»» Columnists

Rachel Maddow: The New Voice Of The Left, From Cable News To Capitol Hill

by Glynnis MacNicol | 10:38 am, August 2nd, 2010

» 50 comments

In his New York Times column last week David Carr notes that there have been times of late when it seems that the “Democrats picked up talking points from Rachel Maddow.” Carr places Maddow in a group that includes Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, whom he describes as having “become an important source of political wisdom for many Americans.” While one suspects this is perhaps not company that Maddow would prefer to keep, it is interesting to see Maddow included in the upper echelon’s of media’s political heavy hitters.

Carr is not the first to single out Maddow. Last week 1960′s civil right activist Tom Hayden wrote in the Nation that during her recent trip to Afghanistan Maddow had missed her “Cronkite” moment. An interesting observation less because I agreed with his conclusion that Maddow did not ask enough tough questions, than because he felt Maddow could be reasonably compared to the giant Cronkite. Those are some very big shoes.

But both cases echo a sense I’ve had of late that Maddow has evolved from an entertaining MSNBC host to a preeminent and respected voice on the left. Judging by her growing ratings, her viewers appear to agree also.

In hindsight the shift perhaps began to be apparent back in March when then-Senate darling Scott Brown used Maddow as the villain in a an underhanded fundraising attempt. Of all the prominent figures on the left to employ as a scare tactic Brown opted for Maddow (whose days-long simultaneously scathing and humorous response Brown will likely not soon forget). Last week Marco Rubio attempted something similar. I am hard-pressed to think of a media figure on the left who has found themselves in a similar predicament (media figures on the right, meanwhile have been playing this role for quite sometime).

These are not the only radars Maddow has been popping on of late. Last week Fox News heavy hitter Bill O’Reilly devoted some prime time to her when he played a clip of her scathing comment criticizing Fox News for its Shirley Sherrod coverage, after which O’Reilly mocked ‘madame’s” ratings. Way back in February, Maddow got into a similar tit-for-tat with Glenn Beck. It’s clear the woman knows how to push the “right” buttons.

So, what is it about Maddow? I have some theories.

She is civil.

Rachel Maddow does not shout. Nor does she lecture. Nor does she project the sort of pretentious holier-than-thou sensibility that has marked Keith Olbermann‘s decline from the speaking-truth-to-power figure he was famously branded during the Bush years, to the cartoonish anchor who starts endless twitter fights whilst on vacation he has become. Nor does Maddow seem to gin up controversy, manufactured hysteria, nor unnecessary arguments with guests with an eye to ratings. In fact, Maddow’s interviews are generally civilized affairs, which often is what makes them so devastating: her interview with Rand Paul following his primary win in May was seen by many as a significant blow to the Tea Party movement. Which leads me to my second point.

She has a sense of humor.

Maybe this is obvious, but I think it’s key. And not just with Maddow. To my mind a sense of humor has lately been the common trait differentiating some very powerful media figures from the only sort of powerful; two people who jump to mind in that same category are Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. And as all three have proved, a sense of humor can be a deadly weapon that when used well. It’s difficult to do damage to a person who’s more than willing to laugh along with the joke. The most recent example of Maddow’s ability to take a hit and turn it into a (damaging) laugh came in last week’s response to ‘Monsieur’ Bill O’Reilly shot are her ratings when she noted that both Spongebob Squarepants and Hannah Montana Forever left them both in the dust: “but even if no one watches us at all, except for my mom and my girlfriend and people who forgot to turn off the TV after Keith, you are still wrong on what really matters, and that would be the facts, Your Highness.” Which leads me to my next point.

She has brains.

This is not to say that other people on TV do not. But Maddow is unafraid to turn her bookiness into rollicking TV segments. She makes it a habit of talking up to her audience. Maddow’s excoriation of the Sherrod debacle, and Fox News’ coverage therein began with a longish survey of how, since the civil rights movement, politicians have used “scare white people” tactics as a way to gin up support. Last month she took a trip down to the Gulf to tour and explain how the oil spill would affect the fragile wetlands and the long-term damaging effects of this. As mentioned, earlier this month Maddow spent a week touring Afghanistan in order to “understand what [the troops] lives are like at war.” Brains attract brains.

