Is Randi Losing it?

She seems to be frazzled in terms of attacking people who have a differing opinion even when they are a progressive.

this last guy who thinks too many resources are used for invitro had a valid point - he's entitled to have an opinion. She tried to pin this "anti-man" crap on him trying to put words in his mouth that he opposed invitro because it used a sperm. WTF??? Sometime Randi, I swear...

None of the other hosts have the problems she has and this all seems centered around her large ego.

Progressive, lefty, whatever.

You disagree with him, his response is either
call you a slut, like he did Randi, call you
a witch, like he did a caller, or tell you to
get a life, like he did me.

The guys a farking phony, and a huge asshole
with a monstrous ego.

I lived in Fargo when he was a staunch conservative, only staunch isn't a strong enough word. You think he's an asshole now? You should have seen him then. There is no way he could go from staunch conservative radio/TV personality to moderate democrat radio personality in conservative Fargo without having had an actual change of heart.

Call him what you what, he does have an ego and he can be a jerk, but I really wish people would get off the "he's not a real liberal" stuff. Think he did it because he didn't want to compete with Rush for the conservative listeners? No.

He was married to a news anchor at one point in time but they got divorced. Then he met another woman (not sure how many years later) and she helped the homeless and was a liberal. She showed him that these people are NOT lazy and all that... if I remember correctly. He writes about it in his book.

Oh, he was an asshole when he was a conservative, a real asshole. I remember hearing tons of stories of crap he did -- some maybe true, some maybe not. He was a sports caster on the TV news in addition to his radio gig. I would turn the channel when he came on with the sports. The man was positively loathsome. And now I like him. I don't always agree with him, but I don't have to to like someone.

I can't stand his enormous ego. He gives O'lielly a run for the money in that area. He's got the only "liberal" show that I can't listen to. He also can't make a point to save his life. He just sorta bumbles on and on and it irritates me. Also, he goes so overboard on the "I'm one of the common people" rhetoric that it starts to sound insincere. :puke:

All I know is he ripped on Howard Dean, and when Dean
spoke out, I sent Schulz an email asking him if he was
going to acknowledge it.

Schultz told me to "get a life."

So screw him. He's an asshole.

I guess you were not listening...

Some of the most passionate progressives are ex-conservatives. Both Schultz and Randi Rhodes seem like they have an edge to their personalities and might be difficult to get along with, but I love what they are doing on the air to spread the progressive message.

Curious.

He didn't actually call someone a slut, did he?

At any rate, to say those are his only responses is stretching things quite a bit. I've heard him be quite gentle with someone when they disagree, as a veteran who objected violently to Schultz having Jane Fonda on his show. In fact, so far I've never heard him be abusive. Well, he did call a dittohead who started telling him how he had no talent and Rush was better a jackass, but that seemed appropriate enough.

I listen to Randi sometimes when I can get her to come in, but she is often too shrill for me. I prefer Ed.

It's incredible how rigid some people can be when it really comes down to having to get something done/change someones mind. He has the correct tone and attitude - sorry that you don't want to see that.

I do mind. And I don't buy it.

Or are you just into calling people names who's style you disagree with? HE's a very good person to have on our side - I'm sorry you don't appreciate him. He's be sorry as well...

"sluts" a pretty sexist slur...and I remember almost driving off the road when I heard him call Randi Rhodes "Randi Slut". He didn't call her stupid, or wrong, or unprofessional...he wen't straight after her sexuality. ergo...sexist.

And it was one one of those day long tirades about how he wasn't getting enough appreciation or attention nationally for all his fine progressive radio work. He went on to insult Al Frankin as well.

If it had happened once I'd call it a blip but I've heard him go nuts like this about his own bruised ego at least 3 times in the last year.

I think he may be a legitimate convert to more progressive causes...I doubt he's a mole. But I think he's still very confused and ill informed about most of his opinions. Nonetheless, Ed still retains that knee jerk, slap the woman down, call her a slut RW reaction when his ego is bruised and frankly that's just a tad too hard to get past for me.

I think, on his good days he's a lot more balanced in his responses than Randi...and she clearly alienates a lot of her interviewees who are POTENTIALLY allies.

That's where Randi loses me...when she turns a possible chance at joining into a spitefest. She ends up turning people off when she attacks them before they have half their thought out. I suppose she thinks that's entertaining...and to some it may be. But here Ed clearly does a better job. He often encourages people to get their whole statement out BEFORE he tackles them. Randi just jumps in after they have like 2 words out and you're never sure you had a real clue what the caller was trying to say.

