As for Rachel Maddow, I like her. She approaches issues on a somewhat more intellectual level that Olbermann. She is both informed and articulate which is a hell of a lot more than anyone can say about ANYONE at Fox.

I’ll still watch MSNBC when I’m looking for a little infotainment. I can at least stand listening to them even when I disagree with what’s being said. Fake News just gets me fuming.

Where is the MSNBC equivalent of Fox’s racism and advocacy of assasination?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From his Wikipedia page:
“Schultz’s News and Views radio show was very similar to his WDAY Viewpoint program and quickly grew into a regional broadcast dominating the North Dakota airwaves, with additional listeners in South Dakota, western Minnesota, Montana, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. Schultz’s political views leaned towards the right during the early years, and Schultz told the Los Angeles Times that he “lined up with the Republicans because they were anti-tax, and I wanted to make a lot of money….” Schultz pondered a run as a Republican for the U.S. House of Representatives against Democratic Rep. Earl Pomeroy in 1994, but decided against it after visiting with state Republican leaders.

Evolution of political views

In the late 1990s, several events occurred which he said changed his attitude. One was his mother’s illness. A former educator, she got Alzheimer’s Disease and began a long, slow decline. Schultz found it frustrating trying to get her the services that she needed. The other was that he met a psychiatric nurse named Wendy who ran a homeless shelter in Fargo. He attributed much of his political change to her, and although he had frequently made fun of the homeless on his show, he said in his book that she helped to humanize them; to his surprise, he found some of the people he had insulted were veterans, and many were unable to get the psychiatric or medical services that might help them. He says that began to look at poverty differently. (Schultz 9-10) In June 1998, they were married, the second marriage for each.

While he claims to have become a Democrat in 2000, the political evolution seems to have been gradual. He went out to do radio promotions in rural parts of North Dakota, and told reporters about how he met farmers who were suffering and hard-working people who were going hungry, even though Republicans said the economy was doing fine. (Vowell 2004) He began to hold benefits to raise money for people in the heartland who were going through tough times. (Winter 2002) And he began questioning some of the assertions of George W. Bush; although he supported several Republican candidates in the 2000 election, he was becoming critical of other Republicans. For example, Schultz considered running for the Democratic-NPL party nomination for governor against incumbent Republican John Hoeven in 2004, but decided to continue his career in radio.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And from the discussion page:
“This article requires better structure and expression. The “Political Views” section needs to be expanded, with verifiable evidence to support the assertions made. I’ll try and find some time to do it myself, but I’ve tagged it anyways. Any assistance with this would be most appreciated. Jackk 11:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the political views section is a little misleading. Ed is a little more conservative and that is why I like him but “against abortion” makes it sound like Ed is not Pro-Choice, which he is according to his producer. And Ed is for gay rights, although I’m not sure of his position specifically on gay marriage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.132.39.166 (talk • contribs) .

Under political views, “against guest worker programs” is cited as a departure from progressive politics . . . a large proportion of liberals are opposed to guest worker programs, as they are harmful to unions and lower-class citizens; guest worker programs have typically been a conservative movement in the recent past, spearheaded by the president himself . . . again, this whole section needs cleaned up.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And If I’m looking for honest, moral commentators, liberal or otherwise, I’d pick Olbermann and Maddow over everyone at Fox News any day.

Olbermann may definitely be liberal, but at least he doesn’t repeatedly lie, doesn’t yell at and insult his guests (looking at you Hannity, Limbaugh, and O’Reilly), and isn’t at all a fear-mongering, racist, homophobic, bigoted, misogynistic, or all around stupid hack like most Fox anchors. Dear god, have you ever seen “Fox and Friends”? Its embarrassing to know that so many of my fellow humans watch that drivel.

MSNBC = (left-leaning, professional, mature)
Fox News = (a whole leap to the right, frothing at the mouth, xenophobic, attack-dog garbage)

As for Michale Smerkonish, the man has no charisma at all. He’s of no use as a TV host.

As for Racheal Maddow, I’d say that her show generally sucks. The main problem is that the show has very little content. It’s just spin, fluff and sarcasm. Maddow has only really had like one good show: that interview she landed with Meghan McCain. Even on that interview, I’d say she screwed it up by not asking Ms. McCain any questions that might have pitted her against the GOP.

That being said, I defy anyone to show that Keith Olbermann is as much of a liar as Bill O’Reilly.