She’s a new media mix of Big J and little c.
What I mean by that is this Maddow possesses the very enviable mix of cable personality and serious news persona. How many other cable TV anchors do you see pop up on Meet the Press (or any Sunday show for that matter) and not merely hold their own but outshine the host. She can do wonky just as well as she can do wacky. And more to the point, she can often to them together. (I’m still not convinced the biggest mistake NBC made was passing over Maddow to hand the MTP anchor seat to David Gregory.) What that often means in a media landscape that is getting increasingly hysterical is that Maddow can hold her own in the cable entertainment world, without relinquishing her grasp on the facts. If you’re looking for the future, this is probably a good place to start.

Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, msnbc, Rachel Maddow, Sarah Palin

Fox News: We proudly pander to Teabaggers

Saying Sarah Palin offers “political wisdom” is absurd. She piggybacks other people’s opinions and makes them her own.
Penguin60

Maddow regurgitates WH talking points or is it?

http://www.mediaite.com/online/did-dnc-chair-tim-kaine-get-his-cable-news-talking-points-from-rachel-maddow/

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/07/25/obama-plays-rachel-maddow-video-sell-netroots-nation-his-accomplishments

Gibbs may be looking over his shoulder.
Steve Lee

“She Civil?” When Rachel had the representative from the “FAIR” immigration policy group-on for an interview she was anything but “fair” in her treatment of him. She kept bringing-up policy positions the groups had at it’s founding in the 1980′s when President Reagan mistakenly gave an “Amnesty” to 3 million Illegal Immigrants assuming the later Presidents would see to it that the U.S. Border was secured.

The “FAIR” spokesman stayed through the whole “interview,” which ended-up being an anti FAIR diatribe on Rachel’s part.

She has defined positions on topics like the Arizona Immigration Law which she ridicules as the “Papers Please” law in an not very good Hollywood movie “German” accent.

Rachel would draw more viewers in her time slot if she gave her “guests” more time to state their views rather than attacking their organizations histories.
Steve Lee

The “Immigration Reformistas” are trying to change the image of the 20 million Illegal Immigrants working in the U.S. at the demonstrations against the U.S. Immigration Laws they are staging, Click Link:

http://www.tcunation.com/profiles/blogs/changing-the-image-of
http://politicsofdestruction.com/ Bobomatic

Are you serious…?! I had laugh when I read this as though from Maddows very own press secretary. Trying to up her stature with the likes of Limbaugh is laughable… just another liberal talking head trying in vain to ride the coat tails of Limbaugh.
The Real Royal King

Steve Lee said:
“She Civil?” When Rachel had the representative from the “FAIR” immigration policy group-on for an interview she was anything but “fair” in her treatment of him. She kept bringing-up policy positions the groups had at it’s founding in the 1980’s when President Reagan mistakenly gave an “Amnesty” to 3 million Illegal Immigrants assuming the later Presidents would see to it that the U.S. Border was secured. The “FAIR” spokesman stayed through the whole “interview,” which ended-up being an anti FAIR diatribe on Rachel’s part. She has defined positions on topics like the Arizona Immigration Law which she ridicules as the “Papers Please” law in an not very good Hollywood movie “German” accent. Rachel would draw more viewers in her time slot if she gave her “guests” more time to state their views rather than attacking their organizations histories.

Actually, Steven, at the C-Pac Conclave, there was a general agreement amongst those who met Ms. Maddow that she was polite, civil and interesting. So, Ms. Maddow is interviewing a neo Rudolf Hess, and you want her to bring out the good China and the imported wine?

MY BONNIE LIES OVER THE OCEAN
MY BONNIE LIES OVER THE SEA
FOX NEWS ALWAYS LIES
WHEREVER BONNIE MAY BE.
writer

This ‘new’ voice of the left sounds an awful lot like the old voice.
The Real Royal King

Bobomatic said:
Are you serious…?! I had laugh when I read this as though from Maddows very own press secretary. Trying to up her stature with the likes of Limbaugh is laughable… just another liberal talking head trying in vain to ride the coat tails of Limbaugh.

Let’s face it Bobbie. If we’re doing one of those cheerleade pyramids, no one is going to put Lard Limbaugh on the top.

