I know Rachel plays for another team, but I just watched this segment and it left me physically aroused:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
I seriously need a cold shower. More of this, please.
This post is in: Excellent Links
I know Rachel plays for another team, but I just watched this segment and it left me physically aroused:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
I seriously need a cold shower. More of this, please.
Comments are closed.
Daddy Biggs
Rachel Maddow is absolutely intoxicating.
Osprey
I’d go gay for Rachel.
If only I were a woman.
Morbo
Yeah, she does that sometimes…
Maude
Hot shower. Cold revs things up.
demo woman
What segment. The screen is empty on my computer.
Osprey
@Maude:
Cold showers are invigorating…but they tend to…how shall I put this…keep our armed forces at DEFCON 5…if you know what I mean.
mak
Glad to know I’m not the only one who finds Rachel to be one hot lesbian. Except maybe when she’s wearing those Buddy Holly glasses. Okay, especially when she’s wearing those Buddy Holly glasses.
Kryptik
@mak:
Don’t forget her suit/pajamas combo that she wore in solidarity bloggers.
wvng
So, you like the shy ones do you?
SpotWeld
Yeah, she’s pretty much the political variant of the confident&hot geek grrl
TR
Stupak is as Stupak does.
I love how he insists he really, really wants HCR, he just wants to outlaw abortion as a slight precondition. Oh, and he also wants a unicorn and a hovercycle.
SRW1
News flash – Bart Stupak is reporting his balls missing.
me
Ed Brayton has a post about the scrambling he did for that appearance.
gbear
I liked how Rachel gave that Stupak segment almost exactly 15 minutes.
Bart, you’re moment of fame is over.
Joshua Norton
Stupak seems to have that happy, shiny, polished perv look to him. I’ll just bet this is just the bare surface of his “15 minutes” – with more intrigue to follow.
Origuy
Stupak is a Catholic, but he’s not part of any theocracy? What does he think the Vatican City is?
Also, Rachel said that The Family denied having anything to do with the C Street house. Who was that Family spokesperson?
wvng
I wonder what percentage of her viewers watch on the web. I do, because MSNBC (unlike Fox) isn’t basic cable and I don’t care to pay a bunch more for a lot I wouldn’t watch.
sukabi
she was on fire last night… this segment was good, but her Liz Cheney – Al Q. segment was the best.
Kryptik
@Origuy:
To be fair, being an actual Catholic doesn’t always equal being part of a theocracy.
It’s just that Stupak is a “Catholic” much the same way Bill Donahue is a “Catholic”. They only subscribe to their beliefs so long as it’s a convenient bludgeon against the unbelievers.
eemom
uh oh……the Brick Oven dude’s gonna be jealous if Rachel likes John better than him…..
mak
@Kryptic
Okay, now you’re just toying with me. On behalf of Cole and myself, Link, please?
Re: Stupak, I can’t figure out why the whole C-Street thing doesn’t get more coverage. I know, IOKIYAR, but this story has it all – sex, DaVinci Code-style religio-mystery, and, of course, tax-evasion. That bit about Sharlet’s buddy being mentored by Stupak was particularly creepy. Maybe the tea-baggers will adopt it as one of their pet causes, and then we’ll get to the bottom of it.
burnspbesq
Yeah, I’d like to move to that parallel universe where Rachel is straight.
mak
@wvng
Same here. I did upgrade once for a short while during the election b/c I just couldn’t stand CNN any longer, and shortly thereafter remembered that 90% of MSNBC programming is “Behind Bars!!” docu-dreck.
Kryptik
@mak:
Enjoy, my good friend.
Origuy
@Kryptik: Oh, I know. It’s just that Stupak, in that quote, was using “theocracy” in a strange way. He said, “I do not belong to any international group. I do not belong to any theocracy. I am a Catholic.” It seemed like he was denying more than he was being accused of. I haven’t read that much about The Family, but I didn’t think of it as an international group or a theocracy. They may have aspirations of becoming both, though.
Loneoak
The Michigan Messenger is teh awesome.
RedKitten
I want Rachel Maddow to bear Stephen Colbert’s babies. Many of them. I want them to create a super-race of awesomeness that will take over the country and rename it Awesomeland — Land of the Free and Home of the Sane.
DonBelacquaDelPurgatorio
Rachel’s is the best political show on tv. Bar none.
Too bad we have to wait through two turns at Tweetie, an Ed, and a Keith, to get to her every evening.
After all that self important Matthews bloviating, the Ed displays of multiple people talking loudly at the same time so that you can’t hear anything being said, and Keith’s campy melodrama, I’m ready for some of that intelligent Rachel.
Violet
@Kryptik:
That is awesome. Thanks for the link. Rachel is hot stuff.
jl
Cole needs a cold shower? Rather nonspecfic and bland, compared to ‘sends a tingle up my leg’.