If she just did that 1 time in 10 it would be ok, but my impression it's more like 9 out of 10...and that wears on me pretty fast.

That's why I like Al Frankin, Mike Malloy, Thom Hartmann, and the Majority Report better than either of the two mid day hosts.

Randi is scary smart and informed on almost every daily issue though...when she isn't taking callers I do find her show very interesting.

On issue after issue, I agree straight up with Randi and every other host on AAR on the facts and the terrible consequences of this administration's foreign and domestic policies, i.e the corruption of this entire administration (and all that it implies)the treasonous call to war in Iraq and outrageous fixing of intelligence to support the call, voter fraud, and her statement at the Conyers hearing on Media bias was absolutely right on target. And I'll appreciate her passion and dedication to get the information out there or to amplify news and info not reported in the MSM.

But the very first thing i observed her doing when Air America first came on the air , was to in effect 'shill' for the Clinton administration and a number of other Congressional Dems whose policies positions, votes on the floor in congress or other machinations, are just as corrupt or anti-Citizen, as the Bush Crime Family's policies are.

Too frequently she can be heard contradicting herself on matters of principle, and policies, on a number of times in the same breath.

One thing is clear, AAR is absolutely not interested in enhancing public discourse on matters that need far more broader discussion, such as embryonic stem cell research.

Why is Air America promoting stem cell research on nearly every single show, and framing it as the most important issue before us today?

I'm a fairly well informed leftist. I'm not a student of Marxism, but I'm not an "anti-Marxist" either. I passionately fight for socio-economic justice, and personal freedom and think that we progressives passionately believe that with Freedom comes Responsibility. I consider myself something of a Humanist, don't believe in organized religion, and tend to think it is often at the root of all "evil". (wrt to extremist fundamentalism)


In my personal opinion, it is very irresponsible for the progressive community and our own media (like Air America)or members of Congress etc, to tout the "blessings" of embryonic stem cell research as something that "Most" Americans support and "believe in"(i don't believe most Americans have had a real opportunity to thoroughly discuss this matter and the full ramifications among ourselves as a community, or as a nation).


I despise the puppet moron occupying the white house and his Puppet Masters who have put him there. So imagine my dismay when for the very first time throughout his entire administration i find myself agreeing with Bush on an any issue at all. It happens to be this ONE issue. And I don't understand why progressives are so eager to push for the kind of science that comes right out of Huxley's Brave New World. We seemed to remember the lessons of Orwell's 1984 and Animal House, but we don't remember the lessons of Brave New World?

I guess I'm in the minority on this matter - given the voluminous speechifying in support of embryonic stem cell research in the on AAR and MSM media. And it's awfully weird to me, to observe how much air time is given to this one issue in this past week, but without real in-depth discussion on the potential ramifications, and would almost believe that I'm the only progressive that has a visceral opposition on this matter.

Oops i digressed.

My favorite shows are Mike Malloy, the Majority Report, Laura Flanders, & Ring of Fire.

It's *really* hard for me to listen to Ed Schultz, I think he might work well in the "heartland" part of the country, but he absolutely does not work well in the San Francisco Bay Area and I think he should be replaced with Thom Hartmann or others of similar style and caliber..

Jerry Springer, nice guy but extremely boring and terribly uninformed on a lot of matters (i want my Morning Sedition back) seems to also be shilling for the embryonic stem cell industry.

Because "Personality" have a way of intersecting with the issues that radio personality is present on the air, it's hard to separate and just deal with the "issues".

Randi would do well with a bit more coaching on both, imo.

That's cool - I don't always like Randi and sometimes the humor on Al Franken is so unfunny it makes me physically ill - but I still listen to them - they don't have to be polished to have good intentions & make good points.

I've never once heard Ed use the term "slut" to describe a woman - never mind as a way to describe Randi. I listen to him every day. He is now a "lefty" because of his wife and he heaps praise on her daily - and she (his wife) helps produce the show. I really have trouble believing that what you are saying is as cut-and-dried as you are describing - so much so that I am going to forward your comments to Ed's show and I will print his response here. I hope you don't mind because I want him to be aware of what people are saying about him. Ego or not, I have seen him backpedal frequently when he was shown to be wrong. Your characterization of him seems to be different than the impression I get of him every day.

