her Senate seat, and she will have gotten all that helpful exposure for her next election campaign.

            But wouldn't it be wonderful to see a Democratic Primary with those two the last remaining? Or even any two strong progressives leading the pack at the end, guaranteeing one as our candidate.

        •  Wait, what? (0+ / 0-)

          Elizabeth WARREN doesn’t “rate all that progressive” ?

          The woman SCOLDING the Bankers isn’t “progressive” ?

          •  Whoa there, pardner, not so fast! (0+ / 0-)

            How did you ever arrive at "isn't 'progressive'" from "doesn't rate all that progressive?" Especially when it should be apparent that I do view her as a progressive?

            For the record, we had conservative pols scolding the bankers, too. In fact, while Warren was getting the spotlight, it was actually Brown (D-OH) and Vitter (R-LA) who were the ones responsible for actually doing something by putting together legislation to end "too big to fail." Also, Warren was a huge proponent of Dodd-Frank, which hurts small banks and exacerbates the growth of financial mega-corporations. Plus, she voted for Jack Lew's nomination to Treasury Secretary. Granted, so did almost all Democrats, but still...

            That's My Congress scores Warren at 63, or 'somewhat liberal,' compared to a number of others like Senators Franken at 75 or Wyden (top) at 88, both which are categorized as 'strong liberal.' To be fair, and to provide proper perspective, her score puts her ahead of the vast majority of Democrats in Congress, who tend to be more centrist. However, I believe this is what misleads people to think someone is more progressive than they actually are, the skewed frame of reference.

            The level of progressiveness must be judged by deeds, not words. Just be aware there are some troubling aspects of Warren's past history in that regard.

        •  Eliz warrendoesn't rate Progressive! Heck, She IS! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Please enlighten me about the facets of Eliz Warren that are NOT progressive!  Example, among lotsa' others: Didn't you hear her address Congress very recently Why Congress Better Wake UP and Acknowledge women's and girls' strong capabilities and the desperate needs for women's estrogen-calm to ameliorate the guys' testosterone-flamed decisions on the Stock Market floor and in the Boardroom that would have been avoided IF Testosterone had listened to women's warnings!

        •  We need Russ Feingold to run (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MaryAskew, bdop4

          for governor of wisconsin & beat snotty walker.

        •  Russ Feingold (0+ / 0-)

          Many in Wisconsin are still suffering shocked embarrassment over losing the most widely respected senator any state's ever been fortunate enough to have.
           If Russ Feingold and Elizabeth Warren joined forces, in any order, their combined traits of proven integrity, honorable determination and intellectual fortitude would be an obvious cure for what's long ailed us.
                 Neither one of them suffers fools gladly.

      •  2008 was an awsome year (6+ / 0-)

        The first year in a long time that I voted FOR someone and not just for the "least worse" of the possibilities.  In 2012 it was more of the same old "not as bad as the other guy" election.

        We win when we have candidates that not only talk populism, but actually actively work on a populist agenda after the election is over;  something I haven't seen.  Yes, they talk the talk, but when the election is over you see the same old tired, pro-corporate, third way dicks as agency nominees and you know not much is going to change.

        I refused a paid position working for the HRC campaign in 2008 because I really believed in her primary opponent.  I worked tirelessly, gave up meals to donate more to the campaign, and got ... a huge disappointment.  

        2010 was the result as voters who swarmed the polls in 2008 stayed away (liberals and Dems turned out, but not the independents, occasional voters and young people).  I knew it was going to happen because I talked to people on the phone and at their front doors for weeks before the election.  It was hard to convince people to go and vote.

        Dems need to stand for progressive ideas, strongly and soon.  If the best we can do in 2016 is someone who sat on the Wal Mart Board, believes in the illusion of bipartisanship at any cost, and pays more attention to Wall Street than Main Street, we're doomed in an era where Republicans are destroying themselves.

        We need a Democratic, Party that works for Democratic ideals, not 2 Republican parties.

        There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

        by Puddytat on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 04:27:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Elizabeth Warren (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BeninSC, gandydancer

        I agree Elizabeth Warren is a phenomenal person and advocate for the People, but in her strong, completely honest, and principled vales and stance - she will be a target as too much of a liberal.
        She is in the exact right place right now and doing incredible work for the People against bank abuse, standing up for expansion of Social Security and Medicare, shaming the Republicans on their treatment of the poor and being sincerely righteous in her fights.
        She is a very strong and principled person who says what she means and gets out and does it.
        However, she is not ready for the national scene beyond where she is right now. She needs more time, more seasoning, more name recognition among average Americans.
        When she is ready, she could win, as a breath of fresh air with honesty, true and genuine support of the People, and a complete platform of undeniable programs for the nation's future and rebuilding the middle class. She came in and shook up the Senate immediately and she will be able to shake up and awaken the American People at the right moment.

