Upcoming

- Weekdays - 6pm
- Sunday - 2pm
- Monday - 6pm

Today's TRMS

By Vanessa Silverton-Peel

Doesn't McCain just have the most wicked sense of humor?! And yes we mean wicked, not in the Bostonian way, but in the "of the West" kind of way. Especially now that he has publicly tried to persuade his wife to compete in a topless beauty pageant at a biker rally in South Dakota. Now, what would Nancy Reagan do...?

On today's show Rachel will be talking to Greg Sargent from Talking Point Memo about the thousands of dollars Hess Corporation-- an oil company-- funneled into McCain's campaign just around the time of his pro-offshore drilling announcement.

And then Paul Rieckhoff from Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America joins us to talk about the $300 million granted to study post-traumatic stress disorder

 

Comments

(67)

Family Values?

McCain's obvious misogyny is always front and center, but this time his actions are so horrendous, so insulting that I want to slam his tiny little head into the nearest wall. Why the MSM is not covering this represents just one more example of our Liberal media at work.

I say we call McCain and the Republicans on the way they conduct themselves, both in general and with women. Now THAT is an issue in this election!

By Polly TicsAugust 5, 2008 - 4:18pm

McCain

Rachel, can't the ACLU sue McCain for these comments? After all, they insult all womynkind. I bet he is the type of husband who forces his wife to shave her legs and underarms.

By I Love Jane FondaAugust 5, 2008 - 6:15pm

To I Love Hanoi Jane

My gf makes me shave my chin.

Love,
HR

By Half RepublicanAugust 5, 2008 - 7:31pm

racism

It seems to me Obama has innoculated himself from future racial attacks by making his statement about not looking like others on the dollar bill. McCain's reply denying any racial intent keeps him from being able to do that later. I think it was a great move on Obama's part to have done that now before McCain or Swiftboater types can get geared up.

By don morrisAugust 6, 2008 - 10:01am

Quick note about the energy policy discussion being "drilling."

Rachel mentioned recently that the McCain campaign has recently hijacked the energy policy discussion by turning it entirely into "to drill or not to drill."

I think they've done more than that. I think they've also turned the economy issue into "to drill or not to drill." It seems like almost every discussion of the economy gets boiled down to high gas prices. So instead of talking about real economic issues, it just becomes "We need to give the American people some relief at the pump."

The economy is supposed to be a winner for Democrats, but McCain is taking it away with this tactic.

By Jason M. BryantAugust 5, 2008 - 4:55pm

Well, lower gas prices means

Well, lower gas prices means people can go places for less money, and the more money in their pockets allows them to spend more money.

Increasing the supply of oil would lower the demand of oil (and lower the price of gas), according to the LOSD.

Now, there is more to energy than oil, and there is more to the economy than oil, but oil is the source of the most pressing issues on the minds of millions of Americans.

By DAWUSSAugust 5, 2008 - 5:58pm

Except that increasing the

Except that increasing the supply would not lower the price. Oil companies already have supply they're not using. The off shore drilling they're asking for is a tiny, tiny amount compared to what the world uses. Drilling wouldn't have any significant affect on supply.

So no, drilling would not help the economy. But they've got people believing it will, which means they're stearing the issue in a direction that's unproductive but will get votes.

By Jason M. BryantAugust 5, 2008 - 6:13pm

Allow me to elaborate

Here's a few numbers.

World oil use in 2006: 86,000,000 barrels per day.

Estimate of what the proposed offshore drilling would provide: 200,000 barrels per day.

In other words: A 0.23% increase.

We're going to get a noticable drop in price because supply increased 0.23 percent? No, we are not.

In June Saudi Arabia agreed to increase their oil production by 700,000 barrels per day. That's a lot more than what we're going to get from off shore drilling. But was there any drop in the price of oil when they agreed to that? Nope.

It's a scam.

By Jason M. BryantAugust 5, 2008 - 6:30pm

Jason

It isn't the world consumption that matters, it's the US consumption. Drilling isn't the complete answer, but it would decrease US dependecy in the long run (ten years from now at least), by how much I don't know, but it's a start. Your numbers based on world consumption aren't the issue here.

Love,
HR

By Half RepublicanAugust 5, 2008 - 6:51pm

Re: world oil consumption

Yes, they would be the issue if the companies who do the drilling sell their oil across the globe. And why wouldn't they? I can't see where they'd restrict their earning potential to the U.S. market exclusively.