BTW, the "ego" thing is a marketing tool designed to "capture the attention" of the righties/marginal people who are used to hearing such bravado from Rush et al. I think it is a very effective tool personally. I don't know about you, but I think we need more people on our side - just preaching to the choir isn't good enough for me.

that it was too expensive. That's ridiculous! Why even bother treating AIDS or cancer then? They're expensive too.

he was giving a common sense opinion that we waste too much on things that add little to the bottom line.

He was juxtaposing all that effort put into invitro when kids go unadopted...

He also said people want too much house... He's allowed to have that opinion. If someone says SUVs waste too much gas, that's PC, but he's not allowed to say these behemoth houses are too ridiculous?

She just jumped down his throat too quickly because she didn't allow him to make his point. SHe even just said "I don't understand that guy" - but its her fault because she trampled over everything he said without giving it a thought.

And no it wasn't me that called - I just get sick of this one host trampling over everything everyone says.

Can someone teach her some manners? This asshole is the opposite of Thom Hartman; she is self defeating - on behalf of all of us...

think that people should have invitro.

An SUV wasting gas is not quite the same as an objection to invitro. SUV's are completely useless, and serve only to destroy the earth that much quicker.

Adopting a child can cost up to $40,000. That's just ridiculous.

It's battle fatigue. Liberals/Progressives have always had a bad case of it.

Today, the circular firing squad is out in force over the filibuster/judgeship battle.

--p!

It really doesn't matter if she "attacks" :eyes: people who are "progressive." Her job is to be an entertaining commentator.

I've heard some really bone headed "progressives" call into her show who deserved every slam they got.

News flash: To radio stations, the callers are FREAKS. In fact, when I was working in radio, that's what they were called. At most, 1/2 of one percent of the audience will EVER CALL. People don't tune in to hear the callers, they tune in to hear Randi. So if she has to humiliate someone, rightly or wrongly, to make a point on the show, she will do so gladly.

No show ever failed for lack of callers, but most shows fail for lack of listeners. Get used to it. This is personality based, entertainment radio.

This isn't NPR, her show actually gets ratings and talks to people who don't have the attention span to follow public radio.

speaking TRUTH to Power?

So you believe that America should continue down this road of World Empire, hegemonic dominion over the entire planet and as well as Space - for our security?

last night when she talked over Sen. Boxer, interrupting her with her own comments and not letting Boxer get her point across in one piece. Boxer was good, agreed with Randi's points but I was unhappy that Randi talked so much. I really like Randi and think she adds a great deal to progressive talk radio, having been in the service and all. I want her to stay on the air. She has passion. I just wish she would listen more, especially when she has the opportunity to have our wonderful Barbara Boxer on the line.

I am a huge fan of hers, HUGE. I like a hard ass (which she is), which explains why I like Malloy and Majority Report as well, but that is another matter...but her interviewees are, much like her callers, talked over, interrupted, and cut short. Even friendlies. There's an ego problem there, but I think it is an inferiority complex. She is preoccupied with proving herself.

I love Randi's guts and bravery, but the simple fact is she sucks at allowing people to make their point. Even when she agrees, she is compelled to intrrupt to try to make their point for them, often times bringing you far afield into one of her personal anticdotes. When she's star struck or kissing up, it can be unbearable. (see Tim Robbins interview of a day or so ago)

Enough criticsm from me though, when she's on, she's aces.

She really does talk too much during calls. That's the one time when she should let people talk, and many times, she doesn't.

and she does a great job of informing others. Interviewing is definitely not her strong suit. Sometimes she is really good with callers, other times she is heavy handed. All in all, she is one hell of a fighter to have on our side. I think she's awesome.

Suffered through it for a month, wanted to support something progressive.. but such big blocks of the day were taken up with her and to me she is like nails on a chalk board. I dont know how her ego fits in the station, the way she talked to callers that were so excited to finally have something alternative.

Ugh, she makes me sad. That is not a voice that represents the progressive, democratic or alternative views that I hold. I'd honestly rather listen to rush, atleast I know what Im getting there.

when she does not listen to what the caller says but instead will just hear a portion and come to the wrong conclusion.

i love listening to her rant on ehr own, but i really hate when she takes calls.



she rarely lets anyone get a word in edgewise, and that particularly pains me when it's a friendly talking. if she's not gonna let other's share their opinion, why bother taking calls at all?


or perhaps Washignton Journal has totally spoiled me.