        •  Thank goodness for Elizabeth Warren! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          As good as she is, I've seen nothing from her that indicates she is interested in still higher office anytime soon. But I don't think the nation's needs wait on leaders for 'seasoning.'

          I appreciate your analysis, BeverlyNC!

          Welcome from the DK Partners & Mentors Team. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Knowledge Base or from the New Diarists Resources Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.

          "The opposite of war isn't peace, it's CREATION." _ Jonathan Larson, RENT -9.62, -9.13

          by BeninSC on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 11:44:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Elizabeth Warren (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I agree 2016 is too soon for Senator Warren to run for President; thankfully, it appears she knows that as well as we do.  That said, I think she could be convinced to run for Vice President.  Regardless of which Dem is on the top of the ticket, that is something I, personally, would like to see.

          •  The only hesitation I would have about it is that (0+ / 0-)

            I would be pulling for her running mate to win the presidency TWICE, and that would mean 2024 would be the earliest she could 'step up.' That is a long time, indeed.

            Certainly I do want us to control the presidency that long!

            Welcome from the DK Partners & Mentors Team. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Knowledge Base or from the New Diarists Resources Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.

            "The opposite of war isn't peace, it's CREATION." _ Jonathan Larson, RENT -9.62, -9.13

            by BeninSC on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 04:26:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Elizabeth Warren (0+ / 0-)

               Warren is doing good work in the US Senate and we need her there! Just because a lot of senators are fools doesn't mean we should hand over the Senate to them. Legislators are an important part of our system and we need legislators like Warren.

                 The vice-presidency would merely be a symbolic post for her and she's too smart to be wasted on it.

      •  hillary (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        yes, I agree.  she would be better than - say JEB Bush, of course, but has not deserved the nomination to be handed to her on a plate.  she is much too inclined to go along with the big boys.  it's not so much her approving the Iraq war, it was her willingness, for example to dub the entire Palestinian populace 'terrorist' that gave me enormous pause.  Bill Clinton took a hissy-fit at  the last negotiations with Yasser Arafat with the inevitable result, and I cannot bring myself to believe HRC will summon the courage to do otherwise in the future.

        'Poor people don't have doctors.' Jon Stewart

        by carlyle4 on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 11:49:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The next president is... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MaryAskew, BeninSC

        GORE 2016!!

    •  Truth is, she had a lot of negatives in 2008 (8+ / 0-)

      and those haven't gone away. I think she'll ultimately be successful as the nominee, because there's still the halcyon glow of the economic prosperity of the Clinton presidency, but I fear that if she were matched up against Christy, she'd lose. Badly.

      Progressives are gaining, but we still don't have the numbers to counter the fat cat brigade and the right wingers together.

      •  Christie would CRUSH Hillary (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hooper, DavidMS

        Progressives tend underestimate Christie and overestimate HRC.  

        Here's an excercise:  listen to Christie with the video off, then listen to HRC with the video off.  Christie speaks with a sentimental, almost dreamy voice about his vision of what Americans are.  It's a vague and stupid vision, but highly effective on the TV Machine and actually a bit Reaganesque.  In contrast, HRC sounds cold and analytical, uninspiring, and fails to enunciate a broad vision of America.  It's the main reason she lost in 2008 to a newcomer with dubious general election prospects.  

        HRC will implode the same as in 2008, the only question is whether it's in the primaries or the general.

        "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

        by Subterranean on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 02:43:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Methinks the 'Bridgegate' (11+ / 0-)

          could be Christie's undoing.  Maybe not but I don't think the American people in general are ready for a New Jersey thug type in the WH

          Not being able to do everything is no excuse for not doing everything you can. - Ashleigh Brilliant

          by dmac on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 03:51:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hooper, elwior, bobatkinson, vernonbc

            Don't know how much "Bridgegate" specifically will have to do with it, but I don't believe that America at large has the stomach to vote for a "big bully" who's on video numerous times shouting at school teachers, and so forth.  They liked watching Tony Soprano on tv; I don't think they're ready to elect him as our representative to the world.  I'm talking about the decent Americans there; the rest won't vote for him because he hugged Obama!

