Rachel Maddow goes soft on anti-gay Huckabee

I heart Rachel Maddow.

I saw the Huckabee interview on Friday and I too wondered if she'd challenge him on his recent comments about Prop 8.  I was surprised she didn't, but I was okay with it for a couple of reasons.

1) She represents a new, nicer brand of commentary-punditry news-ish program.  She really wants to differentiate herself from Bill O'Reilly, Hannity & Colmes, and even Keith Olbermann (who differs with his FOX counterparts in ideology, but not in bombasticky style).  She's really interested in friendly debate, and I think she's correct in her assertion that there's really no debating Huckabee on these issues in any kind of friendly way.  Given that they're both fairly fixed on their positions around gay rights, all that's left to do is fight about it.

2) And this one isn't so noble ... she's had a very difficult time getting Republicans and conservatives to appear on her show.  I think that her interview with Huckabee was as much a calling card to other conservatives who might be wary of being interviewed by someone they perceive to be a big scary liberal dyke as it was an end unto itself.  As a result of Rachel's "soft" interview, Huckabee is more likely to accept an invitation to appear on the Maddow show in the future, and other conservatives might as well.  If she can create a few more Pat Buchanans (arch-conservatives who nonetheless have a lot of effusive respect for the aforementioned big scary liberal dyke), she might be in a position to broach the topic of gay rights in a meaningful and constructive way, rather than taking a quick-hit opportunity to make an idiot out of Huckabee on his first and only appearance on her show.

I think she's thinking long-term, trying to build a reputation as a liberal that intelligent conservatives should feel free to engage with, and staying true to her style.  It's not like she didn't ask Huckabee any challenging questions about the future of the Republican party vis a vis the fiscal conservatives vs. the Christian conservatives.  I think her interview and her answers about it were admirable, given her long-term goals.

"There are two kinds of people in this world -- the kind who separate the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't."  -- Gloria Steinem

---

by: red7eric @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 10:22:20 AM CST

You are on to something here, red7eric

I hadn't considered this before, but maybe this is exactly what Larry Craig was up to in the airport bathroom.  By sucking off anonymous men, maybe he was reaching out to the LGBT community by staying true to his conservative style and yet building a bridge to the liberal community.

We all should be less demanding and inquisitive with opponents and instead just make them feel better by not forcing ourselves and our filth on them.  They will like us much better - and will make return visits - if we just stop resisting and maybe even perform some oral.  

Thanks for the vision of the future.  

---

by: Patrick @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 10:28:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

more than one way to skin a cat

Patrick, very funny, but there are many paths to reaching our goals.  This is but one. Some of our people are going to play harsh and get results, others are going to play it soft and get results.  Just as we need Republicans, Independents, and Democrats on board to reach our goals, we need a lot of different tactics.

---

by: PunkZanyJ @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 10:37:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

NO skinning of CATS.

  Different ways to cook a FISH sounds better to me :)

 All these anti-gay folks need tp be asked the WHY they feel the way they do.  Every time they refer to the bible, they need to be reminded of the seperation of church and state.  

 I saw this, A Civics Quiz on Daily Kos.  There is a page for the results;

The results reveal that Americans are alarmingly uninformed about our Constitution, the basic functions of our government, the key texts of our national history, and economic principles.

Less than half can name all three branches of the government.
Only 21% know that the phrase "government of the people, by the people, for the people" comes from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.
Although Congress has voted twice in the last eight years to approve foreign wars, only 53% know that the power to declare war belongs to Congress. Almost 40% incorrectly believe it belongs to the president.
Only 55% know that Congress shares authority over U.S. foreign policy with the president. Almost a quarter incorrectly believe Congress shares this power with the United Nations.
Only 27% know the Bill of Rights expressly prohibits establishing an official religion for the United States.
Less than one in five know that the phrase "a wall of separation" between church and state comes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson. Almost half incorrectly believe it can be found in the Constitution.
Americans from all age groups, income brackets, and political ideologies fail the test of civic literacy.

Americans age 25 to 34 score an average of 46% on the exam; Americans age 65 and over score 46%.
Americans earning an annual income between $30,000 and $50,000 score an average of 46%; Americans earning over $100,000 score 55%.
Liberals score an average of 49%; conservatives score 48%.
Americans who go to church once a week score an average of 48%; Americans who never go to church score 50%.

 I took the quiz and missed 5 of the questions, score 84.6%.  Elected officials scroed an average of 44%.  

 

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 11:09:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks for that test

Really needed the refresher...If it hadn't been for those damn Puritans, I'd have been equal to you. Read Puritans and imagined Quakers. Why in the world would I do that? Duh. Reason why we call fundies "puritanical". Double duh.

Curses! My million dollar ideas foiled again: "God Bless Your Brand!" http://www.christvertising.com/

---

by: TJ McFisty @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 12:09:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Test

I did well on it 9with some guessing, I confess), but I have to say that some of the questions border on the abstruse.  It's one thing to ask about the three branches of government, another to ask questions of trade policy.  I think one can be have civic literacy without knowing all the answers to the latter on this test.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 13:16:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

30 of 33

You answered 30 out of 33 correctly - 90.91 %

Average score for this quiz during November: 78.1%
Average score: 78.1%

I didn't remember how FDR threatened the SCOTUS, I completely disagree with the provided answer for 31 (about the consequences of international trade and specialization) and 33 is a toss-up. I made an assumption not in the question and missed it.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 16:54:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks for that link

 I missed 2 questions both of which had to do with economics...never my strong point. It's remarkable how many people are so oblivious tohow government works.

---

by: Margaret @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 18:52:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There's a pretty severely loaded question in there

re: "free enterprise".  Yeesh.

---

by: M @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 21:37:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Correction:

multiple severely-loaded (pro-capitalist-extremist, anti-most-of-the-population) questions.

---

by: M @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 21:41:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

reputation building vs. doing your job

She's there to do commentary and reporting. Huckabee is there to SELL A BOOK -- does that mean he gets to pick the questions. Nope. A book tour doesn't grant a political figure immunity from questions about his political views.