By chemgirlAugust 5, 2008 - 7:03pm

HR, no, it isn't US

HR, no, it isn't US consumption.

The price for a barrel of oil produced in the US is exactly the same as the price of a barrel of oil we buy from Canada or Saudi Arabia. The price of oil is determined by the supply and demand of the entire world. So yes, world consumption numbers *are* the issue.

But what if you were right? What if we somehow could reduce only the price of oil for ourselves? Well, we use 25% of the world's oil. So that's over 20,000,000 barrels a day. Adding 200,000 barrels a day would be less than a 1% increase, even if we did live in a world where oil prices aren't set on the world market. Do you really think that most Americans think John McCain is talking about reducing the price of gas by only 4 cents?

And yet drilling for more oil has subsumed the entire debate about the economy. That's a serious problem.

By Jason M. BryantAugust 5, 2008 - 7:10pm

Jason

I was not talking about the price of oil, but our dependence on foreign oil. It is just a start. It doesn't matter if the oil companies sell to foreign markets, the point is that the oil isn't coming from the Saudis.

Love,
HR

By Half RepublicanAugust 5, 2008 - 7:32pm

HR...

All of which is completely irrelevant to the point that I was making. If you want to talk about getting off of foreign oil, we can do that. But I had a perfectly legitimate point and you responded by saying that it wasn't relevant.

It is relevant. When asked about the economy, McCain often does talk about "pain at the pump." Whether getting off foreign oil is worth talking about or not, don't say that the things I mentioned don't matter.

By Jason M. BryantAugust 5, 2008 - 7:41pm

Jason

They still don't matter. The dependency on foreign oil affects our price, whether it's from Norway or from the Saudis.

Love,
HR

By Half RepublicanAugust 5, 2008 - 7:44pm

Seriously? Right now we get

Seriously?

Right now we get 7 million barrels a day from the US and 13.7 million barrels per day from other countries. With the proposed drilling, assuming that they actually opened up new refineries, something they haven't done with all the land leases they already have, we'd get 6.8 million barrels a day from the US and 13.5 million barrels from other countries.

So that's 1% less oil coming from foreign countries. And that's going to change gas prices by more than a few cents? Really?

People are being told that this is going to seriouly affect gas prices. Even if you're right, it's still a 4 cent difference.

That's a scam.

By Jason M. BryantAugust 5, 2008 - 7:53pm

Jason

If they did this back in the 70s when it was proposed maybe things would be a little different today. Offshore drilling won't provide any savings for many years. They still have to explore for it. The moratorium ends in Sept I think. McCain wants to leave it to the states to decide if they want coastal exploration. It's just a start. It's something. It might affect the psyche of the middle east to see that the US is moving forward in great hopes of not needing them so much.

Love,
HR

By Half RepublicanAugust 5, 2008 - 8:16pm

No, things would not be

No, things would not be different today. Because there was nothing *to* do differently in the 70s. This moratorium was not enacted until the 80s.

HR, we have 3% of the world's oil, but we use 25% of the world's oil. There is no way we can significantly reduce our dependance on foreign oil just by drilling more. No significant difference.

You're still missing my entire point. I'm not saying that less dependance on foreign oil is a bad thing. Talking about how the world could have been different in the 70s is irrelevant. Talking about how the price of oil is somehow controled by the amount we buy overseas and not set on the world market, that's beside the point.

My point, which was clear from the beginning, is that this *particular* proposal isn't going to provide enough oil to do jack squat about gas prices, yet it's dominating the discussion about the economy.

If you want to actually discuss that, please be less theoretical and actualy provide some numbers showing how a less than 1% change is going to affect anything.

By Jason M. BryantAugust 5, 2008 - 8:25pm

Jason

You originally said that drilling won't have a significant effect on prices. I agree. However, in the very long term, it could have some effect. It will depend on how the amount of actual proven reserves are found, as opposed to theoretical resources. It is better than doing nothing. Yes, the moratorium was enacted in the 80s, but, environmental groups opposed the drilling when it was proposed in the 70s. Now we are 30 years behind and still don't know what's out there. Combine this with other monies for natural resources or renewable resources, throw enough poop against the wall, and something will stick. Maybe it will be a small amount of many efforts that will add up to a difference. I also think that McCain only wants the states to decide, and I doubt the coastal states will go for the drilling, so it's probably a moot argument. Maybe this issue is dominating talks because nothing else of interest has been offered by the candidates. Every article I've read is skeptical about how much it will really save, so I have to wonder what percentage of the public thinks this will significantly cut prices.