          •  The bridge scandal will blow over... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Maybe it will last but Christie strikes me as a teflon politician much like Reagan and Bill Clinton.  His personality is so dominating that people will forget about the scandal once he starts talking.

            Plus he has the sympathy thing going.  People's first impression of an obese person is that he/she is a victim of bullying.  It's not going to compute that Christie is the bully without some flagrant public displays of assholery.  

            "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

            by Subterranean on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 04:56:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Christie (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              He's a pompous bully and the republicans might like that but the democrats won't and I'm not sure the Hispanic or young people will either.  

            •  "...without some flagrant public displays (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              of assholery."

              And the primaries are just the stage for those displays. This will be a quantum leap over Perry's "oops" moment.

              I can hardly wait.

            •  Christie? (0+ / 0-)

              My first impression of an obese Republican is not that he has suffered bullying at all, but that he has fed too well at the taxpayers coffers.

              If we can't run, and elect, HRC now, then we never will be able to. She was stabbed directly in the back on her last bid, which I thought was horrible and ill thought out-but that's just me, I guess.

        •  He'd crush about anything he steps on (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gramofsam1, Choisie, buffie

          And listening with the video off is not the best exercise for a video age. Remember, radio debate listeners preferred Nixon to JFK more than 50 years ago.

          •  I don't mean that Christie is better with (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Isara, Lujane

            the video off.  My point is that you can more starkly hear the appeal in Christie's delivery with the video off.  

            Also, if dems keep hammering him about his weight, he'll be the victim and thus people won't recognize him as a bully.  I'm guilty of it myself, but we really need to stop making remarks about his weight.  It's there for all to see, so it's not like it will go unnoticed unless dems point it out.

            "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

            by Subterranean on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 04:59:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Christie is a much better candidate, for all his (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              elwior, Subterranean

              awfulness, than Hillary.  He can pump up a crowd.

              If she runs (not a done deal, I hear) and wins the nomination, the public will turn on her very quickly.  Imo.  She's lacking the winning Presidential gene.  And she sounds terrible, which is what the video-off idea is pointing too, I think.

        •  Fat chance! (0+ / 0-)

          CC is far too conservative to win in a general, especially against HRC or any iconic Liberal contender, considering the last five years of transvaginal and anti-Labor policies from the right.

          I'd like to see Christie, or any iconic Conservative (smile) on stage with Alan Grayson.

    •  HRC (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rabrock, MaryAskew

      Unfortunately, I agree with you.  That said, I can't think of a single republican I would vote for.  As for other democrats, Elizabeth Warren is adamant about not running and the republicans would beat her "lack of experience" drum loudly.  I like Bernie Sanders, but he too is hitting his senior years.  Am impressed with what little I've seen of Senator Chris Murphy from Conn.   I believe Bill cost Hilary the 2008 election with his racist comments about Obama and his sly references to his wife's age/memory on one of the issues, almost as if he didn't want her to be elected.  He's done the same to the president, undermining him at some crucial points and then dashing out to make his impassioned speech when he knows he can draw a crowd.   Rather than the president worrying about his legacy, I'd rather he did what he's been doing, trying to get us out of this mess left by Cheney.  I say Cheney because it took Bush about six or seven years to realize who was president and who was too flawed to advise and by then it was too late.  

  •  Hoo, boy. I just noticed the elephant in the (7+ / 0-)

    room. George Bush. See how I managed to ignore him without even noticing it? I'm really laughing at myself, now. ::chuckle::

    „Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.“ - Bertolt Brecht

    by translatorpro on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 08:33:35 AM PST

  •  It gives me a lift to know that (25+ / 0-)

    what she says now will no longer be confined to a late evening talk show.  This is a plus for all of us.

    She doesn't hesitate to criticize this administration when she knows that what is happening is not good for this country.  She does not limit herself to republican activity, and even when she has a guest that she totally disagrees with she's fair, honest, and courteous.

    We could use a few more like her.

    The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

    by nupstateny on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 08:39:59 AM PST

  •  Maybe you ought to write for them, too ;) (8+ / 0-)
    2012 simply cemented the consensus felt by the GOP in 2008, that the Bush name carried the toxicity and accompanying shelf-life of a nuclear meltdown
    Thanks for the news - maybe it's time to subscribe to the Post, as we used to long ago.
  •  This is why the yearning for Jeb (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dartagnan, catwho, radarlady, Matt Z, elwior, salmo

    of some "serious" people will likely go nowhere.  (not to mention that the Cruz-ers will not touch him).