Imagine - I guess if Jesse Helms or Strom Thurmond toured with a self-serving book about politics, would it not be relevant to talk about their bigoted worldview that informed their political decisions?

I think you're letting her off easy, as well as any other journalist who ignores Huckabee's public views on legislating civil rights at the ballot box. This is a big problem I have with a lot of the media figures who are more concerned about "the get" than journalism. Mind you these are the same figures that poo-poo the blogosphere.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 11:37:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The Long View

Pam, you have valid point after valid point, and I easily concede that if all gay people were as "nice" as Rachel Maddow, little would get done.  However, it's not as though she didn't challenge him at all; she did ask some tough questions, just not about gay issues.  AND, her role at MSNBC is talk show host and pundit, not gay activist.

I sympathize because I work in a workplace diversity role, and as a white gay man, I often find myself ignoring the LGBT stuff in favor of issues around race, gender, disability, religion, veterans' status, anything else so as to not appear to be the gay guy with an agenda.  In that way, it would actually be much easier for Keith Olbermann, a straight ally, to offer Huckabee some tough questions about his moronic anti-gay views.  And yet (getting back to my point), he'll never get the chance because Huckabee won't appear on Olbermann's show.  So, Olbermann gets to talk to his fellow lefties, and Rachel is trying to build a platform where she can talk to all kinds of people.  And I get that it's frustrating, but I actually think it's pretty smart to take the long view.  It's not like making Huckabee look dumb to the liberals who currently make up 99% of Maddow's core audience is going to advance the agenda.  She needs credibility first, and she's going for it.

"There are two kinds of people in this world -- the kind who separate the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't."  -- Gloria Steinem

---

by: red7eric @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 07:44:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Would have been priceless

I thoroughly enjoy Rachel's show, but her edge was notably missing in this one.  Huckabee laid his cowardice right out in the open- notice how he talks about what Republicans want in a politician, "whether you respect the sanctity of life, the 2nd Amendment"... he totally skipped his usual anti-gay stance because he was afraid of saying it to a gay person!  A smart and assertive one who was perfectly capable of challenging him on it and doing very well!
The View failed miserably at it, and I think it would have been very interesting and newsworthy if somebody else with a high profile did.  Really- not enough skulls cracked?  How about the thousands of LGBT people killed in hate crimes since the gov't started keeping record?  The assassination of Harvey Milk (speaking of timely)?  The fact that white supremacist groups also target gays?  Wow- there would have been plenty of fodder there.  And gay marriage wasn't prohibited in CA?  I don't know if Rachel and Susan are married, but if they are, well... either their gay marriage was prohibited or Rachel is just a figment of Huckabee's imagination.  And so am I.  As are many of you.  Too easy!
How are we ever supposed to get a word in edgewise if the pro-equality media folks we have won't say a word to a guy like that?

Yes we can!

---

by: bluegirlbb @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 14:43:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Coaching?

Yes, she does need coaching.  Maybe KO would be a good coach.

BO wouldn't make much of a difference, though.  We can't count on the President-elect to make much of a difference in conversations like this.  

She does a great job of sounding just like BO and she's not even running for office.  But we don't demand anything from political leaders, do we?

Pile the pressure on Huckabee and Maddow to do the right thing but don't lean on Obama??

I don't get it.  

 

---

by: Patrick @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 10:22:53 AM CST

I'm with you on this.

Pam, asking about fundamental civil rights for LGBT people, when she both is LGBT and has a significant LGBT fanbase who is interested in the subject, isn't thoughtful behavior.

Just because she is aware of Huckabee's views on LGBT people's fundamental civil rights doesn't mean her non-LGBT -- or even LGBT -- viewership is aware of Huckabee's views.

Maddow should have asked those LGBT questions.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 10:29:42 AM CST

Not To Mention Huckabee's Arkansas Connection

Arkansas just passed one of the most repressive amendments in U.S history, preferring to leave children in orphanages or on the streets rather than--god forbid-- be adopted by gay couples or even unmarried straight people. Huckabee's theocratic view reflects, affirms and influences his fellow Arkansans and results in debacles like this. And this is not of interest to Rachel because...?

---

by: David Goroff @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 10:43:12 AM CST

Arguing with Bigots

I (like most people) have an absolutely insane uncle who thinks I'm going to hell for a myriad of reasons.  One of the reasons that drives me batshit crazy is that he think women should "know their place" and I clearly don't know mine.

So at family dinners (like the one on Thursday), I will not bring up his hateful anti-women views (just like I haven't since I was about 16).  I'm not going to challenge him on it.  I'm not going to discuss it with him, because doing so will accomplish 3 things:

1) it will give him a chance to spread his hate speech,
2) it will hurt my feelings, and
3) it will hurt the feelings of my still young and impressionable cousins.

What it will not do is change his opinion or change the opinions of anyone listening to him.  Believe me I've tried.  He's too god damn smooth and pastory (yes, he's a pastor).

Undermining his bullshit is not accomplished by challenging his bigotry, he's too entrenched.  He's thought about it.  He's considered it from every angle and he's convinced he's right.  There is no argument that can be made that he doesn't have an answer for.

The only way I can undermine what he does, is by correcting him calmly if he brings it up and being happy as I am.

I think Huckabee is the same...he's too smooth with his hate speech.  He makes it appear that he's just being reasonable.  Why give that guy the opportunity?  It doesn't identify him as a homophobe, everyone already knows that.  It won't change his mind.  It won't do anything, except let him be hateful.

Arguing with bigots is just tilting at windmills.

---

by: Kristen @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 10:52:25 AM CST

I know the feeling,

  I just have a hard time keeping my mouth shut. My family has been invited for Thanksgiving Dinner at our neighbors.  They were McSame supporters.  The only thing with them, I was able to change their view on LGBT issues.  That took time and just honest debate.  

 I am thinking on how to answer the question, 'What are we thankful for?' as not to start another firestorm at the dinner table.  

 I am with you as well, Show how happy you are, be successful, and win them over slowly.  Most people who are obsessed with homosexuality and sin, believe we are living unhappy lives.  

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 11:27:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Apples and Oranges

Yeah, arguing with die-hard right-wingers rarely accomplishes anything. IF, that is, they are the ONLY PEOPLE INVOLVED or listening to the argument. On a national TV show, where tons of other people will get to watch and listen to both sides of the argument, it can make a HUGE difference.

