I saw that too. It’s pretty funny that as soon as any cable news show goes into Carrot Top-territory, everyone immediately thinks of Glenn Beck.

Glenn Beck: high school diploma and lifelong deejay

Rachel Maddow: A graduate of Castro Valley High School in Castro Valley, California, Maddow earned a degree in public policy from Stanford University in 1994.[12] At graduation she was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship. She was also the recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship and began her postgraduate study in 1995 at Lincoln College, Oxford. In 2001, she completed her Doctor of Philosophy degree (styled a DPhil) in politics from the University of Oxford.[13] Her doctoral thesis is titled HIV/AIDS and Health Care Reform in British and American Prisons. She was the first openly gay American to win a Rhodes scholarship.
-source: Wikipedia

Yeah, I can see the similarity.

NewsBusters — Mediate: Is Rachel Maddow the Glenn Beck of the Left?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/10/27/mediate-rachel-maddow-glenn-beck-left

Homie, allow me to retort. (And I’ll remind you the trouble Rachel got into when she sourced Wikipedia.)

She just might be the next Glenn Beck, minus the success. She is already following his professional path.

Beck: Wildly successful radio host
Maddow: Allegedly on the radio somewhere.

Beck: Uses props, calls himself a clown.
Maddow: Uses props, smug and smirking mannerisms reminiscent of the clown from “It”.

Beck: Looks like a man, weeps like a woman.
Maddow: Looks like a man, has never cried, not even at the end of “Brian’s Song”.

Beck: “Obama is a racist.” Unprovable, but not technically a lie
Maddow: “Limbaugh wanted medal of honor for Martin Luther King’s killer.” False quote, humiliated host forced to make petulant retraction.

Now all Maddow has to do to emulate her idol is double her audience, and then convince an additional half-million people to tune in.

All that education stuff is pointless. So she is a Rhodes Scholar. That does not make her any more palatable than Beck. Nor do ratings, props or ludicrous pronouncements.

In all honesty, Maddow is the Beck for MSNBC. And both are a waste of bandwidth.

>Beck: Looks like a man

More like…looks like an ass.

>In all honesty, Maddow is the Beck for MSNBC. And both are a waste of bandwidth.

She doesn’t go into Alex Jones territory or advocate sedition.

Sedition? With Obama in the White House? Of course not. Wait until there’s a Republican in power again.

Pedigree is meaningless. The Ivy League elites have a singular world view; there’s no ‘tolerance’ or ‘acceptance of other viewpoints’ going on with them. I’m no more impressed with a Harvard or Yale pedigree than I am with a home run king who took steroids. Pretty much the same thing.

The major difference between Maddow and Beck, is that Maddow can say things that are 100% false… and nobody calls her on it.

http://insidecablenews.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/maddows-limbaugh-mis-quote-update/

STILL waiting to see this story on Mediaite! Or better yet… someone tell me why this wasn’t worthy of a post.

It’s indeed a pleasure and a breath of fresh air to listen to Rachel. The best interviewer on TV and a great sense of humor.

Jim, did it bother you at all that she used a false quote and dragged her feet before issuing an “I’m sorry, but not really” apology?

Rachel is a complete waste of time. She feeds her show with articles she finds on the far left blogs that have no fact checks.
She hates anyone hat even has a different view then hers.

Like during the Tea party movement I couldnt stand hearing her call those people (tea Baggers every other sentence)
Those people were just exercising their American right to disagree with a direction.

I see why she has the lowest rated show then all the other political news commentary shows out there.

straitshooter – Is that all you got? The girl is thorough and admits mistakes. Your bias is evident in singling out any and all perceived slights/mistakes from the left while ignoring the avalanche and hate and nonsense from the right.

I stay away from commenting on those on the right engaged in hate speech and self promotion because those odious practices are destructive and counter productive to our American Democracy, and prefer to comment on those who are earnestly contributing to a better society for all of us.