  •  Great picture of Rachel, btw (4+ / 0-)

    Did anyone see Sally Kohn on "Up" with Steve Kornacki last week?

    She's very smart, very progressive, but totally nuts.

  •  Holy cow. This is for real. Not snark. (6+ / 0-)

    And, am one of those not yet on the Hillary train. I love the line, "she will first and foremost need to answer to us".

  •  Rachel (7+ / 0-)

    The voice of intelligence, moderation and knowledge drives the righties crazy.  The WaPo needs at least one of those voices.  Rachel's friend Ezra Klein is another plus the other few in the midst of Tea Party level garbage and always anger.  Some of the worst on the WaPo are writing editorials.  Hope Bezos cleans it up.

  •  What great news! (9+ / 0-)

    When she published "Drift," she always claimed that she didn't like to write. I'm glad she seems to have gotten over that dislike of writing to give a wider audience her thoughts. This will be must reading for me, even if it's just once a month.

    I note that there are more than 2500 comments on her column (I read the column but not the comments). No doubt many are knee-jerk GOP copycats who didn't even bother to read her piece. Too bad for them. They could learn something.

    •  Maddow has an awesome effect (4+ / 0-)

      on teabagger nutsacks.  She elicits a frothing hatred that could only come from them harboring a tiny kernel of self-doubt regarding their wingnut beliefs.  It's beautiful.

      "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

      by Subterranean on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 03:12:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "self-doubt regarding their wingnut beliefs ..." (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        or self-doubt regarding their sexuality?  I sometimes wonder.

        •  I was thinking more along the lines (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior, kyril

          of political doubts.  But sure, the homophobic nutters always react severely to the gay.  Lesbians can be less threatening than gay men, but sometimes it freaks out a homophobe to feel attraction to a lesbian.  Then the question niggles:  "am I attracted to the 'man' in her?"  

          One of my roomates in college was in serious denial and he talked about this crap all the freakin' time.  I've never met anyone who talks about gay attraction and buttplay as much as he did.  I told him once that I thought a woman was hot (not knowing she was gay), and the dude spent hours analyzing why I was attracted to "mannish" women and what it meant about my orientation, asking me what I thought about it, etc.  I found out later from the woman that this guy asked her out a few times before he knew she was gay!  He was trying to talk himself out of the gay, lol!

          "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

          by Subterranean on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 04:48:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Fancy that, (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dartagnan, wasatch, side pocket, elwior, buffie

    the Post hires a competent, credible voice that is not a conservative.

    Red letter day, indeed.  Way to go Rachel!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead -

    by FlamingoGrrl on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 09:24:57 AM PST

  •  Excellent! (5+ / 0-)

    Rachel Maddow deserves a wider audience.  And the public deserves more access to intelligent, knowledgeable commentary based in solid liberal values.

    BUt it's still kind of mindbending.  Rachel as a Beltway PUndit?  Yikes!

    But never as part of the Beltway club.  PLease, Rachel.  Tell us you'll never get caught in the pretensions and the disconnect from the lives of ordinary Americans.

    Nah.  I didn't think so.

    --------------------- “These are troubling times. Corporation are treated like people. People are treated like things. …And if we ever needed to vote, we sure do need to vote now.” -- Rev. Dr. William J. Barber

    by Fiona West on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 09:26:53 AM PST

    •  She's been a beltway pundit for years (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, buffie

      The GOOD kind--she's a pundit, and she covers beltway issues (the national ones, mostly). The fact that we don't think of her as one says a lot about how the corporate establishment beltway punditocracy has created the false notion that they are the entire beltway punditocracy, which they're not.

      "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

      by kovie on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 02:50:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just because I think we need many candidates (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Josiah Bartlett, renbear

    to generate enthusiasm for the election, I'm going with a Biden/Obama ticket for now. While I found Michelle a bit presumptuous and long-winded the first time she subbed for Barack in New Hampshire, she'd bring good balance to the ticket. Though the family is originally from South Carolina, she'll represent the heartland and her work with various agencies on health and nutrition and the school lunch program will come in handy.
    Biden has earned the top slot and Dr. Jill will make a great First Lady.

