I posted a diary the other night about how annoying Rachel Maddow's constant concern trolling about the campaign is getting to be:"Obama's not winning in {x}! The early voting is light!" Etc. Tonight, right now EDT, she's airing her interview with Obama today, and I think he's ALSO annoyed with her constant second-guessing and harping. Evidence? Below the fold.
First, Rachel's body language and facial expressions immediately conveyed to me that she just doesn't much care for Obama; perhaps she's just resistant to his charms, perhaps she doesn't think he's strong enough on gay rights issues, I don't know. But it really seemed obvious to me, although perhaps others might not see it the same way. Someone posted on an earlier diary that Rachel's spouse is a die-hard Hillary fan who hates Obama and argues with Rachel about it at home. I do wonder if that's had an effect on her attitude toward Obama personally, and her never ending pessimism about the election.
Second, when Rachel criticizes (or seems to) Obama for not coming out harder against Rebublicans and conservatives generally, Obama says yes, he hasn't done that "much to your chagrin!" I wonder if she expected such a direct reference to her concern trolling on her show? She presses him and he finally says "well, you know, we're winning right now so we must be doing something right." He was consistently gracious and positive - but I caught at least a whiff of annoyance with her.
Now, she's explaining how the Obama staff countered all of her concerns about early voting trends - which as I pointed out in my diary, seemed to me just her refusal to look at any evidence of anything positive about early voting - and she admits they seem to be all over it. But she still doesn't believe it.
My take on her? She obviously doesn't want McCain-Palin to win - but she doesn't really care for Obama, and as a result, she's eager to jump on any evidence she can find that his campaign is slipping and that he may well lose. Many people here have interpreted her negativity as a strategy to combat possible complacency - maybe so, but she's really carrying it pretty far if the nominee himself has noticed it and gently suggests in an interview that she might have her head up her ass just a bit.
Moreover, by suggesting that people are not early voting, that it's light, etc., I feel she's denying the existence of the countless long lines of people I've personally seen waiting to vote early. My county is probably going to have twice as many people voting early this election as in 2004 - what the fuck does she want? It's insulting to ignore the clear evidence of eagerness to vote - and it makes me distrust her as a conveyor of information now. If Obama were not on her show tonight, I would not be watching it at all - I really had such high hopes for her show, and she's done some good stuff. But she needs to step up to the plate a little more with better analysis, based on more information, not just do cutesy graphics and football game analogies about the election race that support her pre-determined pessimism and doubts. That's the kind of thing Fox does - Rachel, you can do better, can't you?
EDITED TO ADD I think many people didn't read my whole diary, so let me insert here a response I posted below to someone who thinks I'm off my rocker -
I'm well aware that the election isn't over, and that we need to keep working hard - I'm doing so myself. What I'm commenting on is Rachel's unrelenting pessimism that has, for many people, the opposite effect from what you claim for it. I also thought, the first few times of the "talk me down" stuff, that it was strategic. Then I thought, well, she must have information I don't have to be saying that early voting is light, etc. But then I did my own research, as many others have as well, and found that she JUST IGNORES ANYTHING POSITIVE! Pardon me for shouting, but many people commenting here apparently skipped the part of my diary that is the heart of my criticism of her - she's basing her pessimism on an incomplete portrayal of facts.
THAT'S my main problem - we need critical appraisals, of course, but they need to be based on the whole facts, not on cherry-picked evidence. If she's going to be a journalist, she needs to do the whole job.