The fact that you only cover 4 stories in an hour is transparent enough, but the lack of respect you display toward your audience by repeating yourself incessantly is audaciously insulting.
I'm not some troll, this is coming from someone who DVRs the show daily and who has been a fan long before her ascent on MSNBC.
Also. Quit blowing smoke up everyone's ass on the public option. Last Friday I actually had to rely on that unprincipled cheerleader Queef Olbermann to get a sober analysis of the recent push for the public option. You know damn well that nothing has changed and that Democrats' alleged support for the public option is conditional; for the President its contingent on the Senate, for the House its contingent upon the President and Senate, and for the Senate is contingent upon the House and the President. The real story is that democrats are spineless. I expect hardball from you, not fluff.
Nuff said.
***update***
I guess the language I used struck a nerve. I'll be more civil. This post comes from a place of genuine concern. I've watched and loved Rachel Maddow's INDISPENSABLE show since its inception, but have recently become concerned about the show's cookie-cutter format and redundancy. While I'm sympathetic to the fact that she has an hour to fill five days a week, I'd like to see her cover more content while being less repetitive. Ever since a little over two weeks ago when she began hammering Republicans for their shameless hypocrisy, she's sounded a bit like a broken record. While I commend her for going to great lengths to highlight what CNN/Fox/etc pass over in silence and hope her narrative gains traction, I know she's capable highlighting much more...and she doesn't need a full 15 minutes to do so. If you think these are the words of a troll, you're eating one of your own.
To the DKos community: I thought purity tests were a republican thing...
Be back in an hour. Hopefully, by then someone will have responded in a meaningful way. If not...I guess one person out there will have lost a little faith they had in an online community they respect.
***Update***
I'm back. Well, Crescentdave at least gave my use of the word "spineless," a fair shake. I'd thank you, but I know it wasn't a favor to me, it was just you advocating for what you thought was reasonable. To everyone else...if you think this is reasonable behavior, silencing sincere and well-meaning critics by labeling them trolls and drowning out their voice with a bunch nonsense just because they dress their criticism with some rhetorical flair...I really don't know what to say. It's a sad day. I thought Dkos'ers would've been a little more receptive to the idea that Maddow should be playing hardball on the public option. My girlfriend and I have watched Maddow everyday in the past two weeks and both have been deeply irked by the repetitiveness of her monologues. While her strength has always been dialogue with an adversary, her monologues of the past were much more concise, articulate, and profound. I don't know about you, but I don't need the same point repeated for 15 minutes for it to sink in. I don't need a cheerleader for left or an attack dog of the right. I need Rachel doing what she does best without the filler, and if you're just going to roll over and lap up whatever she gives you, like every other journalist she'll fall off her game. She needs well meaning criticism. So I wrote the original paragraph under the influence frustration...ZOMG. You can stick your heads in the sand and pretend I never said anything of substance or do the reasonable thing and consider deleterious effect of Rachel's current show format and tendency to repeat..the same point...ad nausem, until she's met her 15 minute quota and she can move on to the next story. I want more Rachel covering a greater diversity of stories. How you all managed to get so bent out of shape because of the manner in which I said it says more about you than it does about me.
***Update***
I guess I've had enough. To sum up my experience I'll go ahead quote the great Barney Frank, "to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table." I wish I could avoid making such a sweeping statement but the comments speak for themselves. In the 150+ comments you've revealed yourselves as a bunch of insulated xenophobic circlejerkers. Intellectual inbreds who move and think as a herd. For shame.