I refuse to talk politics with my Dad as well. When he brings up a topic, no matter how he phrases the comment (and he gets more and more obvious in his baiting me as time goes on) he does so having already thought-out the entire issue and pretty much all of the possible sides to the issue and all of the arguments one might make. I, on the other hand, have rarely heard very much about any given topic prior to him deciding to spring it on me, so I ain't got much chance of ever winning any such argument. And he tends to take it all rather personally, and is a sore loser who always has to be "right" about everything.

Anyway, you get the idea. The couple of arguments he and I got into several years ago, before I learned my lesson, were ugly, and I refuse to rise to take his bait anymore.

HOWEVER, if I had the opportunity to interview him on a fast-growing TV show like Rachel's, I'd agree to it in a heartbeat, AND, assuming that this TV show is my full-time job, I'd be making damn sure that I prepared as well as possible and presented my argument so that anyone listening would hear a pretty damn good liberal/progressive point of view to contrast what my Dad would have to say. Sure, I still wouldn't change HIS mind, but that's not the point.

---

by: JWSwift @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 22:56:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A book not a campaign

Here's my take.  If he was still running for office those questions should be asked, and I am sure Rachel would ask them.  But, he is no longer a candidate and Rachel is reviewing his book. Maybe nothing is written about LGBT issues in the book, therefore there was not an opportunity for her to ask him.    

Same-Sex Marriage is good for the economy.

---

by: CharlesMerrill @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 11:05:24 AM CST

MSNBC honcho's

She may have orders not to mention LGBT issues unless they are relevant to the interview, in this case a book that Huckabee probably doesn't mention gay marriage.
She has a job and can't always play the lesbian activist even though she may want to.

Same-Sex Marriage is good for the economy.

---

by: CharlesMerrill @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 11:14:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I doubt that she wants to

It would get boring very fast for the other 90% of her audience.

I'm sure NBC has big plans for Rachel Maddow. She has the potential to be groomed into a major figure in TV journalism. They knew they had something when her guest spots on Countdown spiked the ratings higher than Olbermann's on several occassions.  

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 11:19:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Nah,

She's not quite gender-conformist enough to be a "major figure".  They'll just use her as evidence of how "inclusive" they are.  Which is a pity, because she's certainly better than most of the "major figures".

---

by: M @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 21:46:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"Fake Uncle" Pat Buchanan part of strategy

Clearly, Maddow has a strategy for getting conservatives on her show.

She and MSNBC spent good money to get Pat Buchanan to appear on her show. Buchanan is hired help -- not a personal friend.

It is obvious that she's trying to create a program where both sides can appear without fear of being attacked. It is a long-term strategy that will probably pay off.

I'd rather see Maddow rise to the level of power and influence of the late Tim Russert than be known as "that lesbian with a TV show."

Imagine Maddow taking over Meet the Press. If that happens, there will be a lesbian in the most influencial spot in TV news. That's the kind of career Rachel Maddow is aiming for. If she has to be a little soft on the Huckabees of the world to get there, so be it.


When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 11:10:26 AM CST

you're missing the major point here

The problem is that even Rachel Maddow, someone who does have a dog in the hunt, avoids this relevant topic. It's not a matter of boxing her in as a lesbian, it's the fact that part of her "mainstreaming" is to become just like the other faux journalists and commentators on the air -- coddle the politicians hawking a book regardless of their political beliefs.

It doesn't mean shouting at the man, it means posing the questions and raising the hypocrisy for all to see. That doesn't make her the "lesbian host" it makes her a journalist. As I said, if KO can discuss the issue, surely she can, not as an activist, but as a journalist. I'm addressing the latter, not the former.

It's crazy that even some in our community think asking these questions about civil rights being rolled back by popular vote is "activism" or would be responsible for killing Maddow's career. I think that's bunk.

It's not as if Mike Huckabee is some fragile flower. He's a big boy.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 11:54:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Pam, I totally agree!

Okay, so what if she's a lesbian? Saying we don't want to box her in is not a valid argument.  Nobody is asking her to constantly play the lesbian card in every interview.  She's just being taken to task for this interview, where she failed, quite frankly.  Who else would be likely to question him along these lines.

Ignoring Huckabee's egregious comments about gays is abdicating her responsibility as a journalist.  She needs to expose him for what he is. Being a lesbian does not give her a pass to ignore it. Her claim that it would have just been a fight is disingenuous (and I speak as a huge fan).  She argues with Pat Buchanan all the time and he basically lowers his head, squints evilly and bellows at her.  If she thinks that's interesting, then engaging Huckabee about his stand should have been on her agenda too.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 13:22:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Some of my friends...

They don't get involved in LGBT-related politics because they don't want that to become the focus of their careers.

I have a friend who is a journalist and he avoids writing about anything having to do with LGBT issues for two reasons: 1) He's afraid he will be viewed as someone who can't be objective; and 2) He doesn't want that topic to take over his career.

I also have a very close friend who is a psychologist and he doesn't want to be known as a "gay psychologist" -- that isn't his area of expertise and he doesn't want it to be. So, he doesn't get involved in community organizations and politics. He did campaign against Prop. 8 because his professional association helped write the amicus brief and took a position on the issue.

Neither of my friends view working on LGBT issues as a "career killer." But, they have very specific goals and visions of how they want their careers to go.

I guess that's what I was trying to say could be the case with Maddow. That's the point I was trying to make.

I do agree that it is frustrating when gay people in positions of power don't step up the way we I think they should. I've been very upset with my friends on several occassions. So, I understand where you're coming from regarding Maddow.

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 16:10:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm of two minds on this

As far as I know, Rachel is the only out lesbian who's hosting a prime time news show of any sort, so I can see why she in particular would be expected to ask questions.

At the same time, I think that it's important that we not box her into being the lesbian.  I.e., just because she's lesbian doesn't mean she should necessarily engage in LGBT issues whenever the opportunity arises.  