MY BONNIE LIES OVER THE OCEAN
MY BONNIE LIES OVER THE SEA
FOX NEWS ALWAYS LIES
WHEREVER BONNIE MAY BE.
The Real Royal King

cheerleader

MY BONNIE LIES OVER THE OCEAN
MY BONNIE LIES OVER THE SEA
FOX NEWS ALWAYS LIES
WHEREVER BONNIE MAY BE.
writer

The King can hurl the worst personal insults at conservative women, but if anyone says anything about Rachel, then he bleats, whines, and moans.
Phocus2

“Carr places Maddow in a group that includes Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin…” Now THAT’s funny. What, is Carr auditioning for the Onion? LOL
http://politicsofdestruction.com/ Bobomatic

The left is trying to push her because that’s all they got. The liberal media builds her up in hopes she lives up to the hype. She is no more “civil” than the rest of the moonbats at MSDNC. She is a smug elitist. Despite the spin her propagandist would have you believe, she is just another liberal hack in the long sordid tradition of MSDNC.
Pat Doherty

Glynnis is obviously entitled to her opinion, but her “coverage” of Rachel Maddow could just as easily come from Phil Griffin. It seems like 75% of Glynnis’s articles are just breathless encomiums to all things Rachel Maddow. We get it Glynnis; Rachel Maddow is much smarter than Bill O’Reilly, much funnier than Rush Limbaugh, and infinitely morally superior to Sarah Palin. You can stop beating the drum.
http://apostrophejones.com Apostrophe jones

Now , that’s a face .
Averreauxii

Glynnis, is dead on. That’s why the conservatives are too pussy to go on her show. Liz Cheney has been invited numerous times but she wants none of Rachel…..haha. I actually respect Rand and Ron Paul a lot because they actually go (or went haha) on her show and present(ed) their side and welcome(d) challenges.

PS: When you are an open lesbian and you are interviewing an avowed homophobic bigot who is trying to spread his views using your show, you would be a little hostile. I think she maintained her cool very well during that interview. Reminds me yet of another interview that anchor Rick Sanchez had on CNN about 2 weeks ago with a Neo-Nazi who was pretty much telling Rick he did not belong in this country since Rick was not white. It takes BIG GUTS to restrain yourself!
Penguin60

What’s an “open lesbian”? And, who gives a shiite?
Averreauxii

You obviously did, you dingbat, or else you wouldn’t have responded. She is not closeted. She is OPENLY gay fudge-stick!
newzmaker

Maddow claims she doen’t own a television. How does she come up with all the anti-Fox News rants, if she doesn’t watch? Also, Maddow is an activist, not a reporter.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Lars-Svensen/100001028197161 Lars Svensen

Maddow? Looks more like Dolph Lundgren. He a leftist? Who knew?
writer

Averreaux, openly gay fudge stick may not have been the best term to use.
marigrace

Maddow is a leftist hack posing as a journalist. She is intellectually dishonest, manipulates and misconstrues information to fit her agenda and comes up with the slimiest smears, about people with which she disagrees.

I started counting her lies and just on the Sherrod incident, here are a few of her subtle lies…

July 20, 2010
She blamed Fox News for the resignation of USDA Shirley Sherrod, when in fact she had been asked to resign by the White House before Fox news even reported one word on the story. .
http://www.msnbc.msn…335268#38335268

July 21, 2010
She said “Fox News COOKED this story UP, and SOLD it. They LIT the fuse.”
Andrew Breitbart cooked the story up and lit the fuse, not Fox News.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/38358045#38353774

July 21, 2010
Said that the Van Jones and ACORN incidents were about race, when they were not. Van Jones was part of a petition that stated the United Sates was part of a 911 conspiracy and ACORN tried to help someone who claimed he had underage girls he smuggled from El Salvador and was going to prostitute them out.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/38353636#38353636

July 23, 2010
Maddow says, “Birther campaign was race based” and “race baiting birther smear”. It was about whether Obama is a true American citizen, not about race.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/38372742#38372742

July 23, 2010
Fox manufactured this outrage over Shirley Sherrod. The NAACP was first outraged, than Breitbart took it from there. By the time Fox reported on this the Obama WH had asked for her resignation.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/38372742#38372844
Penguin60

writer said:
Averreaux, openly gay fudge stick may not have been the best term to use.