When she works on her research and shares information, she's such an asset and a treasure. But - it was a real disappointment when one day I heard her laugh and say that the only people who call in to talk radio programs were "the freaks". Drained any interest in my calling in to her.

disses a caller who is on our side. Or she's rude to soemone's grandmother.



I guess i tend to identify with them, and knowing how nervous i get when i call Washington Journal, i would be totally crushed if i called randi and she treated me rudely.

That is exactly the term that is used in the industry for callers. Sobering thought, isn't it?

I think I've been spoiled by McChesney. These are such serious times with so much at stake. I'm not so interested in the cult of personality as the issues.

Although, right now, I'm really enjoying Ray Talafierro's archived broadcasts both serious and fun. But he has a whole different approach and I can listen to his hyperbole without blinking or gasping.

But remember, Hannity only gets 8-10% of the NYC drivetime audience and he's #1 and considered a superstar--- excuse me a second

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

"Shock radio", personality driven radio, sells. And if 1 of 20 listeners listen, she's a superstar. After all, Rush gets I think 4-5 million daily listeners (1.5%) and he makes $25 million. That's a lot of hillbilly heroin!

Randi bills herself as a serious, research driven asset. Which I think she is. Something she brings up enough to compare herself to Al Franken and others. So, then when she goes off on people, dominates her interviews as if she's competing with her guests or disses Dem callers as if the only opinion worth a darn is hers - oh well, I get fed up and go find an archive somewhere. I have listened to her for years. But right now, she's plucked my last nerve. I can't deal with her saying how she has to straighten out her callers and listeners. She needs to respect the ones who put her where she is. Lord know, lefties are the ones who will keep her there. Revenue and ratings won't come from the right wingers in bucketloads.

Randi got where she is and stays where she is by being exactly who she is. The passion, so important and sometimes inspiring, is probably inextricably intertwined with her self image and surgically removing a bit of one would, no doubt, affect the other, probably unpredictably. I listen to her only sporadically and generally come away both optimistic-that we have so obviously capable and highly rated talent on our side, and a bit deflated at her hard-driving (Neoconian?) approach to handling sympathetic guests, even very temporary guests; the callers.
One must also take into account the fact that she is a product of New York, in New York, primarily entertaining New Yorkers, and my experience of the denizens of that fair city holds that many Nu Yawkers seem to feel that correcting other's thinking, language, grammar and political or moral views demonstrates their love and commitment to values, as well confirming the closeness and intimacy of the relationship.
Though soft spoken, polite, and deferent. I, personally, am a very strong, committed person, with high moral/ethical values and more courage than can be rightly justified, but nobody is willing to pay me her salary to sit and rant for three hours, for good reason.
I will give her a break because of her obvious value and continuing contribution, but I can turn her off pretty easily.

I feel that your analysis of her style as being a product of her being a New Yorker, to put it mildly and respectfully, has its flaws. And I choose not to give her a break this time around. There are times when she needs to get a grip and this is one of them.

I loved her show, but I never cared for how she treated her callers. I identify with the callers, because they are listeners like myself. So if she is unfair, or rude to them, then it is like she is doing the same thing to me, or would if I called and got through. Then she does not come across as a compassionate, informed person but rather as an arrogant a$$hole. Doesn't that give liberals a bad name? Also, I have to wonder, how do Rush et. al. treat their conservative callers?

How about the old guy who explained the very important detail that it was a deal among the participants only and she said - "thanks for explaining that to us" and hung up on him...

but that's so rude.

She should start touring with Ozzy Osbourne again.

She's hilarious, though. What's with all the RR bashing around here? Is it just her manners? is there some "shades of liberalism" disagreement I've never picked up on?

I'm not jumping on the OP here, his question seems legite, it just seems like she gets bashed a lot.

overboard.

or more specifically, the lack thereof.

items she airs far outweigh her abrasiveness. She's a diamond that went through the grinder, but she missed the polishing. I think this is really inconsequential too considering how rude the RW hosts are to their guests and callers, e.g. Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Savage, etc..

Also, if I were a caller in, I would expect I might get into the chopper blades there.

their callers - i don't listen to them specifically because they are rude and juvenile.


and there's a time to give it what you've got, and there's a time to eas up, ad let soemone have their say.


as i said - i don't udnerstand why she bothers taking calls. She's jsut fine without other people involved in her show.