I'm curious about something different, though: as far as I can tell, even though she's completely out, and makes specific reference to her lesbianism on her radio show from time to time, I don't think she's ever referenced it on the TV show.  I wonder if that's part of her deal with the network: she can be as out as she wants, but not on their time.  I would think that if she had Mike Huckabee on her radio show, she'd be a lot more inclined to engage him on this, partially because she has a lot more control over her own show, part of which means that she can do 20 minute interviews instead of 4-minute ones, which gives her the time to cover multiple issues, including the Huckabee anti-gay bigotry stuff.

I'm only a click away.

---

by: JulieWaters @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 11:16:23 AM CST

KO isn't gay

So therefore it's OK for him to ask pols about this, but not Maddow, who is gay? Huh?

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 11:32:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Sort of missing the point

(1) I didn't say that it wasn't okay for Rachel to ask Huckabee anything she wants.  I said that it was okay for her to choose what to ask her.

(2) I don't care whether or not Oblerman's gay, but I've never seen Oblermann ask Huckabee a question of any sort because he rarely has people on his show who disagree with him.  I love his show, but it's very different from Rachel's.  Keith's almost never in the position of having to ask difficult questions of his guests, because he doesn't bring guests on who challenge him.  

That said, I don't know where you got anything along those lines from what I wrote.  

Look, to me, this is complicated because I know what it's like to, at least on a small level, be one of the only openly queer people.  Back in the 1980's I was one of four out of the closet people on my entire campus.  So somehow, all the queer questions came to us.  It was like, when Tom Hulce came out of the closet, everyone expected us to have an opinion on it.  I mean, yeah, cool, John Gielgood's gay.  Bully for him for coming out shortly before he dies, but why is it that everyone would expect me to be interested in it?  Do I have to render an opinion every time someone with Jewish heritage does something that makes the news?

So yeah, Rachel's an out lesbian and she's on TV.  Does that mean that she's required to address every lesbian and gay issue whenever she has the opportunity to do so?  Maybe she doesn't see that as her role.  I'm okay with that.  I don't watch her because she's an out lesbian.  I don't watch her show in the hopes of hearing about lesbian and gay issues.  If she wants to address them, great, but I don't see why she should be obligated to cover them just because she's lesbian.

And though I completely agree that Mike Huckabee's point of view on this issue is pathetic, I also think I agree with Rachel that it's not going to be a fruitful discussion to have with him.  There's nothing she can say that challenges him on this, and there's nothing he'll say that will be enlightening about his point of view.  I get not wanting to let him get away with it, but I also get not wasting time on a discussion which is unlikely to do anything useful.  If it were a pre-taped interview where she would edit down the interesting stuff for later, it might have been worth including, but I know she does most of her show live so...  

I'm only a click away.

---

by: JulieWaters @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 12:37:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

two separate issues

1. Whether she should address Huckabee on these issues because she's a lesbian.

No, she should address them because it is a newsworthy issue. Huckabee is from a state that just voted to ban gay and lesbian adoption rights -- direct connection to an issue he supports.

That she is a lesbian isn't the reason she should ask the questions, it's merely a reason she would be self-aware and connected to the issues to ask the question. Conversely, as we saw here, she may be avoiding it because she is gay -- that's problematic as a journalist regardless of orientation.

2. Whether Maddow should address Huckabee as a journalist on this topic because he was booked to hawk his new tome.
This comes down to the matter of the relationships in the MSM between publishers/guests/show producers and network policies.  Are a pols views on a newsworthy topic to be ignored because it might a) make the guest feel ambushed about their own views; b) it will damage future bookings for said show, c) it potentially affects the host's marketability/ratings according to conventional wisdom in the industry? Looking at those points raises a lot of questions.

The latter is a problem with journalism, regardless of that journalist's sexual orientation. What makes this issue with Maddow discussion-worthy is it raises the spectre of the professional closet and whether people accept the frame that if you're out, you're professionally typecast if you cover gay issues every once in a while.

Does this mean Latino and black reporters have this same stigma -- that they can only cover those issues related to their heritage? Do straight reporters relegated to reporting on heterosupremacy? I certainly see that reinforced all the time. Can wealthy reporters only report on issues related to the economic strata they inhabit? It gets absurd after a while.

The larger discussion is whether we, in our own community (and actually, the progressive community), recognize that we have a double standard embedded within us that has to be dealt with re: addressing LGBT issues, and discuss whether we, in fact, see Maddow as the "lesbian host" to our own detriment.

I tend to view Rachel Maddow as a progressive host who is a lesbian. She doesn't talk about it 24/7. Some of those defending her silence with Huckabee are tacitly saying it's ok for her to avoid LGBT issues, even when relevant to a guest on the show. It also affirms that being out of the closet is a handicap for a journalist.

Just putting that out there -- are we saying this is true?  

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 13:08:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't disagree with this...

...but I'll still argue a point :)

I get what you're saying, especially about seeing Rachel as the "lesbian host."  

I will explain my perspective on this: I love Rachel's radio show.  I've been listening to her since before most of you have heard of her, back when she was a local DJ in Northampton, MA.  Her radio show has some great interviews from time to time.  I remember in particular when she interviewed Tony Kushner, an interview which was about 25 minutes long and incredible.

I expect a lot from her radio show that I don't expect from her TV show because her TV show is basically a watered down version of the issues she covers on the radio show.  It's not as in depth and doesn't allow for as much detail.  So I guess I don't really think much about her addressing one issue over another on the TV show and don't honestly care that much whether she does or not.  I also stand by my earlier point that I don't see the benefit to have pushed that issue with Huckabee.  I'm not saying that having an interview with Huckabee was valuable at all, but it's one of those things that I don't see as necessarily adding to the interview, but that's an aside.

So, as I was saying: I look at this show differently from most of you, and don't have any real expectations from it.  What I like about her having the show is that it improves he radio show ratings and gets her access to guests she's never been able to reach before, which I think is great in terms of her radio show.

I know a lot of people see the radio show as a means to get to a TV show.  I see the TV show as a means by which to help her stay on the radio.  

So I guess that's my very long way of saying I see this from an entirely different framework from most of the people posting in this thread.  I gave up on TV as a means by which to see anything of real value as far as the news goes a long time ago.  So when I see Rachel up there addressing some of the really important issues of the day, I probably have trouble understanding why people get worked up over her not addressing all of them.