By Half RepublicanAugust 5, 2008 - 9:14pm

With all of this bickering...

I now pronounce "Jason and Half Republican", Man and Republican. I hope the ceremony was enjoyable.

By Polly TicsAugust 5, 2008 - 10:39pm

Polly

I am still waiting to consummate this thing.

Love,
HR

By Half RepublicanAugust 5, 2008 - 11:58pm

Looking for oil, WMD

It's worse than a scam. When Republicans say "offshore drilling", they give every appearance of knowing for sure there is oil "right there", "Offshore".

It's like they are looking for WMDs all over again. Tell us where the oil IS and then we can debate drilling.
I don't think they could find where the stink on their finger came from when they woke up with an itchy crack. The seem to be really lousy at finding things, but are always sure they are there.

By deanrddAugust 5, 2008 - 10:22pm

Dean

There are "resources" and "reserves". Some are proven, some are probable, some are unproven. This is scientific and isn't up for wide interpretation and speculation as are intelligence reports.

Love,
HR

By Half RepublicanAugust 5, 2008 - 10:36pm

Proven vs probable

Sorry, the only ones that count are "proven". The last estimate I heard was around 20 billion in "proven" reserves. The US uses over 7 billion a year so that's less than three years of "proven" oil reserves.

Now, from what I have read, the greatest potential site is the Bakken oil fields. Once estimated to have around 3 billion in recoverable oil, the latest estimates are between 270 billion to 503 billion using currently available technology, which includes horizontal drilling, fracturing, and
completion technologies. Of course, this would place Bakken reserves greater than all of Saudi Arabia. What's more, it's not even offshore and is never discussed, and certainly John McCain thinks horizontal drilling is from the "prone" position.

The problem with the Bakken reserve is hydrocarbons within the Bakken have
not accumulated into discrete reservoirs. That means they are spread into more porous rock and shale.

Elm Coulee Field in Montana has doubled it's output three years in a row and now produces 15 million barrels a year. New wells are popping up every few days.

Now for sure, we know there is oil there. The oil sands of Canada are the northern part of the Bakkan formation and we get 20% of our oil from them.

And yet all I hear is "offshore drilling". Neither campaign has enlisted the aid of scientists and engineers to really answer the hard questions.

I can tell you this. Bush has chased out never every reputable scientist in his administration by attempting to pressure them into falsifying data to match current policy. Bush had devastated science in this country worse than what has happened at the DOJ. The American people just don't know it yet, but it's been in every science and engineering publication for the last 8 years. I suspect those scientists won't want to support McBush either.

Hugs and kisses, mmmwha, mmmwha

By deanrddAugust 6, 2008 - 12:34am

Obama - no xmas gifts given to children

It was written that Barack & Michelle did not give gifts to their children--all gifts came from Santa Claus.

By JudyoftoAugust 5, 2008 - 6:51pm

Gifts

Don't Jehovah's Witness also refuse to give birthday and Christmas gifts?

By deanrddAugust 6, 2008 - 12:37am

Paris Hilton responds!

Literally

By Lv99 SlackerAugust 5, 2008 - 7:05pm

Oh, This Ad is GREAT!

And did anybody notice that Paris Hilton's energy policy is actually Barack Obama's actual (as opposed to McCain/MSM soundbite) energy policy...?

Paris Hilton showing a self-mocking sense of humor and actually intelligent policy ideas - who'a thunk it? Yes, I know some of her media people probably actually wrote the ad, but still....

By drdarkenyAugust 6, 2008 - 12:18pm

Hilton

Have to admit - it was well done in a self mocking humourous way. I wonder if this will be the start of a Pat Paulson type campaign throughout the year? Sure would give her something to do.
Maybe she'll come out with her own brand of tire pressure gauges? That'll probably be included in the next ad, if there is one.