    Obamacare at your fingertips: 1-800-318-2596; TTY: 1-855-889-4325

    by hannah on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 09:49:18 AM PST

  •  "inevitable nominee" . . . . . (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dartagnan, elwior, Isara, Subterranean

    Hmm, I heard that somewhere BEFORE . . .  when was it . . . . ?


    In the end, reality always wins.

    by Lenny Flank on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 10:08:48 AM PST

  •  Nice try Wapo (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dartagnan, Matt Z, elwior

    but even having Rachel on staff is not going to make me subscribe to this resting-on-past-laurels-conservative-sell-out 'news' paper.  Ever since they gave Bush a pass for pretty much anything he did, I don't even think about the post anymore.  If there're any good articles, I'll just wait till someone provides me with the synopsis.  I will not be a subscriber to an enabler again.

    ... like tears in rain

    by bladerunner on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 10:27:29 AM PST

  •  How is this possible? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dartagnan, wasatch, elwior
    name shall not be named
    cannot be W. That can't be true. Everyone knows Cheney is Lord Voldemort.
  •  This brings the average age of Washington Post (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dartagnan, elwior, Shockwave

    columnists down in the 60-70 year old range?

    I wish it were more frequent than a monthly column.

  •  Great move, Maddow's brilliance is more aligned... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dartagnan, elwior, Shockwave print than screeching commercial TV, imHo.

    As for Hillary having to "answer to us" well, we are considered optional after all and at the same time, ironically, taken for granted. Nevertheless, as any candidate considers what little effort they'll budget for in "our" direction there better be some demands with consequences here unlike the current rainbows-and-lolipops boosterism or there's no leverage and so no real answering going on

  •  Rachel may make me rethink WaPo (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dartagnan, elwior

    Time will tell though.  Significant time.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 01:52:46 PM PST

  •  We need a challenger to Hillary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldcrow, vernonbc

    I would love to see Sen. Warren take her on, but it doesn't seem that this will happen.  I hope someone else will step up.  I don't know what HRC is thinking, taking $200K per speech (multiplied by many, many speeches) to tell Wall Street basically that President Obama has been too rough on them and she'll be better.  She can pocket all that money or be president, but I don't think she can do both.  She and the Serious People thought she was the inevitable candidate last time.  We all remember how that worked out.

  •  Fuck yeah! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dartagnan, elwior, vernonbc

    The Post hasn't done anything this smart since forever.  Hopefully they figure out soon that people want to read Maddow weekly, preferably on Sunday when we've missed her show for a day already.  

    It's a nice first column, being sensible and clear, and addressing legacy in a way the corporate media normally doesn't.  

    "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

    by Subterranean on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 02:09:03 PM PST

  •  Great news, they have a long way to go (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dartagnan, elwior

    The Post has been mostly down in the gutter rolling in the right-wing mud for a long time now, not to mention the lack of decent writing and reporting. This is a move in the right direction: we LOVE Rachel.

  •  Damn you Jeff Bezos! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I knew he'd destroy Fred Hiatt's beautiful vision.

    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

    by kovie on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 02:47:34 PM PST

  •  Great post, Dartagnon - but one correction (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dartagnan, elwior

    2nd paragraph 1st line, it's Dr. Maddow.  She's a Ph.D. and deserves the title.  But I'll admit that I think of her as Rachel.  She's someone I'd like to have a few cocktails with.

  •  Congrats to Rachel, she is the best. n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dartagnan, elwior, vernonbc

    "Really nice, but also very serious about his job." Jackie Evancho on President Obama 6/7/12

    by BarackStarObama on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 04:54:51 PM PST

  •  She did a good job (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dartagnan, begone, elwior

    I read her first off.  She was persuasive because she makes sense and is able to use facts from the past effectively.

    It strikes me that the modern presidency is almost unmanageable because the president is responsible for so much, in so many areas.  And yet she is right that he must
    in some manner create arenas for the development of
    wonderful public-spirited talent if we, the people, are to prosper in the future.

  •  Epic, This Is: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Fantastic News!  The Washington Post!  

    Hey, I have an idea for something she could write about:

    An Expose on the horrific working conditions at's warehouses, how they treat their employees, use temp labor, work people until they are injured.. etc..

    Expose that company for the anti-worker anti-progressive corporation it is!

    I'm sure the Progressive Post would love to do such an expose.  

    I bet the Post's next great move will be to give some equal space in their publication to Third Party Candidates, in the name of supporting everyone's voice and embracing the diversity of dialog such an addition might bring.

