Again, Rachel needs to know why what she said is not appropriate. It isn’t so much the information that USAID was expanded, in fact that information would have been very appropriate. But the information that we should be thankful for the new administration for expanding it as opposed to the older administration which outright frozen it is not needed right now. It seems as if Rachel had completely missed out why what she said was entirely wrong at the time.

Was her statement factually correct? Yes, but it was not needed at the time. It is still not needed.

Personally, I thought TDS threw Maddow into the tail-end of their thing for balance and because she had an easy clip to pull.

Agree with Snipzor….

Madcow did miss the point. Touting USAID is one thing, but dredging up the past government leadership is the equivelent to Pat Robertson dredging up the past in reference to Haiti.

Both Robertson and Madcow voiced opinions that were inappropriate and both opinions were spoken by fools.

Don’t you just love when biased liberal so-called journalists show us there really is trouble in paradise AND that they are incapable of letting go of political obsessions?!Even after a disaster MSDNC has to bash the previous administration and worship the current one?Maddow is no more a “journalist” than Stewart.Once you cross the bias line you become irrelevent as a source of news.Opinion makes your “news” un-newsworthy.

I’ll throw this out there. I believe both Maddow and Stewart are ‘non-journalists’. So one non-journalist critiquing another.

Maddow is an anchor, commentator or television host. Her role by definition is to gather news (sometimes self written and/or prepared by others) and presents them to the audience. TV Entertainment.

I beleive Maddow has a degree in public policy and doctorate in political philosophy. I don’t think she actually has a degree in journalism.

If someone can determine that Maddow has studied/degreed in journalism let us know. That would be important in terms of ethics.

HAhahahhAHAHHQhahahahaHAHA “Madcow”!!!11 HAhahahaHAHAHAHaa lololOLOLOL!!!11

Agree with Magister (or should I say, “mega-dittoes”?). Besides, Jon Stewart’s shot at Maddow was mild… pretty much limited to “yes, but not now.” This response was just as mild. Their audiences significantly overlap, so she had to address Stewart’s comments on some level, but this isn’t going to be the new Stewart v. Carlson.

In fact, expect Maddow to pop up again on TDS in the near future to settle everything, maybe during the Olympics when MSNBC will turn into Olympic Multicast outlet #4… assuming The Daily doesn’t take those weeks off as well…

Maddow IS a journalist who happens to be a liberal.

I agree with CACTUS. She had to address it, she did, that will be the end of it.

Uhhhhh.. she ain’t the only one going down that road now.

The two sacred cows of liberal media going at it… interesting.

MSNBC sure could use the publicity, their ratings suck.

But I thought Jon Stewart was just a lowly comedian? Why did Rachel Maddow lower herself to his level?

“Retaliates” Really?

Comedian or not, people watch and listen to Jon Stewart’s opinion. And many of his viewers do think he has a point–a point some wouldn’t have come up with on their own had Stewart not cherry picked something Maddow said and, I think, mischaracterized it. They also have a cross-over audience where lots of viewers watch both shows.

Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow both have the ability to influence their viewers’ opinion. I’m not saying we’re all sheeps and parrots that can’t think for ourselves, but no one would be watching either of these shows if we weren’t either looking for validation for our own point of views or arguments and information that add to or challenge what we already think or know.

Some think no one should be talking about *any* politics at a time like this–including, apparently, Jon Stewart. I disagree, but only with the *any* part. MSNBC should not have aired Pat Robertson’s and Rush Limbaugh’s remarks. That was inappropriate politicization and that is what Jon Stewart should have called foul on. Rachel Maddow discussing the difference in the way the previous administration and the current administration treats the State Department and USAID and why that matters in our response to the disaster in Haiti was an appropriate political commentary.

People DO need to know why who we elect to run the government is extremely important. Right before the earthquake in Haiti hit, the big topic was that “Game Change” book as if gossip and personal matters is what matters in elections. What should matter in elections is how candidates will legislate, make policy and you know, GOVERN if they’re elected.

@GrrlRomeo: “MSNBC should not have aired Pat Robertson’s and Rush Limbaugh’s remarks. That was inappropriate politicization and that is what Jon Stewart should have called foul on.”

That would be “shooting the messenger”. If Robertson’s and Limbaugh’s comments would’ve gone unreported if not for MSNBC, sure… you could blame MSNBC for giving them a bullhorn. But since both of them have their very own bullhorns, however, I don’t think it’s fair game to blame someone for casting their comments in a negative light.

To do this would be to encourage bigots to spew on their venom, knowing that responsible media outlets would be castigated for exposing them. That would be terrible policy.

I agree with Cactus. Like it or not Rush and Robertson’s comments are news. Maddow’s comment however
had nothing to do with the story and everything to do with promoting her progressive agenda.(I refuse to call
it ‘liberal’ anymore after Ed ‘ I see nothink!’ Schultz’s comments elsewhere.

@Cactus It is unfortunate that Rachel Maddow played that clip of Pat Robertson before interviewing the Haitian Ambassador prompting the Ambassador to feel he needed to respond to it. An embarrassing unintended consequence for sure.

It’s also unfortunate that Keith Olbermann commented on Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh before interviewing Hatian-American Pras Michel prompting him to ask Keith what Rush Limbaugh said.

I think it is embarrasses us, the US, when the mainstream media airs these terrible, insensitive comments at a time when Haitians and Haitian-Americans are tuning in to get news about the disaster affecting their country, family and friends. People are tuning in who don’t usually watch MSNBC or pay attention to Limbaugh or Robertson. MSNBC might be the only place they’ve ever seen Robertson or Limbaugh and they might actually think that MSNBC owns those comments.

I’m not saying MSNBC should stop reporting and responding to what Limbaugh and Robertson say altogether. I’m an avid MSNBC viewer, and I do want liberals to continue calling out conservative media. But in this particular instance, it should have been left for another day.

I believe Mediaite changed the headline on this story: Pretty sure. Originally it read:

“Rachel Maddow Retaliates Against Unlikely Foe, Non-Journalist Jon Stewart”

I wonder what prompted the change?

Someone snatched someone by the ear and said: “Who do you want to tork off more? Rachel Maddow or Jon Stewart?!?!” they changed it soon afterwards.:P

And here I thought it was odds of winning the lottery for Mediaite to alter/correct headlines. Why win the lottery on taking out “non-jounalist” from the HL?

as for questions Rachel Maddow’s credentials….she graduated from Stanford. She was also a Rhodes scholar.

I think she does good work as a journalist, and UNlike other news shows which put forth opinions along with it (like everything on Fox), she makes it VERY obvious when what she is saying is her own opinion.

…frankly, yeah, it’s good for ratings for her to respond to a Daily Show jab. Don’t act like she’s the only one who has done it! That’s just silly.