The Los Angeles Times has "admitted" that its editorial page is "center left".

Even so, the editorial's characterization of 'center-left' is somewhat puzzling. Being against the war and for the surge hardly seems center-left, just a tad irrational. Backing Antonio Villaraigosa might have been a liberal choice, but backing Arnold Schwarzenegger, the man who has threatened to slash the pay of state workers to generate some badly needed cash rather than raise taxes on the wealthy? Equally as puzzling is the characterization of the editorial board's stance on the Fourth Amendment violations of the current administration and on the death penalty as 'Libertarian.'

The editorial makes sense only if one realizes how far to the right the GOP has moved the marker. That a major newspaper has bought into that movement is far more telling that its claim to be 'center-left.'"

NBC is Center-left
(they ask people if they think Obama is anti-Christ! Liberal yes but not without the rights influence)

I don't think Maddow is a lefty but DEAD CENTER!

ARMED WITH JUST COMMON SENSE KNOWLEDGE AND FACTS.

Facts arise from investigation. Commonsense knowledge is that thing you need to overcome in order to investigate anything. Are we saying we're getting Rachel Madow's folk wisdom and calling it fact?

Sure, sure she makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, too.

Stanford grad? Rhodes scholar? Informed opinion? Bring it on!

MSNBC is in the tank for the left and Saint O. Trying to compare Joe Scarborough to those two is a joke. I think two watch Joe in the morning and he far from a right winger unlike the lefty's in Matthews, Olberwoman and now Maddog.

I used to enjoy Rachel Maddow as a breath of fresh air - someone intelligent enough to have insights into the political process and unafraid to express her views. However, since she jumped in the tank for Obama I find her insufferable. She gives no pretense of any balance, simply attacking Hillary and anyone else getting in her hero's way. I can't understand how an intelligent person can swallow Obama hook, line and sinker without so much as a question about his credentials, his competency, his character. Giving her a show is redundant-we already have Olbermann and Matthews worshipping Obama ad nauseum.

"since she jumped in the tank for Obama I find her insufferable. She gives no pretense of any balance, simply attacking Hillary and anyone else getting in her hero's way."

Exactly. Let's get real. I favored Obama, too, but only in order to get rid of those mendacious plutocrats, the Clintons.

Obama hasn't delivered either--worse yet, he can't even get over himself enough to appeal to the populist constituencies he hasn't won yet.

I guess he's leaving it up to Queen Hypocrite HRC to put on a little show for him at the convention. If he does go that route, that will put the nails in the coffin of this self righteous fraudulent little prick-on-the-make as far as I'm concerned.

At least lie and steal your own votes, you know what I mean?

Hillary has been in this same shitty service position all her adult life. With a little luck she'll grab the needle and pull! before next Tuesday.

Lord knows, I would.

ummm . . . this is unscientific and merely anecdotal--i being the anecdote--but from my observation it's not just that msnbc's commentators are as slanted as fox's but msnbc hardly ever has anyone not parroting the party line on the air. fox, however slanted most of its mainliners are, at least lives up to it's name of "balanced" if not always fair as they usually have someone on to fight with their regulars. all chris matthews, rachael maddow, and the raving lunatic sports announcer put on is basically each other and clones of each other. except for pat buchanan, of course, because being the 1924 isolationist nativist he is, he doesn't like the present war.

come on msnbc, you used to be my web page. i don't even look at your pure propaganda any more.

keevan d. morgan, chicago

really, i know how to use an apostrophe and not with its and it's. i must blame any mistakes on automatic type-ins from the computer, not my writing skills, if any.

keevan d. morgan

in order to get the job, she also had to lie about hillary during the primaries.

she must be so proud

To have liberals on the teevee is a great thing, but only if they're independent thinkers rather than Kool-Aid drinkers of whatever flavor their channel (or mentor) is selling.

Maddow's leap onto the "Hillary wants Obama to be assassinated" bandwagon excludes her from the former category.

It would just be nice if any
cable network, would slow down, present some hard facts, and then have a civil discussion about that topic.
Every network is pushing an agenda, and it is not constructive. Everything is not a debate.
Correct information is what is needed. We can take it from there.

Wow... always love to read comments from people in the *know.*
I suspect few of those attacking Ms Maddow, have ever listened to her. They've possibly seen her on TV, but I doubt heard a word she said.
The difference between Ms Maddow & *the rest,* is that she doesn't lie. She doesn't make up stuff to further her perceived *agenda.*
She does impeccable research, and if one is willing to hear what she says, one will learn a lot.
And unlike most on Air America, she didn't (as stated in one comment) go after Hillary. She just commented on what she saw, and never suggested that Hillary withdraw.
It's great that there'll be a rare Progressive, Olbermann being the other, to share the airwaves with the Right-dominated *rest.*
America wins when they can see/hear diverse opinion.

The difference between Ms Maddow & *the rest,* is that she doesn't lie. She doesn't make up stuff to further her perceived *agenda.*

Maybe not, but she sure as heck had no problem buying into an appalling anti-Hillary lie (the RFK "assassination" smear) that others made up to further their agenda.

Swift Loris: "an appalling anti-Hillary lie (the RFK "assassination" smear) that others made up to further their agenda."

I agree. Just because Sen. Clinton cited the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy as a reason to continue her increasingly long-shot bid for the Democratic nomination doesn't mean anyone should be so tacky as to point it out.

thank you jon, i totally agree.

the angry hrc fans on here can go about your anti-obama bashing as you want (i hope you enjoy 4 years of mccain!), but please at least do your research on rachel maddow before you slam her.

as she has herself noted, half of her hate mail comes from people who think she's in the tank for hrc and half comes from people who think she's in the tank for obama (something you would know if you ever actually listened to her show). i am an obama fan and i found it annoying at times that she did not do more to point out the catastrophe of hrc. however, all she ever did was report the truth as she saw it, about both candidates (and even now, she is certainly not a hard core obama fan, something she has made clear in interviews). that is so rare these days that i think it's a shame for you all to allow your blind adoration of hrc to obscure that rachel maddow is a great, fresh, progressive voice and i'm so thrilled her time has come.

also, if the situation had been reversed on the rfk assassination comment, you people would have been crowing about it from the roof tops.

i know this will earn me a lot of negative responses and that's fine, take your anger out on me, i don't care. but hrc lost, deal.