Sorry.  That's just where I'm coming from.

I'm only a click away.

---

by: JulieWaters @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 13:25:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Interviews

Having been interviewed for years in print on radio and sometimes TV (and had my own interview radio show), I have to say that anything is open to discussion when you're interviewed/interviewing.  Of course when you're touring with a book, you as author want to focus on that (sell, sell, sell!), but it's not sacrosanct and other, connected issues can and do and should come up.  If all you do is stick to the book narrowly, then you're serving as a publicity flack for the publisher.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 13:26:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Short answer: yes.

Pam, it's just the case that being the only out lesbian in TV news means that Rachel is constrained in her coverage of LGBT issues. Not fair? Yeah.

Ask any member of the NGLJA and s/he'll say the same. Rachel has a bigger megaphone but the same constraints apply.

One of my college buddies is the financial reporter for a major daily; after breaking 3 stories that required forensic accounting expertise that became a specialized beat. Not allowed to cover gay news, though...

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 14:02:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Keith and Conflict

"I love his show, but it's very different from Rachel's.  Keith's almost never in the position of having to ask difficult questions of his guests, because he doesn't bring guests on who challenge him."

I wonder if conservatives simply refuse to come on Keith's show in the same way that many progressives will not appear on O'Reilly or Hannity (and Colmes).  I wonder if Keith would love to go all O'Reilly on conservative guests, telling them what idiots they are, but never gets the chance because only lefties are willing to visit "Countdown."

I agree with you, Julie, that Rachel would really like to bring conservatives on her show with the ultimate goal of spreading more light than heat - and that her M.O. is going to be noticeably different based on that.  And personally, I think there's room for Keith and Rachel and their differing styles.

"There are two kinds of people in this world -- the kind who separate the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't."  -- Gloria Steinem

---

by: red7eric @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 10:27:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Allies

Pam, if I need to advance something to do with LBGT issues at work, I rarely think before reaching out to one of my straight allies to do the heavy lifting.  They are HEARD when it comes to these issues, where I am often not.  At the same time, they know they can count on me - a white, able-bodied guy - to speak up whenever something needs to be corrected along the lines of race, gender, disability, or any other social identity with which I show up as part of the dominant group.

Yes, it is MUCH easier for Keith Olbermann to successfully engage with LGBT issues than Rachel.  Much.  Especially given that her show is so new.

"There are two kinds of people in this world -- the kind who separate the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't."  -- Gloria Steinem

---

by: red7eric @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 07:53:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The haircut

She brings new meaning to asking for "The Rachel" at the local salon.

---

by: Narra @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 11:41:56 AM CST

Gay journalists

don't get ahead in mainstream media by advocating for LGBT equality.  Andrew Sullivan built a high profile and was featured regularly in the NYT (remember his appalling "the AIDS crisis is over" article back in the mid-90s?) by criticizing the gay community every chance he got; when he started to change his tune, NR fired him, and I haven't seen his byline in the Times for ages.  Paul Rudnick ditto; he was the Times's darling for several years, but when he started to suggest that gay people ought to be treated equally, that was that.  The MSM loved Bruce Bawer when he said all we should want it is a place at the table (where, prsumably, we could grasp at the crumbs that were dropped); when he started advocating for marriage, he pretty much disappeared.  And then there's Andy Cooper.

I think a lot of us were hoping Maddow would be the queer equivalent of Tavis Smiley.  But there was never really much chance of it.  MSNBC wouldn't permit it (and neither would any other MSM outlet).  And she may be enough of a careerist not to want it.

Don't get me wrong.  I like Maddow a lot.  In some ways she's almost brilliant, and how many TV newspeople can you say that about?  But she's playing their game, not ours.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 11:48:19 AM CST

almost?

how many other Rhodes scholars have that job?  

---

by: chiefscribe @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 13:12:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I totally agree with Pam

Thanks, Pam, for not caving in about Rachel Maddow's ridiculous soft-pedal interview with Huckabee. Not only are his views relevant given the passage of the anti-gay adoption bill in Arkansas, but he was JUST on the View spouting the most ignorant shit about the GLBT movement/community that I've heard in while. And pretty much none of the View hosts challenged him, either (Whoopi barely).

I DO expect better from Rachel. I DO think high-profile queers have an obligation to talk about our issues. And I'm sick of the Celluloid Closet, which seems to extend to talk-show/news pundits now and not just actors. Ugh. I may have to remove my "I'm a fan of Rachel Maddow" box from Facebook.

---

by: elizabethws @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 13:41:07 PM CST

complex

I was disappointed that RM didn't confront Huckabee either, and tweeted about that- RM and her producer are active on Twitter- and I saw a lot of other tweets on that same subject.

I'm disappointed, and personally, I think it was a missed opportunity, as it was timely.

HOWEVER, I take issue with part of your frame on this, Pam, and I think this is an important distinction:  

Huckabee did the interview and Maddow chose to ask him about other issues rather than his recent statement or the ballot initiative in ARK

She also said later she wasn't interested in it.

To go further than that and state repeatedly:

she went "soft" on Huckabee
she has "issues" re: her anti-gay guests
her disinterest is the equivalent of reticence
she is in some way closeting a part of her progressivism
she actively chose not to use her show as a platform
she has a professional "discomfort"
she didn't recognize something she should have
and  those of us who see other sides of the story are "apologists"- meaning she did something wrong

is to imply that Maddow had an INTENT other than the one she stated, is to imply that you are right about her actions and that she is either wrong/in denial/purposely misleading.  That's dangerous ground, Pam. It's un-proveable, and it's potentially destructive.

Not a one of us here has any idea about the limits of Maddow's contract with MSNBC and to what extent she is a 100% free agent about the content of her show.  And even if she is, she is within her rights not to choose to use it as a platform to the extent that  a lot of us would like her to.  That doesn't make her less of an activist or imply that she doesn't do her part in the struggle.