Meanwhile Sen. Obama responded to McCain's campaign mocking the tire pressure gauge with this:
--------
He acknowledged that Republicans are now mocking his idea. “This is the kind of thing they do,” he said. “They know they're lying about what my energy plan is. But the other thing is they're making fun of a step that every expert says would absolutely reduce our oil consumption by three to four percent. It’s like these guys take pride in being ignorant.”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/05/1248805.aspx
------------

Don't know how that "pride in being ignorant" line will play but I'm sure glad he used it.

By JTGullsAugust 6, 2008 - 12:26pm

I hope not

I wonder if this will be the start of a Pat Paulson type campaign throughout the year?

I hope not, we already have a "McClown".

By deanrddAugust 6, 2008 - 1:18pm

Unfortunate state of many TRMS SAB members

Several SAB members are suffering from physical ills at the moment. We do not know who we ticked off for these coincident afflictions. As one of the lucky ones who has not (yet?) fallen sick or injured, I offer the following diversion for my colleagues' convalescence--

I spent the past weekend in Cape Cod visiting a couple of friends of mine who are scientists at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) - one is a geochemist, the other a geophysicist. Each of them visited Greenland for research purposes this summer. One of them, Mark, had a media crew with his research team. There will be an upcoming spot on "NOVA" based on Mark's team's research. In the meantime, to see what they were working on - which involves studying climate change - check out this ultracool website. It should provide at least an hour of entertainment to take your minds off your pain:

http://polardiscovery.whoi.edu/expedition4/index.html

The photos are indescribable. Susan, these are for you.

By chemgirlAugust 5, 2008 - 7:22pm

Another diversion for those currently laid-up

This one, for essic:

Mark Oct 14 on your calendar -- DVD release date of the complete third season of "The Partridge Family". You know you've been waiting!

http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Partridge-Family-Season-3/10241

By chemgirlAugust 6, 2008 - 9:21am

I can hardly wait for...

... My Mother, The Car.

:sick:

"Class...class...SHUT UP!!!"--Sister Mary Elephant

By capn_crustyAugust 6, 2008 - 10:23am

thanks for the heads-up

I'll make plans to be out of the country that week

By essicAugust 6, 2008 - 2:15pm

John McCain's presidential request...

John McCain got all excited about becoming the next president, a little too excited. So now he's looking into whether he can order his Depends with a presidential seal embossed on the waistline. He figures presidential-quality Depends are important for national security, especially during those times when he gets a little too excited... :^)

Hooray for whoever tuned up the website. It sure was messed up for a while after the rebuild.

By WellsAugust 5, 2008 - 7:38pm

he might

He might do that, or he might not. Depends.

By deanrddAugust 6, 2008 - 12:38am

The media McCain love affair

Rachel thank you for keeping my head from exploding today. I watched you on “Race to white house” today. I tune in to the show daily but if you’re not on, I flip channels because my stomach can’t take it. It’s become clear you are the lonely sole Democrat media person willing to stand up to the republican pundits.

Today once again the old argument “why isn’t Obama doing better”. You are SO RIGHT he’s not doing better because the media REFUSES to put any focus on Mc Cain. McCain is being successful framing Obama as the illegitimate, BLACK weirdo candidate because the media is going out of their way to help Mc Cain in that effort. Yes, why is it we know what Obama’s eats for breakfast but no one knows Mc Cain’s has 9 homes and wears $425 shoes and divorced his sick wife for the rich beer lady? Where were the photo’s today of the half naked tattoo women at the Mc Cain’s biker rally? I’m sure the Christian right would have loved to see those photos! Can you imagine what the media would have done had Obama attended such a trashy event!! It would have been headline news!! This obvious double standard and love fest for Mc Cain is driving poor dem’s like me to the brink!

Rachel please keep up the fight, it’s depressing and very frustrating times for democrats watching political commentary these days.

By SeattleliteAugust 5, 2008 - 8:40pm

We KNOW McStain

It was a drag. When the commentator kept pounding in the imaginary point, "The public KNOWS McStain, but they don't KNOW Obama", Rachael said, they don't know McCain either, his extravagant shoes and his many houses and other things. She said people know what Obama had for breakfast. She was dismissed and waved away. It was terrible. It was like they were saying, "You don't know what you are talking about", or worse, "So what." "I have already decided it's irrelevant".

Everyone in the country know's Obama's middle name. How many know McShame's? How many know he graduated 5th from the bottom from 899 Cadets from the Navel Academy? The number of planes he has crashed or blew up?

