One of the comments below says that Rachel Maddow deserves a Pulitzer, if all the investigations into Chris Christie cough up actual convictions, especially if they connect directly to the governor. I couldn't agree more, except Pulitzers are for print reporting. So, let's say, she'll likely be up for an Emmy.
So, following from Doc2 and Misterwade's comments below, I finally figured out how to edit this, and instead of "Rachel is Wasting Precious Time" - they helped me realize my sentiments actually fall closer to wanting her to win an Emmy.
The following is what I originally wrote, and I'll offer a couple thoughts at the close:
My wife and I are dedicated Rachel Maddow fans, our singularly most progressive/liberal commitment beyond voting itself. Sad, I know. We ought to get more connected, I know, more plugged in. But we keep the fires hot with our friends and family, and the cause isn't completely wasted on us.
But this diary isn't about that - it's about Rachel's obsession/near obsession with Governor Christie. Sure her partner's from Jersey, and she's probably a regular across the GWB, but the rest of the liberal world could get by on maybe just a two minute headline on the Christie story when it's salient on any given day. To crowd out everything else day after day after day, just to keep claiming some bragging rights to the being most pugnatious reporter on the beat - well, we'll give you that.
But what about the rest of the issues, like those represented here at Kos, most every day? Sure, they're sometimes part of the mix on Maddow's show, but three weeks plus of wall-to-wall Christie coverage? It's gotten to be a bit over the top.
2014 elections might be won or lost by a sliver of interest in a given issue or two in who knows how many districts and states. Now is the time to be defining the issues and clarifying potential strategies, as well as keeping up on present developments. The daily airtime devoted to the Christie scandal (and one has to ask - does the media prefer scandal or honest information?) could be dedicated instead to focusing the loyalists on the organizing, reframing and logistics on the ground.
To have a megaphone like Maddow's and squander it so myopically, when the other fish to fry are practically jumping into the pan - the metaphors just don't mix all that well. It doesn't make much sense. She can do better and has in fact done some great reporting across the liberal spectrum. It's just that lately she's been stuck in some scratchy Christie groove skipping and repeating like like a tired old record album...
My opinion.
NOW, what's interesting is that I didn't get how negative that all seemed, griping about Rachel Maddow, it seems. It was much more just a spontaneous almost stream of consciousness reflection on one impression I've had of the Maddow show lately.
Please don't get me wrong. I've been watching Rachel's show religiously, along with Melissa Harris-Perry, archived as they are through our ROKU box. The two of them preach a progressivism that's refreshing and compelling, and the morning doesn't really start until the shows are done.
But with this diary, and the comments it produced (the first 37 or so), I learned something about this community, about its passion and its commitment.
I'm glad I got the bug to write, even if I do need to frame things more from a positive reference point...
DO I STAND CORRECTED!!!
It's now another hour later, and I've read and digested more of the comments, and responded directly to some of them. One comment on Christie as New Jersey's biggest bully, and we might say, Bully-In-Chief, this interaction sealed the deal for me. I'm a total believer now that every time Rachel has covered any aspect of this story, it has been vital to moving it forward, to keeping it alive, to making it stick, until the mainstream took it seriously. I'm onboard with that now. Who wants a Bully for president?
That's what it boils down to for me now. Besides getting corruption out of government and keeping the GOP as far from the White House as possible...