To make a one to one equivalence between Maddow and Olbermann and say that because KO did something, Maddow can and should, is also, I think, a mistake. As hot as Maddow is right now, I'm willing to bet OLbermann makes more than she does. He has seniority, a track record, and a different show and is likely allowed a longer leash.

You also said you were beginning to think Maddow has and "issue" / discomfort. The implication is that she has repeatedly done this.  What other instances make you think this?

---

by: virgotex @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 13:47:51 PM CST

This is Beyond Disappointing

I wonder if the decesion to de-gay herself was hers or on orders from the MSNBC brass.

Any way you slice it it's COWARDLY.

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 13:54:09 PM CST

How has Rachel chosen to "de-gay" herself?

Do you have any specific examples of her going back in the closet?

I'm only a click away.

---

by: JulieWaters @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 14:09:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

She has said bring the issue up to Huckabee is unimportant

IN WHOSE ALTERNATE REALITY??????!!!!!

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 10:08:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Calm down, David.

Not asking Huckabee about his anti-gay views is not the same as denying her lesbian identity and going back in the closet.  If you can't answer Julie's question, the whole all-caps yelling thing doesn't really cover that up.

"There are two kinds of people in this world -- the kind who separate the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't."  -- Gloria Steinem

---

by: red7eric @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 10:20:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

She is a breathe of fresh air!

Leave Rachel alone!

---

by: paulko @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 15:38:56 PM CST

Rachel Maddow is new at this and consequently a bit tentative

  It's been frustratin to watch this debate all day without being able to join, (I use a DOD computer at work), because Pam makes some valid points. Rachel's defenders make equally valid points also I think. My thoughts on the subject are that she is still very new at this cable news gig and is still very tentative in some areas. This was in evidence in the run up to the election to anybody paying attention. Speaking as someone who almost never misses her show, I have seen improvement over the time she has spent on the air. Anybody who heard her first interview with Pat Buchanan on Air America in 2005 would agree that she is MUCH improved from that era, when she did broach the subject of Buchanan's homophobia. In fact, I have always felt that the way she deals with Buchanan is self help regimen she uses to overcome her fears of people who, as she said in the aforementioned A.A. interview, "had declared war on me". She has come such a long way since then.
 I won't deny that I was dissappointed when she didn't bring up Huck's bigotry and I choose to believe the reason she gave for not bringing it up. Maybe MSNBC also had something to do with that also, it wouldn't surprise me. They are, after all the traditional media.
 One thing is sure, she is human like the rest of us and she is evolving just like the rest of us. I think perhaps this sort of civil debate can affect her personal evolution positively. I don't think calling her names is very helpful though. If it was me, it would just piss me off.
Maybe there are people who feel that she should be the "gay O'Reilly" or something. I won't watch her if that is what she becomes. She's been on the job not three months, she cut her teeth on the most important election we'll ever live to see and there are commentors here who are ready to throw her under the bus with extreme prejudice because they thought she was too soft on Huckabee. I can take comfort in the fact that I don't work for any of you who are disposed to actually condemn her over it. I hope nobody else has to work for you either as they couldn't be very happy working for someone who becomes so apoplectic over what was, after all, a rookie's mistake.

---

by: Margaret @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 16:25:54 PM CST

who's apoplectic?

I hope nobody else has to work for you either as they couldn't be very happy working for someone who becomes so apoplectic over what was, after all, a rookie's mistake.

You're seeing hysteria where there is none. Where, oh where is the outrage? I make no demand that she raise the rainbow flag on her show each day. I only made the observation that she studiously avoided discussing Huckabee's well-known record on gay issues and the opportunity presented to question him on that.

Her response is she didn't find the topic interesting.

I've explained above why I believe that defense is disappointing from a variety of perspectives, some have nothing to do with her sexual orientation but as her role as a journalist. It appears quite a few folks are willing to enable the professional closet.

No one, even Rachel Maddow, who is brilliant on so many issues, is above criticism (like she cares what I think anyway), and she's certainly woman enough to defend her own editorial decisions (or share any restrictions placed upon her). I made my observation, everyone here has shared their views -- where's the apoplectic fit? I didn't make a call for her to do anything specific, to take on this as a pet issue, none of that. But it is revealing how defensive some are about even discussing the issue of the effect of being an out journalist in the MSM in instances like this; it validates the view that there are rules that apply to Rachel Maddow because of her sexual orientation that do not exist for straight hosts.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 21:36:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, So how about Anderson Cooper....??

I find his reports very interesting in their not-too-gentle in-your-face questioning of those against gay rights. I believe his coming out would imbue MSM with a whole new meme. I hope he is just withholding it pending a potentially important moment.

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 22:41:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

At least he reports

On LGBT issues fairly often, he doesn't seem to avoid them. It's odd knowing that he's professionally closeted, but it raises the obvious question -- would he be perceived as "activist" or obsessed with LGBT matters and boxed in if he was officially out? That's the conundrum -- and the defense some are offering for giving Maddow getting a pass. I find it kind of bizarre.

That leaves us with two questions: 1) how much gravitas or clout does an out gay MSM reporter/host have to have before it's "safe" to cover LGBT issues and not be questioned as to bias; and 2) Does it somehow serve both the reporter and the community long term to remain professionally closeted so they can freely report on LGBT issues as any straight reporter could without being questioned as to motive?

I see being both mulled over here, and what has been eye-opening is the amount of indirect acceptance of #2 in order to cut Maddow some slack since she obviously cannot recloset herself. It sounds like advocacy for boxing in one's self by avoiding a certain amount of discussion of LGBT issues. If you're out of the closet, that it's sufficient for the time being to simply "be out" and on the air, as opposed to being out and having your objectivity questioned when it comes to that one aspect of yourself if you venture into LGBT issues.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 04:23:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I will note...

...that Rachel is not professionally closeted, nor does she seem to be trying to be.  She still talks about her sexual orientation on her radio show from time to time (not often, but she never did).  She doesn't say anything about her personal life on her TV show, and neither do any of the other hosts, except occasionally when Keith makes reference to some stupid rumor about himself from some right wing idiot brigade.


I'm only a click away.