Apparently this jack off has had a lot of experience with that term. Quite the fancy pants with the vocab, I’m impressed.
Puter Boi

I wish I had a dollar for every “reporter/pundit” who was going to be the next Cronkite.

Averreauxii said:
gay fudge-stick!

ummmmmmmmmmmmmm….do we really wanna know what that is?
http://apostrophejones.com Apostrophe jones

No offense , but which mask will be the bigger seller this Halloween on Fire Island , the Nancy Grace , the Vanden Heuvel or the Maddow ?
felixw

Rachel Maddow’s political philosophy is an infantile mixture of

Spend money we don’t have
Pass bills we don’t read
If we can’t get it passed by a vote, force it through the courts
And smear anyone who disagrees with us

The Democrat politicians can take their lead from her. But they will all be thrown out of office if they do so.
http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ GlennBeckReview

writer says: “The King can hurl the worst personal insults at conservative women, but if anyone says anything about Rachel, then he bleats, whines, and moans.”

“writer,” let us know when you have something objective and intelligent to say. (We won’t be holding our breath.)
http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ GlennBeckReview

newzmaker says: “Maddow claims she doen’t own a television. How does she come up with all the anti-Fox News rants, if she doesn’t watch? Also, Maddow is an activist, not a reporter.”

What, newzmaker makes you claim that? What is she active in? You mean that she’s an advocate? I have news for you; one can report and advocate. They are not mutually exclusive. If that were the case, people would have stopped watching Fox “News” a long time ago when they became the advertisers for the Tea Party.
Penguin60

“I have news for you; one can report and advocate.”

No doubt, but for the countless of those who are unable to discern this is a travesty.
writer

GBR, we already know how ‘objective’ you are. A far left ideologue commenting on objectivity. What a hoot.
ChiliPeppersFan

i’ve been a fan of rachel for a while and i loved the reports she did on that creepy k street cabal of politicians getting almost unthinkably low rent because they claim their houses were places of worship…
c’mon man, if that isn’t a scam i don’t know what is…
i hope she follows up on that soon
NORBIT

A good nickname for Rachel Maddow would be:

a) Mrs. Olbermann
b) Olbermann Light
c) Olbermann’s Biatch
d) Olbermann Wannabe

Which would fit best?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Arthur-Clough/1419363514 Arthur Clough

The left has no voice so who was left to try and explaine, Oblermann?Ha!How about Arianna H? Ha Ha!! Maddow seems to only one left with sense of direction, most of the time. They are losing their touch overall.
juan

Who is Rachel Maddow and what is MSNBC?
NORBIT

Another GLARING example of Media Bias.

Save this for future reference all!

http://www.breitbart.tv/media-ignored-violent-anti-war-protest-on-same-day-they-had-frenzy-over-tea-party-protest/
Permatiltx

NORBIT said:
A good nickname for Rachel Maddow would be:

a) Mrs. Olbermann
b) Olbermann Light
c) Olbermann’s Biatch
d) Olbermann Wannabe

Which would fit best?

Actually none of those, other than their politics lean to the left, they don’t have anything in common. Olbermann shouts, Maddow doesn’t. Olbermann doesn’t interview opposition, Maddow welcomes them to the show (they tend to not show up). Olbermann is dictatorial, Maddow is informative. So, does this mean that you only see right and left, and nothing else? Hey, Bill O’Reilly is different from Glenn Beck. That wasn’t hard for me.
Permatiltx

NORBIT said:
Another GLARING example of Media Bias.

Save this for future reference all!

http://www.breitbart.tv/media-ignored-violent-anti-war-protest-on-same-day-they-had-frenzy-over-tea-party-protest/

Yes, because those were images of actual protest groups looking for political capital within the white house protesting the major story of the week, which was the passing of the health care bill. It seems that’s where the story is. Anti-war protests are nothing new. It may be easy to find any day of the week and find an anti war protest. But the passing of a health care reform bill, that seems to take precedent. Did FOX cover it?