Rachel runs circles around every interviewer in the MSM in her preparation, and shouldn’t even be mentioned in the same sentence with those to whom you apparently share some degree of affection.

I don’t watch Beck or Hannity because I too can’t stomach the hate on the right. Similarly, Olbermann’s hate from the left is equally appalling. Whenever Maddow gets a GOP guest, I do enjoy watching the spirited back and forth. However, she lost a lot of credibility because she took so long to own up to the Limbaugh mistake. This is not perceived, it’s confirmed. Everyone else in print and on TV has admitted they screwed up big time. Rachel? Well, we were wrong, but we were wrong about an a-hole, so I’m still smug and delightful!

Isn’t rachel maddow keith olbermanns nephew ?

straightshooter – Speaking of one quote misattributed to Rush, I’m so glad the media and his supporters had that to hang their hat on, rather than having to justify the thousands of comments denigrating minorities and women that I’ve personally heard with my own ears.

I used to travel a lot and took his admonishment to heart about people critical of his show that didn’t listen, at least until his Father Coughlin/Joe McCarthy act grew tiresome and he started messing with my karma.

9er – Attracted, aren’t you? Come on.

Glenn Beck is a conscious, habitual liar and a raving lunatic. Rachel Maddow is not. Nice false equivalency fallacy, by the way.

Once again MacNicol proves she’s allergic to elementary logic and reason.

You’ve got to be kidding. Maddow is extremely intelligent and explains concepts lucidly and cogently. She admits when she’s wrong and allows people of differing opinions their say. She’ll debate without rancor or acrimony. Beck is certifiable. His rants make no sense and his appeal are to those lunatics whose baser instincts and prejudices are satisfied. To suffer him for more than 15 minutes is to anesthetize the brain.
McNicol’s premise is faulty and logic specious. Nothing comparable at all.

> His rants make no sense

That’s what scares me about Beck. He’s pretty good at taking different things that absolutely have no connection with one another, then slap them together and present them in a way that makes sorta sense to the audience. It’s less about facts and more about emotional response. It’s not until you watch him keeping in mind that he’s a complete idiot that you begin realize how everything he says is just complete trash and ridiculous.

Yes — Beck’s entertaining presentation of news has resulted in:

ACORN being defunded
Van Jones being ousted
Exposing NEA

Hmmmmmmm.

This is really why they hate him so much. He gets results.

Jim, the fact that Rush sucks is exactly the point here. Maddow only makes herself look bad when she shreds journalistic standards because the subject of the shredding is a blowhard.

I’m sure Maddow has moments in her past that she regrets. As long as I focus on those moments and convince myself she’s not a good person, does that mean I can conjure up quotes and use them to malign her?

You lack the ability to judge her objectively, and surely by now you realize you got no shot at getting in her pants.

ChickaBOOMer: Phallucy
http://chickaboomer.blogspot.com/2009/10/phallucy.html

Oh, PLEEESE!! Don’t insult my all time favorite, NUMBER ONE rock star of Opinion Journalism, Glenn Beck! On Madcow’s best day she can’t compete with GB in any way. I wonder how many people actually sit down and watch her drivel for a full hour every day? ugh!

Jim R says:
October 27, 2009 at 3:36 pm

Am I to understand, Jim, that despite Maddow being proven wrong on her quotes… by ignoring the journalistic principals even a commentator should maintain… by failing to actually apologize for promoting a lie, and evidently doing no research to prove or disprove it… it’s all okay to you because it was about Rush?

Just as long as you admit Maddow is a conscious liar, I guess we’ve made progress. Why that makes her better than anyone else, I’m not sure.

Gianrico says:
October 27, 2009 at 5:38 pm

She admits when she’s wrong…

As I’ve proven… no she doesn’t. You disagree… tell me why. Why does Maddow’s lie and then non-correction, allow you to say she “admits when she’s wrong,” when she clearly doesn’t?