How many knows McCain's horrendous and disgraceful voting record against our troops? Everyone assumes he "supports" the troops.

Who has pointed out that McStain used our soldiers as human body shields in a Baghdad market for a photo op?

By deanrddAugust 6, 2008 - 1:29pm

If Barrack Obama went to Freaknik...

with the Ying Yang Twins, would the MSM notice?

By jayshoemanAugust 5, 2008 - 8:50pm

OT: Gin

Rachel- When discussing martinis the other day, you mentioned not to make it with Bombay Sapphire. My wife loves Sapphire, and thinks that all other gins are of lesser stock. Please, will you expound on gin, and make a few recommendations (I've recently tried 209 and thought it a bit spicier and flavorful than Sapphire, but it made no lasting impression on my SO.)

Thanks!

michael

By mical_kAugust 5, 2008 - 9:46pm

Plymouth, Beefeater or even Tanqueray...

...are the best (traditional) Martini gins; Bombay is for the today's youth. I say, contrast and compare and chose for yourself!

By isthatallthereisAugust 5, 2008 - 10:05pm

It's the 2 gin - 1 vermouth part that made ME gag!

Rachel, please - vermouth is meant to be an accent.... ::gulps, holds down breakfast - barely::

I don't drink anymore so I haven't tried Bombay Sapphire, but I used to drink a LOT of martinis, and the best were made with Bombay Gin. My wife doesn't drink martinis but she does drink gin&tonics - and Bombay Sapphire is her preferred gin for those.

By drdarkenyAugust 6, 2008 - 12:50pm

Eek!

I would have gagged too. My recipe calls for 2 1/2 to 1/2

By cool_princessieAugust 6, 2008 - 6:00pm

Last year's NYT gin review

As used in martinis. Surprisingly, some cheaper ones (Seagram's Extra Dry, Gordon's) ranked higher than some more expensive ones (incl. Bombay Sapphire).

www.nytimes.com/2007/05/02/dining/02wine.html

By chemgirlAugust 6, 2008 - 3:48pm

He's Not Funny...He's Sick!

The Emperor has no clothes. What he does have is undiagnosed and untreated Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Would you want him as Commander-in-Chief of anything? (No, not even Dog Catcher --- I value my animal friends too much!)

By isthatallthereisAugust 5, 2008 - 10:00pm

Stupid questions

Why isn't Obama farther ahead?

What kind of question is that? How about...

Why isn't McCain farther behind?

BTW...Are Jehovah's Witnesses asking why Obama doesn't give his kids Xmas presents? How about...

Does being a POW relate to a majority of Americans? I hear McCain screams the starting line ups of the Green Bay Packers whenever he sees a bowl of rice.

What does this have to do with anything? Why are we spending time on main stream TV to ask these questions? Or at least one set of these questions. Thank you for pointing out the double standard on personal details of the candidates in the MSM.

"If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to." ---Dorothy Parker

By AlbertCatAugust 5, 2008 - 11:00pm

Manchurian?

Maybe it's Manchurian Rice?

By deanrddAugust 6, 2008 - 12:40am

New Member

Hi Rachel (and company)

I just signed up today because I always try to listen to you and so much admire the very pointed segments you
do on Race for the White House and, of course, on Keith O. Your ability to very articulately and QUICKLY put forth profound points under such time constraints - is simply uncanny. Thank you for all you do.

While driving home on a two-hour journey tonight, I was listening to your commentary about McCain's Maverick ad! What a quick trip home it was indeed! I was laughing aloud and knowing that it was a great show because people next to me in their cars were looking curiously at me as I gave my supportive comments & cheers to you:)

Question: you had mentioned a small, plutonium leak that occurred today somewhere in Europe. When I got home, I tried to find it in the news and could not. Can you - or someone on your blog - please tell me where in Europe that occurred? Thanks.

I'm so glad you're out there Rachel.

By marthloisAugust 6, 2008 - 12:05am

Rachel's Nightmare - Hilton for Prez

Totally off topic, but it's Hilton's attack back at McCain http://cdn.funnyordie.com/videos/4178033806

By shivna9August 6, 2008 - 1:05am

But not impossible

Remember Governor Schwarzenegger?