And didn’t we get into a discussion about how the left loves Obama so much that they aren’t protesting the Afghan war. Isn’t that what I just saw?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Tony-Westover/1496648721 Tony Westover

I know who Rachel Maddow is because I follow politics and her show is amusing because she reliably insults the intelligence of her small audience and her small audience continues to come back.

But let’s be real here: Rachel Maddow is a nobody.

Nobody knows who she is. A good portion of the people who see her for the first time think that she’s a man, I know I did. How can you say that someone is the new voice of the Left when probably 3/4 of the entire nation couldn’t even pick her out of lineup? She has nowhere near the name recognition of Rush Limbaugh, or even Glenn Beck. You need broad recognition to be the voice of a movement, and she indisputably doesn’t have that.
Averreauxii

Tony Westover said:
I know who Rachel Maddow is because I follow politics and her show is amusing because she reliably insults the intelligence of her small audience and her small audience continues to come back.

But let’s be real here: Rachel Maddow is a nobody.

Nobody knows who she is. A good portion of the people who see her for the first time think that she’s a man, I know I did. How can you say that someone is the new voice of the Left when probably 3/4 of the entire nation couldn’t even pick her out of lineup? She has nowhere near the name recognition of Rush Limbaugh, or even Glenn Beck. You need broad recognition to be the voice of a movement, and she indisputably doesn’t have that.

She’s such a nobody that you decided to volunteer a portion of your free time to comment on her “nobodiness” on an internet blog with her profile for people to read. Such a nobody in deed!
Averreauxii

newzmaker said:
Maddow claims she doen’t own a television. How does she come up with all the anti-Fox News rants, if she doesn’t watch? Also, Maddow is an activist, not a reporter.

There’s something called the internet.

writer said:
Averreaux, openly gay fudge stick may not have been the best term to use.

Oh really? I will remember that next time, you ignorant wingnut.

Penguin60 said:
Apparently this jack off has had a lot of experience with that term. Quite the fancy pants with the vocab, I’m impressed.

Whatever keeps you warm at night Susan. :=)
MerryMarjie

Rachel Maddow simply rocks. She is a beautiful, intelligent woman who reaps scorn for her personal life, but who is well-versed in politics and researches endlessly. Since some people can’t be objective about someone “different” than themselves, they fall all over each other in trying to denigrate and belittle that person, and in the process, identify themselves as illiterate clunks. Shooting the messenger is never a good idea in trying to make a point, but persistence does pay off because now we know with whom we are dealing.

I’m a woman, a wife of 45 years, a mother and a grandmother, and I say Rachel Rocks. Go ahead, take your best shot.
esd2000

Bobomatic said:
Are you serious…?! I had laugh when I read this as though from Maddows very own press secretary. Trying to up her stature with the likes of Limbaugh is laughable… just another liberal talking head trying in vain to ride the coat tails of Limbaugh.

I couldn’t agree with you more. Comparing Maddow to the likes of Limbaugh or Palin is absurd. One of those deals in facts and the other two are “lot in space”. I hope you can tell which is which. If you can’t then you’re “lost in space” also.
esd2000

Averreauxii said:
She’s such a nobody that you decided to volunteer a portion of your free time to comment on her “nobodiness” on an internet blog with her profile for people to read. Such a nobody in deed!

She’s a nobody who has been mentioned and or attacked by name by the likes of H.W. Bush, Sen.Scott Brown, half term Governor Palin candidate Marco Rubio, grassroots activist wannabe Dick Armey, FOX channel charlatans O’Reilly and Beck just to name a few. Nobody indeed.
esd2000

Tony Westover said:
I know who Rachel Maddow is because I follow politics and her show is amusing because she reliably insults the intelligence of her small audience and her small audience continues to come back.

But let’s be real here: Rachel Maddow is a nobody.

Nobody knows who she is. A good portion of the people who see her for the first time think that she’s a man, I know I did. How can you say that someone is the new voice of the Left when probably 3/4 of the entire nation couldn’t even pick her out of lineup? She has nowhere near the name recognition of Rush Limbaugh, or even Glenn Beck. You need broad recognition to be the voice of a movement, and she indisputably doesn’t have that.