    The 1% are Purists: They only support Candidates that Deliver Results They Can Bank On. Don't they know they should compromise? /sarcasm

    by Johnathan Ivan on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 06:54:07 PM PST

  •  Rice advisor running for Alaska Senate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, Dartagnan

        In Alaska we have a man named Dan Sullivan running in the Republican primary to take on Senator Mark Begich. He was one of Condi "Mushroom Clouds" Rice main advisors in the run up to the Iraq debacle and definitely helped her to create and get the cooked intell up the pipeline to Bush for his daily talking points. He was brought to Alaska by Palin then moved on to the Parnell administration when she quit. He was Parnell's Atty. General as they joined the lawsuit against the ACA. The man participated in war crimes and needs to be made to take responsibility for it rather than be rewarded with a US Senate seat but this is Alaska and we are overwhelmed with blind, partisan Republicans/Teabaggers so it's going to be a real battle for Senator Begich to prevail.

  •  Washington Post - Rachel Maddow (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Rachel can very likely write articles that will be more formidable than even her evening proclamations (for me at least). I love her show, and watch it often, but I am glad to see Rachel expanding her "voice" options.

    Further to the article, I would support Bernie Sanders for President or E Warren, any day, any time over HC.

  •  I'm no fan of Hillary, but... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    At least there's enough conversation about the likelihood of her candidacy, and early enough, to give her the needed scrutiny as something other than the potential "first woman President".  Her Wall Street/Walmart backgrounds are fatal flaws to her character, as far as THIS rabid progressive is concerned.  I would ONLY vote for Clinton if I felt optimistic enough that she would have a large enough PROGRESSIVE majority in Congress to deal with that her progressive agenda items would be upheld and her pro-corporate items would be soundly defeated.  Otherwise, I may cast my first vote ever for a third party candidate in 2016.
    I'm from MA, and I really like Senator Warren.  IMO, she's going to be more effective as an outspoken populist voice, pulling her colleagues to the left, than she would be as President, being pulled to the center by a Congress without her.  Without a truly progressive majority in Congress, we'd be foolish to think we'd left gridlock behind us with a Warren Presidency.  I feel the same about Bernie Sanders.  The fact that either of them are being mentioned as potential candidates is a good thing, though, and either of their candidacies would probably be effective for the Dems, as impetus for a more dedicated progressive platform.

  •  I support Hillary 100% (0+ / 0-)

    Hillary is the best, most experienced, most educated in domestic and foreign policy, was an outstanding Secretary of State, had always stood for healthcare, has always stood for women's rights, has always stood for immigration reform, and she is one tough, formidable woman who could wipe the floor with any unqualified candidate Republicans desperately are seeking. Their Party is in shatters and there is NO ONE who will bridge the gap of the Tea Party ignorant extremists and the filled with hate, obstructionist, do-nothing, stand for nothing Republicans.
    Women are gaining ground politically, both in elected office, and in organizational strength.
    Women vote more than men and with Republicans only working to destroy the rights of women, workers, and our very right to vote, showing open racism toward anyone non-white - this is the perfect time and entrance of Hillary.
    Bill Clinton is no liability. He is the most popular former President there is. He has the Clinton Foundation. He stood right here in Charlotte NC and decimated the Republicans with his speech of pure facts and inspirational reasons why we desperately need Democrats who are the only ones who stand up for the People.
    Republicans don't believe in anything, have no ideas, no platform and have been so immersed in hate and obstruction they have no clue what real America is anymore. They will be as out-of-touch as Romney and have one sorry record of accomplishing nothing, being the worst Congress in our history and with the worst approval rating in our history. Their candidates are lunatics and their voting records damning.
    Opposing the ACA as it become more popular each month, 45 votes to repeal it, outright lies about it, and their government shutdowns, refusal to even consider raising the minimum wage, being corporate-bought puppets, and betraying the People with every action - will come back to haunt them in 2014 and 2016.
    Hillary pretending to be nice to the banks is to get their vote. Once elected she can slaughter them and every other group who has worked and held down the recovery and assistance for the People.
    She can't be beat.

  •  No not Hilary... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Hilary is damaged goods.  She was tainted by Bill and then was offered a job as SOS but did not use the position for any good purpose.  Now you dont' even here her take a stand on anything other than accepting lucrative speaking engagements which she has used to further the corporate agenda.  It may be too early to start campaigning but she is not beholden to anyone now so I wonder what kind of position she will stake out if she does decide to run.  