By cool_princessieAugust 6, 2008 - 6:02pm

Keith Olbermann comments

Don't laugh off McCain's comments, this is not laughable but rather insulting. If Obama were to offer his wife up for a "beauty contest" he would be eviscerated. I know that McCain is try to appeal to the "common man", I have been to Sturgis and offering ones wife up for display is hardly PRESIDENTIAL. The discussion of who is ready to lead should end right now. The Democratic party should start with this (hard) and then put more ads on with McCain and Bush in the same frame, tie them together. Either way McCain's Sturgis gaff should kill his campaign; if the Dems are willing to jump on it.

By soberbarAugust 6, 2008 - 3:19am

Voice of Intelligence

Thanks Rachel for being the voice we so desperately need right now. Last night on Race For The White House when you brought up McCain's treatment of his first wife, which I had just recently read about, I swear I heard a collective thud. LOL! I was smiling broadly and in fact still am. Thank God for live tv. The 9 houses and $530 shoes are bad enough, yet he's been painting Obama as the out of touch elitist and no one except you and Keith O. are calling him on it. Also, on Countdown when you and Keith were discussing Teflon John volunteering his wife for the Sturgis Biker Beauty Contest, I was in hysterics, not only because the two of you are very funny, but because I used to work with someone who once went the that Biker Rally with her husband and will never go back! Apparently it's not for the faint of heart...(or Massachusetts democrats). Thanks Rachel! :-)

By CAFAugust 6, 2008 - 7:33am

Shoes

No not the great Zion (Illinois) band from the '70s - John McCain's shoes.

Earlier this year, after reading about the cost of his shoes, i brought this up (among other things) in a little conversation with a GOP fan who was claiming that McCain is "one of the people". The GOPer quickly said tht the shoes are specially made due to his war injuries and hence the cost. I don't now if this is true or not but that sure stopped me in my tracks, especially when a 2nd GOPer answered the same way a few weeks later.

So, Rachel, be careful throwing the shoes into the conversation until that detail is fact checked. I'd hate to needlessly bring up McCain's POW time as that's probably a winning conversation for him in middle America ... unless the Rovian rumour is true about how/why he was shot down in the first place.

On another topic, should I be worried that I too enjoyed Reilly Ace of Spies? It's a bit unnerving that to have the same taste as Uncle Pat about anything. Rachel, do you have any comment one way or the other about the current show, "Spooks"?

... and will the New Zealand Olympic women's soccer team get the backing of TRMS? And, who will get the show's backing on the men's side since Iraq didn't qualify for the event?

By JTGullsAugust 6, 2008 - 11:08am

UK Spy Movies-Television

Normally I can't stand Pat Buchanan at all (part of the reason I don't watch RFtWH, or listen to it on the Green 960 podcast feed) - but I think I might actually enjoy hearing you both talk about your favorite UK spy movies and television shows.

It was great hearing you give THE SANDBAGGERS (available on DVD) a shout-out, starring Roy Marsden (the original Superintendent Dagliesh) as Neil Burnside, D. Ops. for SIS (meant to be MI-6, though never referred to by that name). If new viewers can get past the threadbare old-style UK-television production values (each DVD starts off w/an apology for the poor quality of the saved-to-videotape masters!) , the writing and acting are very strong.

I'd also recommend the BBC versions of John laCarre's novels TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER SPY and SMILEY'S PEOPLE, starring the late great Sir Alec Guiness as British Intelligence officer George Smiley - an unprepossessing little man who vanishes in plain sight and whose noble-born wife cheats on him incessantly, but who is VERY sharp and a dangerous adversary. If possible, get the UK DVDs (Region 2, so you'll need a region-free player) over the US ones, because Paramount (the US distributor for TINKER, TAILOR) and PBS cut a lot from the original BBC versions, some of it quite significant to the plot!

By drdarkenyAugust 6, 2008 - 1:55pm

Best quote of last night's Countdown

Rachel: These pictures are very distracting.

By chemgirlAugust 6, 2008 - 9:01am

I almost swallowed the toothpick in my sandwhich...

LOL, yes I had quite a chuckle over that one as well.

By Polly TicsAugust 6, 2008 - 5:09pm

Same here...

... I was VERY distracted..... telling the wife that maybe we should go to Sturgis after all (we were supposed to go when we attempted to be biker chicks... didn't quite work for us). I had NO idea what Keith was talking about at that moment.