She’s a nobody who has been mentioned and or attacked by name by the likes of H.W. Bush, Sen.Scott Brown, half term Governor Palin candidate Marco Rubio, grassroots activist wannabe Dick Armey, FOX channel charlatans O’Reilly and Beck just to name a few. Nobody indeed.
felixw

The problem with Maddow is the lack of substance to her show. She always takes the low road — with hit pieces, character attacks, smears, and ridiculous segments where she finds some obscure rightwinger in order to correct minutiae. Why doesn’t she stand up and proudly defend the core values of the progressive agenda — intrusive government, higher taxes, huge deficit spending, undefended borders, centralization of power in Washington D.C., rewarding bad behavior with government incentives and a limp-wristed approach to terrorism. Those are the core beliefs of her far left heroes. Why doesn’t she have the cojones to defend them in open debate? But instead she hides behind endless hit pieces.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Richard-Gray-Foster/100000042843249 Richard Gray Foster

No matter what Maddow’s opinions are, at least you can trust that she is sane.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Martin/714222006 Chris Martin

Snarkily calling people “teabaggers” is civil?
meredith1980

I am 29. I have been more interested in the political world recently, perhaps b/c of my age, but also perhaps b/c of the current state of affairs I find our country in. In order to develop the most well rounded, comprehensive opinions, I surround myself by all types of media outlets in order to avoid being duped by either side’s political propaganda. This involves watching both (but not limited to) Rachel Maddow, and Glenn Beck. I have to say that if you watch both shows on even a slightly regular basis, you will see the comparision is absurd. The content of the Glenn Beck show is so much more real than any of the nasty political name-calling content that Rachel Maddow unsuccessfully tries to pass of as ‘news’. Her questions, answers, theories, segmants, remarks, opinions, etc, are obviously and certainly not based on anything concrete or even relevant to what a viewer such as myself would like to hear/learn. A viewer who is still developing her own opinions, and is leaning towards the opposite side. To me… I should be the target for someone like her that actually has the oppertunity to convey the real demorcratic theories. In most interviews she focuses entirely on the wrong things. She avoids all smart news, for the sake of insult and immature news reporting. For those of you who are supporters of Rachel Maddow, please… at least find a ‘smarter’ left-wing commentator, and whatever you do, don’t use any of her arguments in an actual argument, if you do, you will come accross as dumb as she does.
felixw

meredith1980 said:
surround myself by all types of media outlets in order to avoid being duped by either side’s political propaganda. This involves watching both (but not limited to) Rachel Maddow, and Glenn Beck. I have to say that if you watch both shows on even a slightly regular basis, you will see the comparision is absurd. The content of the Glenn Beck show is so much more real than any of the nasty political name-calling content that Rachel Maddow unsuccessfully tries to pass of as ‘news’….I should be the target for someone like her that actually has the opportunity to convey the real demorcratic theories. In most interviews she focuses entirely on the wrong things. She avoids all smart news, for the sake of insult and immature news reporting.

You’ve summed it up quite accurately.
shootfromthehip

“The content of the Glenn Beck show is so much more real than any of the nasty political name-calling content that Rachel Maddow unsuccessfully tries to pass of as ‘news’. Her questions, answers, theories, segmants, remarks, opinions, etc, are obviously and certainly not based on anything concrete or even relevant to what a viewer such as myself would like to hear/learn”

You, madame “Meredith,” are full of shit.

Rachel bases most, if not all, of her segments on facts and actual documents/reports.

Glenn Beck does not and frequently exhumes conspiracy theories (FEMA camps etc) and obscure books (featuring wild theories that no one in academia takes seriously).

Have a good day, “madame.”
felixw

shootfromthehip said:
Rachel bases most, if not all, of her segments on facts and actual documents/reports.

Documents = Obscure blog by unknown person
Facts = one sign picked out of a thousand at a tea party

Get real, shootfromthehip, your hero Rachel is a smear artist. We all know she is in favor of bloated government and spending trillions borrowed from the Chinese, but she dances around those issues. Put simply, she’s embarrassed to admit to the core values of her agenda, because she knows how opposed most people are to this kind of infantile approach of government-is-the-solution-to-everything. The closest she gets to news is ranting about Andrew Breitbart, Michael Steele and pundits at Fox. She wouldn’t know a real issue if it was staring her in the face. 17 million people are out of work and she plays mindless gotcha games.