What, she sent no tingle up your leg?
I’ve listened to Chris Matthews, and John Cole, you are NO Chris Matthews.
Bounderies, Cole, bounderies. Need to set some boundaries. Not about being attracted to a fine women who ‘plays for the other team’. That is fine. But do not mix sex and politics, for that way lies madness, and even worse, thinkin like Matthews.
bcinaz
@sukabi: I agree, the Stupak stuff was good, however the Liz Cheney A.Q. Segment was just hilarious – and completely true.
b-psycho
I’ll admit, as far as the type of lesbians that lead when dancing go she’s kinda cute.
fraught
@burnspbesq: Sorry, It doesn’t work that way any more. The only parallel universe we have available now is one where Rachel stays as she is and you are what she wants you to be, which probably is a gay woman.
Enjoy.
mak
@Kryptic
Many thanks for the link and the chuckle. If only she’d worn the bunny slippers.
Or a garter and heels.Granfalloon
I’m no Stupak fan, and I AM a Maddow fan, but I think this whole rent thing is going a bit far. No one in DC would consider the Capitol Hill section “swanky.” My best friend used to live about three blocks away and his car was constantly getting robbed. He himself got mugged and pistol-whipped outside of his place. The neighborhood, frankly, sucks.
This should be clear by the price. A $1.8mm MANSION? In DC. If it’s a DC mansion in a swanky neighborhood, it would cost 10 times that. A tiny townhouse in Georgetown is easily $3-4 million. My girlfriend sold her 700 sq. ft. condo in Arlington for $355,000 in 2002. $1.8 million could get you a really nice 4 bedroom home in a suburb like Vienna. If this is big enough to rent rooms and really is a mansion, then a valuation of $1.8mm in DC is a joke. It means it’s probably a WORSE area than where my friend lived. He paid like $900 or $1000 a month there – for a full apartment.
In any event, there is no rule that you have to charge market rent, especially if the owner has owned it for a while. At best, Capitol Hill is up and coming. If the person bought the place 5 years ago, he may have paid $800,000. Ten years ago, maybe more like $220,000. If he’s got a $4K/mo mortgage and is making almost that in rent, with attendant tax benefits, I don’t see this as a huge deal.
Definitely something stinks with Stupak. No doubt. But seems like there are some holes here, which bums me out because you know she could be set up to fail..
Shinobi
I have such a huge crush on her, she’s so awesome.
mr. whipple
Sounds like the knives are out for Stupak.
feral1
yes. that was awesome.
Rob in Denver
I like her a lot more when she’s like she is in the clip, rather than when she’s attempting that stupid cutesy humor. “Really?” She’s just not that funny… which probably explains that dopey redheaded “comedian” who comes on at the end of the show (and I’m not talking about Ana Marie Cox). Howdy Doody was the dealbreaker for me.
Mark S.
@mak:
I can’t either, because these guys aren’t just a tad unorthodox in their beliefs, they are fricking insane. It’s like an unholy menage a trois between Christianity, Nietzsche, and the Marquis de Sade. The fact that they have positions of power makes it all the more scary.
And they were claiming their townhouse was a church? ORLY?
LuciaMia
She’s mighty pur-ty
nogo postal
As always I watch her show via the tubes…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35718576
Karen
I just watched both & the Liz Cheney one was as good as the Stupak one.
Both were awesome. And so is Maddow.
Allan
OK, guys, this is where it gets fun.
You have to hit the politicians where they live — fundraising.
Here’s his career fundraising history from OpenSecrets.org. Scroll down to look at the Sector Totals bar graph. (You can also use the tabs right above the “career profile” title to look at this data in other interesting ways…)
Stupak gets more money from organized labor than any other funding source. Why? Because he’s a Democrat in Michigan.
The key to punishing Stupak is through the unions. While Stupak may vote in ways that the unions appreciate on other issues, they are also on the front lines fighting for HCR.
Drive your wedge there.
John Cole
I don’t think she’s “cute for a lesbian,” I think she is cute FULL STOP. Seriously don’t understand what you all are looking for if Rachel fails the attractiveness test. She’s smart, cool, hip, funny and stylish, takes care of herself and has a great smile and is just generally more attractive than 95% of the population.
You people are weird.
Kryptik
@Mark S.:
Well, that’s just the thing, isn’t it. They’re Christian! That means that they can’t be up to anything nefarious as a whole! I mean…what was the last explicitly “Christian” organization that was ever held accountable for illicit dealings as a whole? Usually, it’s only individuals that get that dark spotlight, and unless it involves gay hookers, it usually ends up with the equivalent of a slap on the wrist.
cat48
Uhm, think she’s taken. I watch her everynight. Did you see her spoof on the Al Qaeda 7 last night?? Too funny.
licensed to kill time
Rachel does the research and more than holds her own in interviews. She’s armed with facts and cogent arguments. That alone puts her head and shoulders above 99% of the talking heads on teevee.
