usually at 9 Eastern, 8 Central. The show involves a woman named Rachel Maddow, who is something like a commentator on political matters in the United States of America. She generally sits behind a desk and explains an issue. She may then interview a guest about that same issue. Let me be clear: this show appears on the television, which is the electronic device commonly kept in one's living room or sometimes bedroom, and which shows programming broadcast from various studios. It used to be that people received a television signal through the airwaves, but mostly now people receive a digital signal through a cable line or some sort. One connects this line through the wall to the television.

Anyhoo. Ms. Maddow, who is, let's recall, the host of this particular political commentary show, decided to discuss an organization called Organizing for Action, which is the transformed version of Barack Obama's campaign organization. Barack Obama is the President of the United States of America. His campaign organization is the group that helped him be elected to this position. This group is now re-organized as Organizing for Action; they are going to be used to put pressure on politicians, particularly those in Congress.

So, what had happened was...OFA sent out an email to its list of supporters asking them to call Congress. This was - in Maddow's view - the big "roll-out" or launch of this new organization. But that launch email happened at 4:25 on a Friday - when no Congressperson would presumably be there. Ms. Maddow spent 10 minutes on this, upset for some reason. She then interviewed a communications professional who actually does this sort of thing for a living - that would be Bill Burton - and he told her she was being ridiculous, though in a far more diplomatic way. My original post on this matter was noting the rather difficult task that Ms. Maddow accomplished, appearing to be both a nitpicker and as somebody who doesn't know what she's talking about at all.

Hope that helped!

Your synopsis is accurate.

Can you explain how to change the starter on a 2004 Toyota Tacoma, 2-wheel drive?

And it wasn't offered in the Bel Air with a four-barrel carb till '64. However, in 1964, the correct ignition timing would be four degrees before top-dead-center.

Last edited Tue Jan 29, 2013, 10:22 AM - Edit history (1)

The small block Chevy, one of the all-time best engines (265, 283, 327), and still being used in some form. And how's Vinny?

(That movie is fuckin' awesome)

they they really were not going all in on the gun control fight.

That aside, I found the next segment, on the republican controlled states doing away with income taxes and going to a higher sales tax to be truly disturbing.

It really is helpless.

They just keep spewing their bullshit unchecked nationally, while at the state level they find ways to have people smile and happily chow down on the shit sandwiches they can't whip up fast enough.

Either way, thanks for the laugh.

My email came in at 12:03pm.

drawing on both Ilya Prigogine's From being to Becoming and E.P. Thompson's Time, Work Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism. They were, unfortunately, left on the cutting room floor. It was a beautiful song, but it ran too long, as the Long Islanders say.

demonstrating vast amounts of snark, as you have just done, is another.

Someone asking for an explanation of an obscure post is not insulting you, nor are they demonstrating ignorance.

You were simply asked to explain what you thought was nit-picking and "know-nothing." A valid request for people who didn't see the segment.

Your response was completely out of proportion to the non-insulting, non-snark question.

Because your original post was lacking in usable information.

Quite a smart assed response to a relatively innocuous question... kudos for that

I'll stay in Ms. Maddow's corner.

bravo. braaaavo.

and see it on her Video of her show on MSNBC. I can't explain it here. Basically its about us calling our representatives and senators in mass on a issue to we support (such as gun control). The email went out on 4:30 pm on a Friday. She thought the time was kind of late in the day and on a Friday. That was basically it. As usual Maddow explains it better.

nt

knowing that Bush stole the election via the Supreme Court?

I remember she used to say she wanted someone to talk her down. We all did.

the Ontario Federation of Agriculture? Makes no sense.

you mean she asked him questions?

So, needless to say, should any of the Unrighteous Heretics dare to ask any question at all, I will immediately attack that person, and portray him or her as being a violent attacker of Dear Leader and all He stands for!

There, I saved you the effort and just went straight to your eventual point.

I was a full donor to Obama in his first term, and did a bunch of other stuff, and because of that I got OFA pronouncements DAILY on "The Latest Outrage!" I was cheerily cheered to "man the phones!" "send us money!" After reading enough Outrage Templates, I told them to quit running an Activity Treadmill, that Obama supporters were not their monkey army, that The Democratic Party Leadership should unite around the merits of their own arguments and do their fucking jobs right there in Washington.

I made the point that if citizens have to constantly prod and poke reps to get them to vote the greatest good for the greatest number, whatever the hell we have is more like do-it-yourself democracy than representative democracy.

Being asleep and unaware about politics is bad, sure. But being constantly prodded to "action" to nag people who make ten times what 95% of us do -- and often won't even show up to conduct The People's business -- strikes me as naive. Joining this "Action" group just won't do it for me. Those of you who join, let me know how it works out for you. Just my opinion.