---

by: JulieWaters @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 06:19:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

not professionally closeted

Maddow isn't, and in fact, I don't see how she could do so given how out she's been in the past. It is interesting that people are, in their defense of her, tacitly approving of professionally closeting in general because the other side of the coin is that an out gay reporter needs to steer away from LGBT issues, lest they be boxed in professionally, whereas the someone who is closeted or straight won't be seen as biased on the issues. It doesn't make any sense to me, but that's what I take away from it.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 07:10:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

*nods*

Yeah.  I think this is a bit of a red herring and not entirely relevant.

I think in Rachel's case it's probably more of a personal decision.  She doesn't bring up her sexual orientation often, but brings it up occasionally, making it more just a matter of fact than something to announce or address.

But really, Rachel's real expertise doesn't have much to do with social issues.  Her real interest is in international affairs and infrastructure.  

I'm only a click away.

---

by: JulieWaters @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 07:26:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Anderson Cooper isn't out

He used to be out but then after he became a big TV star he went back in and we're all supposed to "respect his private life" and other assorted SHIT!

Rachel Maddow is proving that you can be out and STILL FUCKING USELESS.

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 13:56:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I demand that she raise the rainbow flag on her show every day

And I don't want to hear any fucking excuses!

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 10:09:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Rock and a hard place

So when the subject is in-your-face tactics and aggressive demands for immediate action, I see diaries all about dialing things back because (I'm quoting here):

we don't have a Martin Luther King

to balance it out and all our in-your-face aggressive tactics are going to backfire and cause problems.

Here we have an out & proud big ol' dyke who is taking the softer approach, not using the in-your-face aggressive tactics - rather like MLK, don't you think? - and she's getting called on the carpet for not doing it.

Maybe we should pick a meme and stick with it? I get confused easily. I'm not saying she shouldn't have skinned him and nailed his hide to a wall. I'm a big fan of that, especially now in our post-Prop 8 world. But to have calls for peaceful coexistence juxtaposed with calls for more aggression with our declared enemies... Well, it's confusing. Do we know what we want from our leaders? It's tough for them to respond when we not only aren't on the same page, we jump back and forth between pages from day to day.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 16:39:35 PM CST

she's getting called on the carpet for not doing it.

This makes no sense - the comparison doesn't work at all. MLK and Malcolm X were both concerned with civil rights and approached it from different perspectives.

Rachel Maddow is choosing not to engage in the issue of LGBT rights because (pick one): 1) the subject bores her; 2) there is some pressure, either by MSNBC or Ms. Maddow, to steer her away from addressing LGBT issues with guests to be a mainstream chat show host, or 3) she's concerned about appearing biased in this particular area (when in fact, she is biased as an open progressive on other issues).

It's not a "softer approach," it's ignoring the obvious, as we've described above. And as I said upthread -- on his book tour Huckabee isn't challenged on his hypocrisy by any journalists. That we can include Rachel Maddow in that same crew means she's just like them. If that alone means "progress", it's a sad state of affairs.  

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 18:25:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

or....

4) she's trying to put all the news on her show in a different perspective by finding interesting angles or different topics than are being blathered about by every other "journalist" with a talk show.

I think she's right....Huckabee's views on this are not newsworthy and are not interesting because everyone already knows what they are.  What's more interesting post-election is what failed Republican candidates think is the path back to success for the Republican party.

Huckabee is a voluntarily ignorant jackass.  And just about everyone already knows that.  I'm with Rachel's choice on this.

---

by: SuburbanHomo @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 19:59:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Maddow in the case of Huckabee appearance specifically said...

"Huckabee is a doctrinaire anti-gay theocratic social conservative whose views are well-known and heartfelt."  "Well known" meaning that it must be common knowledge that Huckabee is very anti gay...only trouble here is considering how ignorant and uninformed most people are, it is likely this fact is NOT well known...

I saw this segment when it aired.  I wasn't particularly bothered by it because I DO KNOW Huckabees views and I didn't want to hear them again.  In general, I agree with the point Pam is making.  All these bigots need to be called out...and who gives these talking bigot heads so much air time?  Good agents and PR people unfortunately.  Don't forget Huck just published a book.  I think he was on the show hucking his book anyways not to talk about Prop 8.  

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 20:02:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"Heart-felt" ? SO FUCKING WHAT?????

Only qualified surgeons should deal with his heart!

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 10:11:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Huckabee's views

Did you leave out the fact that he wants AIDS patients isolated from the general public for a reason, or did you just forget?

---

by: JoshMich @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 17:14:27 PM CST

Maddow is awesome!

This blog is primarily LGBT focused with occasional forays into National Politics that are not directly Gay focused.

The Rachel Maddow Show is National Politics with in frequent forays into LGBT issues.

There is a decent chance that she missed the Huckabee quote where he stated that Gays don't deserve equality until there is a lot more violence. Much the same way this blog missed covering Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales getting indicted in Texas for Prisoner Abuse and Abuse of Power to cover it up.

Early on in 2007, I found Huckabee to be one of the least monstrous of the Republican candidates. As much as I abhor both Christians and Republicans,  the former Governor pledged to not run on the social issues. But then he went from also-ran to contender, and that all went out the window. He had to pander, just like everyone else.

I believe when are country hits the tipping point, and everyone realizes that they have been wrong and Un-American, Huckabee will come down on the side of equality. I also think a well written letter to Huckabee pointing out that he is calling for violence will elicit a (semi)retraction from him.

Rachel Maddow has a National Platform to reach millions of Americans. If she uses it for personal gain (like the Bush Administration does moment to moment), say in gaining equality, then she risks everything in a gambit that has no chance of success. However if she does her job better than anyone else, and shows the world that LGBT people are people just like everyone else, with the occasional gay shout out, then she subtly changes minds, and helps create our better country.

We can't expect Rosie, Ellen, and Rachel to do all the heavy lifting.  

This is moral and immoral. The moral thing, the thing that everyone knows is right inside, though some are afraid to say, is EQUALITY. Inequality is immoral.

---

by: mickdansforth @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 17:24:21 PM CST

We can't expect Rosie, Ellen, and Rachel to do all the heavy lifting.