She does four hours and I think the calls are meant to fill in time. She should probably lop an hour off now that there are plenty of radio talk hosts that might be willing to fill in. Rachel Maddox probably could do an extra hour.

talk radio shift. She probably could lop off an hour, but I doubt Randi's ego will let her. *lol*

with 4 hours.

So I don't think she's on that long because of ego...

I didn't even know her show was that long, I've never listened all the way through.

And we in New York don't call it rude, we call it curt, or succinct. We don't have much time for "How's the family".

as a former NYC-er myself - there's a difference between rude and to the point.

She is the embodiment of annoying egotistical loudmouth know it alls' everywhere. She's completely obnoxious. I like Air America and really like Al Franken, but after trying to listen to Randi Rhodes about a dozen times, I came to the conclusion that I hate her and her show. She makes discussion points that are so trite and meaningless it makes my head want to pop off. I was listening to her talking about G Bush wanting Osama's head chopped off, and she dedicated half her show to that. There are millions of Democrats and Independents out there thinking "good", F#$@ Osama. I personally hope he is burned alive.

:silly:

that he wants someones head put on a pike and delivered to him in dry ice?

And that Tim Russert's inciteful question is "Where do you find dry ice in Afghanistan"?

Sometimes the show is about these things, but not every day. Discussing social security COLA indexing versus wage indexing everyday doesn't draw a drive time audience, unfortunately.

and I don't think that asking for a mans head to be sent to you in dry ice is very presidential. But at the same time, I am almost relieved to know that Bush does want the man dead. After sending only 12,000 troops to Afghanistan and then turning around and sending 150,000 to Iraq I had my doubts about Bush wanting Osama. I still believe he isn't committing enough forces to find Osama. But at least we know he wants him dead.

suckered into. God bless The Retard in-Chief.
:silly:

He could have done something about it. How's him "wanting OBL dead" working out for you?

I don't want to lose another election because people around the states think we are a bunch of pansies that are worried about killing Osama humanely. There are good reasons to take him alive and there is good reason to want his balls put in a blender. But when you spend all your time on the air whining about something like that, it supports the image of weak on defense democrats.

I was just using that as an example, my point was Randi Rhodes focuses too much on ridiculous things. I agree with most of what she says, but I can't stand her or or her rants about unimportant subjects.

a bunch of pansies?

real "enlightened" of you.

:grr:

He wanted the Taliban overthrown so they could build a pipeline, as Hamid Karzai's former company wanted. Bush could care less about UBL, new York, 9-11, the victims, or anything else that doesn't put money in his family's pockets. If he'd wanted Usama, he would have gotten Usama long ago. The dry ice comment was the same as his compassionate conservative comment or his no kid left behind program. He didn't mean any of it, he just thought people would like him better if he said it.

I didn't hear Randi's segments on the dry ice, but the rest of the media should be calling Bush to task for it. I won't fault Randi for being the only one with common decency. As for us losing because the country thinks Democrats are pansies--we are losing because the rest of the country thinks Bush has done something right. That's the failing of the media. Not Randi's.

Just my take. Not angry at you for having a different one. Welcome to DU! Glad to see you can handle fiesty banter. :-)

9/11 - WTC on so that Americans would support endless wars around the world and permanent occupation in Iraq, and hundreds more military bases/occupations to protect the open pipelines through Caspian Sea and other surrounding border countries?

Oh yea, that Osama.

...making that elementary logical mistake.

It's analogous to saying that if you're against death penalty, that means you like Tim McVeigh.

:evilgrin:

I jsut don't think you get anywhere being rude to your callers - or cutting off and talking over other people who might have something just as valuable to say, like...oh Senator Boxer, or my grandpa, or the crazy lady ont he corner.

what the other person is really trying to say, and she assumes. It's sad really. The last words that person got in before she hung up on him was that he was for stem cell research.

I think he was just trying to make the simple argument that people should think twice about In Vitro Fertilization. It's expensive and often heart breaking when the process doesn't work. There are many needy children out there who could use good homes through adoption.

As a female, I would never go through In Vitro. I have friends and relatives who have done it, though, and they love it. I am adopted, so I have strong feelings about adoption. I plan on adopting, even if I have biological children through the natural way! My friends and cousins who chose to do In Vitro felt that having their own biological children was the more important route to take in having children.

