I never would have imagined that I'd be writing a diary like this because I used to be enamoured with Rachel Maddow. I enjoy her biting insight. I respect her thorough but cordial approach to interviews. I'm intrigued by her ability to cut through the sludge.
It saddens me to hear her latest rounds of criticisms of President Obama. I'm not that feeble minded that I don't realize that we can certainly disagree with our leader on some issues and still be supportive of him. In fact I do indeed disagree with him on some things.
However, over the past few weeks, Maddow (in my judgement) has gone completely overboard. She seems more interested in holding the President accountable for doing exactly what she wants him to do, when she wants him to do it.
Just yesterday ...
- About 1' 15" in, she talks about how Obama has made 180 degree reversal from his promise to release photographs. She's angry about that. But hold on a minute. Does she ever even consider the rationale? what would releasing the photos offer that would be new? And might Obama have a point that the release of the photos would stir emotion in people around the world and thereby endanger our soldiers?
- 10 seconds later, she expresses her dismay that Obama will not abandon the notion of using military tribunals. Well, the man is/was a constitutional law professor. With the inteligence that he's receiving daily, he whould be allowed to consider the best way to deal certain detainees that would be fair and just.
- Here is what really bothers me about Maddow's new attitude. She interviews a man by the name of Isikoff (Newsweek) who attended an
off the record meeting with Obama yet they speak very openly about what happened in that meeting. They did this to the point where Isikoff was actually talking about what was said and how certain people reacted. If "off the record" is to mean anything, parties involved should hold true to the secrecy that "off the record" is supposed to provide.
- And the biggest disappointment of them all ... about 8 minutes in, Maddow notes that even though Attorney General Holder is present at the
secret meeting, Obama answers questions dealing with the legal proceedings of the torture ordeal. To her, that's an indication that Obama is being disingenuous. She goes on to say the following.
That's news because that would imply that what he's saying publically and what he's saying in private meetings behind the scenes are not at all the same thing
. Wow Rachel !!!
It would appear that Ms. Maddow is perturbed by the new President to the point where she seems to feel personally snided. She doesn't seem to have any tolerance for the President to do anything that she doesn't like (as of late).
Like I said, I have some criticism of the way Obama is handling things. I don't like his almost Kowtow approach to reaching across the aisle. I don't like his joking in almost every speech now. I don't like his raisng the issue of fuel efficiency standards at the same te time when automakers are facing collapse. And I think that my opinion should be voiced when appropriate. However, I also realize that the President is operationing from a way different perspective than I am. He has the interes of the nation at hand and I TRUST HIM. If that is to mean something, then I have to have faith that he's doing the right thing even if I disagree.
The President can't fit all of his campaign promises in the first few months of his Presidency. He can't even do it in the first 2 years. Some battles (and they will be battles), he will have to be calculating in his approach to how and when he will deal with them.
The President has the right to modify or even change completely his ideals and approaches to releasing certain information based on what he knows from his intelligence. The difference is Obama really is considering the interest of national security - specifically the troops.
The President has right to employ the use of an already established system of justice like military tribunals that have been in practice years before GW Bush was even born. The difference is, Obama is more likely to use them in accordance with appropriate juris prudence.
The President can make statements about how legal proceedings under his administration should be handled regardless of the pressence of the Attorney General who serves at the pleasure of the President. That doesn't make him a hypocrite.
And while we're at it. the President doesn't have to respond to recents calls for legalizing gay marriage (which is up to the state). with the amount of pressing issues that is on his plate already, he doesn't have to prioritze a review of "don't ask don't tell" nor "the woman's right to choose".
Rachel, being fair-minded as she has demonstrated oh so many times before ought to understand this which serves (to me) as further indication that she is taking Obama's actions personal.
We do so well at defeating our own cause and now, as much as I hate to admit it, Rachel Maddow is now taking part of this destruction.
Just look at today ...