Believe me, representatives are meeting with interested parties all the time. If we only show up once every 2 - 4 years, then we can't ask ourselves why our leaders are so awful. Politics needs constant action, and if the other side is the only one that shows up, then they win by default.

to do. If they are so fucking awful without others doing their motivation for them they should not take the pay, and their defenders should not whine when it is pointed out that other adults do their jobs without hand holding and sweet notes of encouragement from Mommy.

if politicians were just great people doing the darn best they could for their country. But taking your ball and going home because you don't like the fact that politicians act like most human beings is a good way to let the country fall apart. If you want to get things done politically, you're going to have to deal with politicians. You can also try to find candidates on our side that will stick to their guns no matter what, but those are few and far between, and getting them elected is going to take even more work.

politicians IF they would deal with me. But there is NO evidence that they listen to the phone polls of their offices. There is NO response that isn't canned. These guys spend their time in Washington figuring their Bribe/Vote Ratio for every bill. I'm not going to be a desperate David in the David vs. corporate Goliath buyout battle that is part of their auctioneering.

and they have their staff keep a record of what constituents are saying. I'm not sure what an individual call is worth for an individual bill, but I imagine it's more effective than an individual vote in changing things. Yeah, Reps spend a lot of their time talking with backers, and have their staff gauging constituants - this will continue until people pay attention to how much reps are in election mode, and try to elect people that aren't like that instead. I'd be happy to give reps a pay cut, but as long as they have any salary, they're going to use some to answer the phone and keep track of constituents (and they often use free labor - interns - for that task).

I'm on the OFA list but it doesn't seem that bad. Sure, they send somewhat often, but if you don't have time to make a call there's no obligation to. I prefer the organization keep people in the loop and let them do what they can when they have time. Sure, it's a reminder that a constant battle is being waged, but a constant battle has to be waged if we want change in this country.

then such close monitoring means that we've got overpaid assistants instead of reps. A quarterly poll from constituents should sufficiently gauge their positions.

Every time I get a letter begging for money for them to do their goddamned jobs which they use our tax dollars for it just twists my gut a little bit more. We vote them in and then they get a great salary and health benefits on our dime and then they're acting like doing their jobs is just another reason to demand more money from us.

..Thank you for summing it up so well and so clearly. It's all little more than a clearly calculated way for them to abdicate responsibility when things don't get passed especially when they don't get passed because of Democratic party disarray or a failure to unite around a solid, Democratic principle.

I don't know if it is the overly competitive eagerness of younger party members, social media, or the fact that values have changed?

I try to patiently remember that most of these young people grew up in "ME" generations, or gained a lot of their illusions about politics from watching "The West Wing".

The Dems want it just as badly as the Republicans, but they need to pretend that they don't and pretend that they're not beholden to those interests. That's why it's much easier for them to make Republicans the scapegoats for why they can't get anything done. Now don't get me wrong a good chunk of the time they are at fault and they are blocking. But on the other hand there have been too many times where the dems are content to just let it happen and only put a half hearted effort into stopping them.

I've heard both sides of this one, and I'm not motivated to get involved, nor am I motivated to rip on it.


One of the huge concerns I have about this is how how they plan to allow for access to resources OFA wishes to offer to organizers.
Apparently, they plan to offer free access to voter files if a chapter (or whatever organizing unit they are breaking it down into) raises a certain tier level of money, and they've also discussed providing or paying for office space if a larger tier is reached. Which means essentially that having access to money, fundraising, etc makes access cheaper or free?

A lot of things aren't clear about OFA, including what they intend to disclose to the public. Having another level of t*rd polishing just isn't going to get me that excited either.

what you're talking about but OFA is a good thing.

Good on Bill Burton for explaining it to her, patiently.

He was respectful, because being slammed by the most respected journalist on TV today is something he'd better address. There was no patience about it.

As for Burton's fake-ass explanation, OFA has ALREADY tested its entire operation through the last four years of online so-called 'activism.' If, after they've gotten criticized for not being more than electronically activist -- if after they've collected four years of suggestions by email recipients about what they could DO better -- they want to take their show on the road, to announce it on a Friday -- to a youthful demographic, of all groups -- really is pretty stupid.

Rachael is totally right. We'll see just what kind of action Burton takes OFA through at state levels where the real battles are being waged right now.

And, good for them being alive and well and getting us President Obama. And, bring it for 2013, 2014 and beyond.

...decide what issues to tackle.

I think they are currently sorting out how they are going to do this exactly. Whether this is viable for the long tern remains to be seen.

What I have seen is them getting it from both sides. I hope they can become something that has some huevos. But I can see why people might be skeptical.

all they want. I know how far they've come in building their ground game. I can see that the First Lady and the President are happy about how good Organizing For Action is turning out.

I don't understand why it's bad to coalesce and rally voters who are concerned with the same issues, and some of us voters do need a little nudging. If some don't, then that's great also.

The "youthful demographic" you speak of here has taken over to some degree.

Why are there now "Democrats Under 40" groups, "Senior Democrats", and "Second Generation Colorado Democratic Descendants of Arapaho Indians Who Graduated From Taft High School in Los Angeles" groups?

Not too long ago, it was just the Democratic Party, everyone of all ages worked together, and there weren't all these damned social groups.

We just all got it done.

Rachel Maddow is the best we got on tv, hands down

I think she is very intelligent and I like the way she explains things.

frustrated and annoyed me, but there's no one I trust better to give historical context to current issues. Rachael bashing in this case is unwarranted.

Her droll humor at its best

all about her on any issue. She doesn't care about the people.

cause some to snap at the source of the criticism. Rachel is now in the dog house for her perceived impertinence

Some of it doesn't conform to the purity circle that a subset of DU has erected.

can understand like me.

I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means "put down" - Bob Newhart

Who knows? Maybe they intended to fill up congressional voice mail boxes to piss them off.

Just caught that segment on podcast. It was the opposite of what you said. She was right about the failed timing and he was on the defensive looking a little sheepish

Who's running the organization? They want to do online organizing by didn't register their own domains?

I don't think it will be that much of a problem in the long run, but it's somewhat bizarre they overlooked it.