Neither way is wrong, though I think I understood where that called was coming from. (Funnily enough, I was in my car for a half an hour, and managed to hear that call earlier.)

to make all efforts short of invitro. I saw my then sister-in-law and brother-law go through it with much heartbreak. They wound up adopting two wonderful boys. If I didn't become pregnant (thank goodness I did) I was talking to my husband about adoption too.

and congratulations on you nephews, as well. Each process should be decided by individuals.

way we intend to follow our paths.

but jeez Louise, she will NOT shut up! She verbally mows over everybody in her path and it doesn't matter if they're right, left, or center. Hey Randi, try LISTENING to your listeners. You might learn something from them. And, no Randi, I do not want to hear "bounce your boobies" again. It was embarrassing and stupid the first time.

And I was dying for her to STFU when she had Boxer on the line!

I haven't heard Ed be rude, but he's not my cup of tea so I don't listen very often.

If you want to hear rude, listen to Mike Malloy when he has a night that right-wingers are supposed to call in. All he does is abuse them, and its totally pointless.

her fat ego and the way she talks over callers.. she always pauses just long enough for the caller to start talking then she interrupts and talks over them, over and over and over. thats not talent, that bullshit.

time. I don't know if this is true or not because I am a man. I do know when Randi talks the same time as a caller, I get frustrated. I wish she would mute the caller or listen.. That said I still like Randi's show and find it very informative.

hormones my be raging! Let her blow if she wants to!

Or, a lunatic.

Take your pick, I think she's detrimental to our cause.

"Fristian" was stupid, btw

and smart and all, but my hope for Liberal talk radio is that non committed or not ultra right wing Republicans will tune in and listen and maybe have a change of heart or at least want to hear more. How is this supposed to happen when they might tune in and hear her chewing out or ripping someone a new ass? And not to a Republican but to someone that LIKES HER! I'm sorry but I think its insane!

but she doesn't come across to me as being all that smart. Passionate, yes, on the right side of the issues, yes, and a good radio voice, yes. But I have heard many times when people are trying to make fairly obvious points and when she shouts them down it is obvious that she didn't ever get what they were saying. Not just that she disagreed, but that what they said went right over her head. She strikes me as a career radio person who found a niche because she was good on the radio, not because she was the smartest person in the room. I'm not saying that is all bad, by the way. We need people that are entertaining and articulate, since it doesn't matter how smart the person is if no one is listening.

at times, her passion fires me up and other times I'm embarrassed by her lack of intelligence.

I will admit that occasionally I learn something new by listening to Randi, but more often or not she seems to emphatically parrot the DLC line, or she has the facts wrong. I find it frustrating because she brings up topic that I agree need to be discussed, but then she focuses on minor aspects ad nauseum, only to gloss over the more significant implications.

Even if I don't agree with this or that, or how they respond, I am SO happy that they're there. If they didn't have big egos, they wouldn't be on radio, or be as effective.

What makes me sad is the circular firing squad that liberal/progressives are so good at.

I have Air America on all day. I used to like to listen to the Other Side, to know what they're doing, but I just can't stand it. I am thankful that they are out there for people to discover.

Nancy

losing it.

You couldn't see through that wacko?

but we hate Randi because she will? Um, ok. Just trying to keep up here.

fighting people who support her or people who are open to listening to her and this is what she often does. How is that supposed to help?

That's what gets ratings. But I thought the guy was kinda a prick -- why does he care how muich money people spend on invitro -- why does he even have an opinion.

and did not hear the incident that you describe in your post.

I was listening to Randi on Wednesday and she was talking about her service and her father's service to the country. Then she started to make a plea for America to turn away from the dark side and become united behind the Democratic party, pointing out it was the Republicans who divide the country. Randi spoke from the heart and it was quite touching to listen to.

No, I don't think Randi is losing it.

Too often, I find her unbearably rude. If certain people can get past that and listen to her I think that's great but IMO she's not the best voice for the Left and we'd do better with someone that won't make people on her own side cover up their ears in agony- someone as astute, as passionate but less abrasive. Amy Goodman from "Democracy Now" comes to mind. Of course Amy already is a voice for the Left but we need more like her. Sorry Randi- it's nothing personal.

like her, same goes for Ed, Janine, Al, Mike, Guy, etc.

I'm just damn glad I can hear voices who represent me on the radio.

Sometimes, the CFS can be helped with a bit of perspective...