Thank you Rachel for bringing me back to my living room and making me laugh.

By cool_princessieAugust 6, 2008 - 6:05pm

Game on! - Olympics blurbs

(1) US women's soccer loses 2-0 to Norway in qualifying match.

(2) Chinese gov't revokes gold medal speed skater and activist Joey Cheek's visa:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/06/AR200808...

(3) New gymnastics scoring system where a 10.0 isn't perfect - scores can go higher now. "Eleven, eleven, eleven..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/sports/olympics/06scoring.html

By chemgirlAugust 6, 2008 - 10:28am

OBAMA IS FALLING

THE LATEST POLLS MUST HAVE U OBAMA NUTZ NERVOUS ,,,LET IT RAIN MCCAIN !!!!

By demo4mccainAugust 6, 2008 - 12:27pm

RACE CARD

THE RACE CARD GAVE O J A GET OUT JAIL FREE CARD,,, BUT IT WILL COST OBAMA THE ELECTION ,,,JUST WATCH AND SEE AND DONT FORGET TO WHINE U OBAMA NUTZ . LET IT RAIN MCCAIN !!!!!!!

By demo4mccainAugust 6, 2008 - 12:30pm

msnbc worst

i thought rachel was the worse left winging pundet on the show , until that black fag dude with the glasses spoke ...LET IT RAIN MCCAIN !!!!!

By demo4mccainAugust 6, 2008 - 6:45pm

Whistle while you work...

...and listen to TRMS.

About shooting yer ashes into orbit: forgive me if I'm missing the poetry, but aren't we in orbit already?

"Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
Revolving at 900 miles an hour.
It's orbiting at 19 miles a second,
so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power."
(E. Idle)

By Buxtehude_BarbarossaAugust 6, 2008 - 8:16pm

The question is....

..... whose orbit?

Earth orbits around the Sun. The Moon orbits around the Earth. And since the Earth orbits around the Sun, then the Moon also orbits around the Sun.

Now, the Sun orbits around the black hole found at the center of our Galaxy. Did I mention that our Galaxy is heading towards another? Complete obliteration of the galaxies is expected.... but before then, the Milky Way is going to be hit by a cloud of hydrogen... Exciting times!

All we need now is an "official" center of the Universe where it all orbits around.

By cool_princessieAugust 7, 2008 - 10:49pm

Afghanistan

Hello, Rachel Maddow:

Please read at least some part of it on the air. It is concerning your comments on “WHAT is needed to achieve peace in Afghanistan instead of more troops” you made last Friday and this Tuesday.

PREFACE:
I am a “Soviet Jew” that was brought to the United States in September 1989. I am 31 years old now and am moving back to Ukraine (which is unfortunately NOT part of my larger homeland anymore!). But I have only one life and can no longer live in the FOURTH REICH (I never thought I would call this “HOME OF 1776 HEROES” ten years ago!!!!). I have been a U.S. citizen since 1995, but may surrender it. BUT NOT before using it this November to VOTE for OBAMA though the organization “Democrats Abroad” If the Republicans ACTUALLY STEAL the election for a THIRD time, I will surely give up my U.S. citizenship.

BODY: AFGHANISTAN.

You were saying how building infrastructure and goodwill of the population.
WELL, there was SUCH a thing 30 years ago. A socialist government came to power and IBVIOUSLY had the support of USSR.
What did that government do?
-Built schools, universities, (textile) factory.
-Gave FREE education from elementary to UNIVERSITY to boys AND GIRLS. As well as jobs (NOT “pink-collar” EITHER!) 9n the GOVERNMENT.
-Fought THEOCRACY by taking land away from mosques and wealthy landowners to the EXTREMELY DIRT-POOR farmers, who actually worked the land.

SO, WHAT HAPPENED?!?!?!?

The Afghan gov’t was redistributing the land at a VERY FAST PACE. The gov’t of the USSR, remembering the terrible experiences of the Civil War and STALIN’s forced collectivization, advised them to SLOW DOWN!!!!!!
But the Afghani gov’t arrogantly said “That’s OK!”.
WELL……..some of the Islamic leaders SET some fanatic’s(Just like Limbaugh, Savage and Fallwell DO!!!!!) against a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED gov’t!!!