Who is? Asking the abovementioned questions of Mike Huckabee isn't "heavy lifting", it's called journalism. Again, no one is looking for her to be an activist, it's a matter of exploring the perception that if you're out, there's some sort of penalty to be paid if you actually cover an LGBT issue on occasion. No one is asking Maddow to do 24/7 gay reporting.

She happened to have a guest booked for her show who is notoriously anti-gay and governed a state where its residents just deemed gays unfit to adopt children by popular vote. That she didn't find the topic "interesting" or newsworthy is troubling regardless of her sexual orientation.

A more apt example is Barack Obama and the issue of race. The man tried to run a campaign that studiously avoided the issue, nevertheless when confronted with incessant attempts by other to focus on it, he rose to the occasion and delivered an entire speech about this country's need to discuss race.

All I'm saying is when Rachel Maddow has low-hanging fruit like Huckabee sitting there taking questions, she doesn't have to fall on any sword for "the cause," she simply has to ask the questions any good journalist would do.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 18:36:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

troubling regardless of her sexual orientation.

I agree with you on that but still think it's wrong to assume we know her intent.  

We can legitimately call people out for what they DO (or don't do)-that's a fact.

Saying we know with certainty WHY they do it or what they ARE because they did it (someone with issues, someone with a certain intent) is just an opinion, not a fact.

---

by: virgotex @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 18:55:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Maybe she just wasn't going for the obvious?

Jon Stewart has been similarly criticized in the past for "being soft" on various neocons when they were on his show. Maybe Rachel avoided what Huckleberry et al. would expect from the only (openly) lesbian newsperson. Let the tough questions on Prop H8, adoption and so forth come from the straight newspeople; they're no less responsible for asking the tough questions, really.

---

by: halloweenjack @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 13:02:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I wonder if Maddow thinks that she can't proof-text?

I would like to ask Huck why the conservative evangelical world's pundits and politicians prioritize gay marriage, not commented on by Jesus*, and ignore poverty, one of the most frequent of Jesus' topics (eg, Matthew 25:40)?

* Same-gender sexual relations are not commented on, either.
The "7 texts" commonly cited against same-gender sexual relations are either from the Torah or from Paul, and some of the seven are not clearly about sex per se.

---

by: NancyP @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 23:14:39 PM CST

Arkansas & adoption

It is pretty irresponsible that Maddow didn't at least ask Huckabee about the AK adoption ban considering 1) duh, he's from there & was the Gov.; 2) it's the first amendment of its kind and the religious right is eager to push for such amendments around the country, just as they have with marriage bans; 3) Huckabee is poised to be the standard-bearer of a Republican party that will likely support such bans.  You would think that even though Prop 8 may have been mildly off-topic she would have covered this one.  Plus, talking about adoption and foster parenting still seems "safe" enough for her to attract fire-breathing social conservatives in the future to her show.

---

by: Repeal8 @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 01:11:09 AM CST

A very important issue

It's unconscionable that she saw fit to gloss over it  

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 10:12:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Who Cares What Rachel Maddow Thinks or Says?

I don't.  She's just another pretty face farting and telling everyone that she's making music.  Just disregard the smell associated with it.

Sorry, Rachel, but there are several things on the television more interesting than you are.  Huckabee is a charming asshole who would do injury to me and my kind.  Certainly it's your job to make his hate more palatable to the larger audience.

So, sugah, all things being equal, why should I bother with another suck-up regardless of his or her personal sexual preferences?  Anderson Cooper is Gayer than Rachel Maddox.  He didn't do his hair to look straighter.

Houston

---

by: rlbtzero @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 18:06:37 PM CST

Myopia

Reading through all of these comments, I'm detecting a fair amount of myopia - by that I mean, as much as we say that the GLBT community is not a single-issue constituency and that we care about a lot of things, I'm wondering if it's all just talk.

I wonder if people would have been this upset if a liberal pundit who was a known (avowed!) heterosexual had failed to engage Huckabee on his anti-gay views.  I suspect not, which leads me to the conclusion that, all words to the contrary, we're expecting Maddow to be a lesbian above all other things.

And if one does pause to see the big picture, one could very well conclude that Huckabee's anti-gay views are certainly rooted in his religious beliefs.  And Rachel does ask Huckabee, quite explicitly and repeatedly, to respond to the notion that an "overtly Christian" stance is hurting the Republican party.  I think that people are upset because she did so with the primary goal of getting Huckabee's point of view; I think many of us would have been happier if her primary goal had been to make Huckabee look stupid.  (In my opinion, Mike doesn't need much help on that score.)

And if that's our goal, then Sean Hannity has won ... in my always so very humble opinion ...

Cheers, all.
E.

"There are two kinds of people in this world -- the kind who separate the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't."  -- Gloria Steinem

---

by: red7eric @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 19:08:34 PM CST

myopia and Maddow

I wonder if people would have been this upset if a liberal pundit who was a known (avowed!) heterosexual had failed to engage Huckabee on his anti-gay views.  I suspect not, which leads me to the conclusion that, all words to the contrary, we're expecting Maddow to be a lesbian above all other things.

I have been disturbed at several of these interviews with Huckabee by journalists other than Maddow -- I have yet to see or hear one (the last one I listened to was on NPR) where he was asked about Arkansas and adoption. He was allowed to shill his book and declare that America is ready to embrace social conservatism as long as it's delivered with a smiling face. Consistently, he hasn't been forced to defend his bigotry.

That Rachel Maddow explicitly told Think Progress that Huckabee's views on LGBT rights in the wake of the ballot initiatives isn't "interesting", only underscores the fact that being out and gay as a journalist doesn't mean you'll cover "the obvious" either.

I think there's myopia regarding how much of the wider audience out there is paying enough attention to the status of LGBT rights in this country.l We assume that it's not worth asking the obvious questions of Huckabee. There are way too many potential straight allies out there who have little knowledge about the ballot initiatives other than Prop 8 (and even then the details are fuzzy), and are undereducated about the issue. In fact, I'd venture a guess that a good slice of our community is ignorant of the details of the ballot initiatives because they simply aren't interested in politics. So it's not a given that the subject is uninteresting or unimportant -- all these journalists doing the Huckabee "get" are abdicating their roles as journalists, Maddow included.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 23:02:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]