Rachel Maddow is an immensely talented, entertaining, informative and intelligent voice on television, something sorely needed. I am thrilled her show is so successful and look forward to watching her for a long time.
But having said that, I’ve noticed that she can be somewhat of a (and I mean this with love) concern troll when it comes to Barack Obama, and has been for some time. Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t think any media figure should roll over for this guy. But the problem is, her analysis has been wrong repeatedly.
She was the lone voice saying over and over during the last couple weeks of the election that Obama didn’t have it in the bag or anywhere close to it, and that all early voting stats were BAD news for Obama (turned out to be just the opposite).
Yesterday, she expressed concern about how “un-changey” Obama’s administration-in-waiting has been, what with all the appointments of previous Clinton officials. Unfortunately, her analysis failed to separate “Clintonites” from highly qualified Democrats with experience who happen to have served the Clinton administration in some capacity. For example, she grouped in Eric Holder into the “un-changey” group of former Clintonites, but as Al Giordano has explained so well, he is anything but a Clintonite.
Look, I love me some Rachel Maddow. She should be skeptical and critical of Obama. But someone with her level of intelligence and analytical skills should also be able to be a little more…well…analytical with her “concern.” Segments like yesterday were a bit too simplistic and reactive for my taste.
I know, I know, many of you will say I should expect media figures to bow down before Obama and I’m just part of the cult, yada yada. Not at all. But when showing worry and concern continues to be different from the facts, that’s where problems arise.