A couple of years before USSR entered, there was an incident, which they DID NOT exploit for the sake of STABIKLITY: one night several Islamic militants broke into a hotel in Kabul and SLICED the throats of 30 Soviet ADVISERS and their FAMILIES!!!!!!(in contrast to the U.S. MAKING UP causes for wars!!!).

WHY DID USSR FINALLY ENTER AFGHANISTAN??!

THREE REASONS:
-To stabilize a government of a country ON its BORDER(unlike U.S. and Vietnam!).

-The opium/heroin spread into the USSR, which before the Afghan War HAD NO DRUG PROBLEM!!!!

-Spread of ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALUSM into the Muslim republics of the Soviet Union:Tadjikistan Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

FEW MORE FACTS:
-First few years of the war, the Soviet soldiers DID LITTLE FIGHTING because most of it was being done by the REGULAR AFGHANI ARMY.

- A FEMALE journalist was AMAZED at a 1983 White House press conference, that the U.S. was going to fund and arm the “Mudjahedin”, who like the TALIBAN wanted to take away WOMEN’S education and other rights.
-USSR was going to “cut their losses” in 1983 and GET OUT of Afghanistan, but “cowboy-president” Reagan had other ideas!!!! Therefore 2/3 of the war casualties*I only know of Soviet soldiers deaths)---meaning 9 000 out of 15 000 ARE ON HIS HANDS!!!!!!!!

So, the CIA and Reagan’s creation of Osama bin Laden WAS NOT THE END!!!!!
About 5 years ago BBC disclosed that Chechen and other Muslim soldiers of the Soviet Army were brainwashed in Afghani and Pakistani POW camps by the CIA and ISI to fight for independence INSIDE USSR when they would be sent back.
I am voting for Obama, WHILE HOLDING MY NOSE, because he picked himself Zbignew Brzezinski---the man Obama picked as his advisor on foreign policy---the person responsible for 15 000 young soldiers’ (almost my peers’) lives.

Afghanistan broke the back of the British Empire, the USSR (which did NOT occupy it!), and it WILL break The Pax Americana Empire! I hope that it will just return to being a REPUBLIC.

By evgeniy77August 6, 2008 - 8:36pm

I don't see it as the same

The difference here is that the US wants to get Bin Laden and al Qaeda. The Soviets and other powers wanted to dominate and turn Afghanistan into a satellite. While no doubt dangerous, it's not the same thing. The US needs a clear attainable goal. Because there never was one in Iraq, it's a total failure. Just read the Iraq constitution. It's a shock that our soldiers should die for such a thing. It makes me weep.

By deanrddAugust 7, 2008 - 9:26am

Please let me disagree with

Please let me disagree with you. The words "make a satellite" were not the sinister phrase that you think it is. Afghanistan WAS ON THE BORDER of the USSR, and I already listed the very serious reasons that the Soviet govt had to support the Afghan democratically elected govt. It makes me weep too for the lives of American soldiers, as I had for the Soviet soldiers, but the sorrow is deeper because 9/11 WAS NOT executed by the creature of CIA---Al qaeda---but by the neocons that, through a coup d'etat, took control of this country. Someone may doubt that, but i am 100% certain of it. I hope that the war criminals will one day answer for their crimes.

By evgeniy77August 11, 2008 - 7:52pm

buffalo chip

from wikipedia:

"A buffalo chip, also called a meadow muffin, is the name for a large, flat, dried piece of dung deposited by the buffalo from the large amount of grass that it eats. Well dried buffalo chips were among the few things that could be collected and burned on the prairie, and so were used by the Plains Indians, settlers and pioneers, and homesteaders, as a source of heat for cooking and warmth."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow_dung

By mrscoll1August 7, 2008 - 9:55am

How to know days Rachel WON'T be on Air America Radio?

Hi Everyone--Great forum here!

I'm new to this forum but would appreciate learning if there is a way to know in advance (schedule somewhere?) days Rachel won't be on air?

I respect and admire her input and insight so much that I find myself sorely disappointed when I tune in here in LA and find it's not Rachel speaking! (no disrespect to her fill-ins).
Today, August 8, I turned the radio on at 3:pm PST) to find NOT Rachel once again :-(

Thanks in advance if anyone can clue me in as to where to look for this so that I may plan my day and schedule accordingly....

By skeptical2August 8, 2008 - 8:02pm

Comments

(67)