  •  Hooray!!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'm a huge fan of Rachel, and used to write comments to Keith Olbermann imploring them to give her her own show all the time until they did!

    I kind of wish it were more than once a month, but hey for one thing she's got a job and does a terrific job of it, and for the other thing, I quite like her mannerism and presence on screen!

  •  Also... nice portrait, but (0+ / 0-)

    It's airbrushed out that nice mole on her neck, no?

  •  what about the corporatist DINOs? (0+ / 0-)

    As long as the bulk of the DLC, DSCC and DCCC are corporate puppets, legacy will not be a factor in the decisions of Obama, Reid or Pelosi.

  •  Hillary or Warren (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I would enthusiastially support Elizabeth Warren for President.
    I would vote for Hillary or any Democrat over any Republican.
    Men that Respect women could never vote for any Republican.

  •  Perhaps, but ... (0+ / 0-)

    "Maddow points out that no former Bush official holds any major visible position in today's Republican hierarchy."

    That may be so, but please explain why so damned many of them still occupy the same offices Dubya placed them in under Obama's allegedly Democratic administration.

    OF COURSE the New Right is wrong - but that doesn't make WRONG the new RIGHT!

    by mstaggerlee on Mon Dec 16, 2013 at 09:33:50 AM PST

paradox, Mimikatz, Sylv, From the choir, jotter, grollen, greendem, Shockwave, byteb, LynChi, Wintermute, cotterperson, OLinda, eeff, rubyr, MarkInSanFran, exNYinTX, forkush, susakinovember, whenwego, CoolOnion, highacidity, roses, Terre, fumie, Cedwyn, Alna Dem, psnyder, TexDem, NYC Sophia, Steven Payne, lcrp, Diana in NoVa, Major Kong, side pocket, boran2, Josiah Bartlett, nailbender, radarlady, 3goldens, ichibon, el dorado gal, LakeSuperior, Alice Venturi, ZappoDave, where4art, sunbro, Rusty in PA, peacestpete, carlyle4, xanthippe2, Jim R, begone, Dolphin99, The Sheeping of America, Kingsmeg, 417els, edwardssl, Themistoclea, hungrycoyote, Kimball Cross, Libby Shaw, SadieSue, JVolvo, el cid, onionjim, RantNRaven, blueoregon, Eikyu Saha, Johnathan Ivan, PatConnors, Aaa T Tudeattack, Sapere aude, FlamingoGrrl, BeninSC, Habitat Vic, gloriana, EdSF, puakev, LillithMc, shesaid, bnasley, artisan, jnhobbs, millwood, gloryous1, gizmo59, fb, mconvente, Youffraita, Involuntary Exile, Fiona West, smrichmond, elwior, VA gentlewoman, jamess, monkeybrainpolitics, Lujane, rssrai, tofumagoo, vernonbc, Jeff Y, catly, Liberal Of Limeyland, codairem, petulans, mattc129, magicsister, billybam, dmhlt 66, watercarrier4diogenes, GrannyOPhilly, postalblue, bluebelle7, maggiejean, ceebee7, greengemini, juca, bobatkinson, cantelow, shopkeeper, Sandrews, aunt blabby, followyourbliss, Alise, papahaha, kevinpdx, stevenwag, astral66, Larsstephens, Just Bob, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, NJpeach, serendipityisabitch, gramofsam1, womankind, Eddie L, pixxer, Puddytat, DiegoUK, sharonsz, nirbama, MsGrin, kenwards, ericlewis0, cocinero, soaglow, translatorpro, annieli, spooks51, slowbutsure, La Gitane, asterkitty, thomask, BarackStarObama, Grandma Susie, zapus, randomfacts, DRo, Auriandra, YaNevaNo, SuWho, Pinto Pony, anodnhajo, Siri, We Won, IndieGuy, Eric Nelson, oldcrow, 2thanks, JGibson, belinda ridgewood, MartyM, ShoshannaD, MarkW53, Jim Sylvester, nomandates, jusjtim35, Linda1961, JayRaye, Says Who, aresea, SheilaKinBrooklyn, unfangus, Smoh, notevenclosetoonepercent, duhban, TheDuckManCometh, MethuenProgressive, RUNDOWN, dannyboy1, Dodgerdog1, eagleray, JoZhaironfire, Skyye, ginimck, Evoculture, soundcloud, Bethesda 1971

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site