I used to really like Rachel Maddow. I would listen to her first Air America show, the morning program, although it aired at the ridiculous hours of 5-7 a.m. my time, because she offered a point of view that was utterly absent in any of the traditional big media networks. I was encouraged when she started getting more and more guest spots at MSogynNyBC, because that network was particularly egregious in its white manitood, and I thought her snappy queer sensibility might shake things up a bit. (Aside: as hinted at in another post, the bratty boyz at MSogyNyBC are shaking things up enough already! Good luck with that crowd, Rache.)
She disappointed me during the Democratic primary in cheering along with all of the femophobic bullcrap over at MSogyNyBC. If this is what a “member of the family” is doing for us, I’ll take crazy Uncle Chris Matthews over that faux-diversity, any day. (Apparently, I’m not the only one who can’t listen to her any more, although I think Roxie and her mothers are trying to keep an open mind.) Now apparently she’s gone around the bend: she is claiming that Obama represents a rejection of “Clintonism,” which is just silly (as I could have told her last spring!), and she’s now claiming that any former supporter of Hillary Clinton who doesn’t support Barack Obama for President is “post-rational.”
It makes no sense—Hillary has asked them to back Obama, and yet they are still holding out…supposedly because they back Hillary, who backs Obama. It’s just post rational. You know? It doesn’t make any sense, which is why I call it post-rational.
(H/t to Blogenspiel and commenter Nathaniel for the link.) First of all, what the heck does “post-rational” mean? And secondly, maybe Maddow missed this, but Clinton’s supporters are actually free to vote for whomever they prefer. They didn’t sign any contracts pre-awarding their general election votes to anyone, not even to Clinton. Although she has a degree in politics, Maddow must have missed class the day they covered winning elections, and how it’s the candidate’s job to win votes, rather than to suggest that anyone who doesn’t vote for him is stupid, irrational, or lacking in virtue. And here’s something that even George W. Bush seems to know: that goes double for your base. One more thing: if Rachel had been paying attention for the past twenty years or so, she might have noticed that there are a whole lot of people–perhaps even the majority of the electorate–who regularly vote against their best interests because they get sidetracked with “likeability” issues or other such trivia. So, obviously, appealing only to people’s “rationality” is a strategy that will yield–shall we say?–minimal success.
Politics is about emotions and feelings, whether Democrats like it or not. That’s why they keep getting their a$$es handed to them in presidential elections. Obama and Biden are right now taking Historiann’s advice and are bus-storming Pennsylvania and Ohio right now. They’ll be largely ignored by the media this week because of the Republican National Convention and Hurricaine Gustav–but that may not be all bad. They can mend and forge new relationships with people whose interests they want to serve and whose votes they need, and maybe that will all go better out of the media limelight. They’re going to show the people in these struggling, post-industrial states a little love and pay a little attention to them. Obama and Biden seem to get it–thank goodness!–why doesn’t Rachel Maddow?
I am so over you, Rachel Maddow.