I also can’t stand that Kent(?) guy at the end of her show. Must be an old friend of hers, because I see no other reason why she’d keep him on. He’s so not funny and she strains to laugh at his ‘jokes’.
And yeah, she’s cute.
bago
I’ve walked past the C street house. It is in a nice section of town, only 3-4 blocks from the capitol. 2nd and C. I lived on 7th & E North, so 5 blocks over and 10 blocks north.It’s decently sized (double townhome I think), and waiters are a nice touch.
Joshua Norton
@licensed to kill time:
Kent Jones was her sidekick on her Air America show and she was livid when they canned him during a round of budget cuts so I guess she’s using her pull with MSNBC to get him this gig. What he did on her radio show was funny because he’s a comedy writer and they worked well together. It comes across as forced when you see it on TV with visuals added.
nogo postal
The first year of Air America radio was transformational on a lot of levels…Part of that All-Star lineup?
Now…Senator Al Franken
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/5/843261/-Make-us-do-this.
and Ms. Maddow…who uses intelligence all the time,; and humor as necessary…
R.I.P. Air America Radio
carlos the dwarf
@John Cole:
I think we need a Balloon Juice Blogging Empire Campaign to get John Cole a date with Rachel Maddow. Perhaps we should all mail dates and coal to Rachel?
bemused
I’ve been a big Rachel fan for a long time. I listened to her radio show on AA, immediately hooked, when she was on in the morning. Then she was on in the afternoon. When she started the tv gig, she was doing both the radio & tv shows. I was in Rachel heaven. She is one of the smartest, most articulate, informative political junkies in msm.
Joshua Norton
@carlos the dwarf: I’m pretty sure Rachel’s wife would have something unpleasant to say about that.
me
@sukabi: She should have gotten a chalkboard for the full Beck.
bemused
@Joshua Norton:
I agree. Kent came across better on the radio.
When the diet supplement that gave you the squirts came out Kent said, “With allies like these, who needs enemas?” Corny but it cracked me up at the time.
carlos the dwarf
@Joshua Norton:
She could join them!
/but John would be fanboying far too much to even bother to learn her name.
//wish I could join them also.
bemused
@John Cole:
I don’t get that either. She’s just one extremely attractive person period.
Arclite
@ Granfalloon
$1.8 appears to be on the money, if a bit high. Cyberhomes didn’t come up with the exact address, but estimates of all the surrounding houses are in the million dollar range:
http://www.cyberhomes.com/searchresults.aspx?srchid=1&uniqueid=0&query=133%20C%20St%20SE,%20Washington,%20DC%2020003&srchtype=2&addrtype=-1&address=133%20C%20St%20SE&city=Washington&county=District%20Of%20Columbia&state=DC&zip=20003-1807&lat=38.885777&long=-77.004532
trollhattan
@ John Cole
Well, yes, but that’s a feature, not a bug.
Jonny Scrum-half
Isn’t it possible that Stupak is motivated by sincerely held beliefs, rather than a desire to have 15 minutes of fame (although I’ll concede that, since he’s a politician, the latter is more likely than the former)?
Also, I don’t know a lot about his proposed amendment, but from what I’ve read it wouldn’t “outlaw abortion,” but rather only prohibit federal subsidies for insurance coverage for abortions. Why is that such a big problem?
asiangrrlMN
@bcinaz: The Liz Cheney bit had me in hysterics. I watch on the webs when I watch at all (I can’t watch much or I get outraged), but this clip was very trenchant, indeed. Rachel is hot, period. And, like all you fanboys out there, I would actually have a chance–if she weren’t, sigh, married. Oh well.
TuiMel
I am a big fan of Rachel. That said, I am probably a minority of one in not thinking much of the Liz Cheney / Keep America Safe segment. I suppose I am so affronted by these attacks (Release their names! Name these scoundrels, so we can shame these scoundrels!) on lawyers who courageously stood for what I think we all should stand for, that I found the segment to be over-long and not very amusing. Therefore, it was not effective for me personally. I would rather Rachel expose Liz Cheney for the canker she is on our public discourse with a methodical, factual deconstruction of Cheney’s political positions juxtaposed with the compass points of American mythology that she purports to be “keeping safe.” Gawd, the Cheneys are odious, and they continuously indict themselves with their own actions. No amount of savage exposure of these facts would be too much for me.
me
@Jonny Scrum-half: That’s what the senate bill does. The house bill disallows insurance covering abortion from being offered by any company involved in the exchange. So most likely it will be impossible to buy insurance coverage for abortion even with your own money if the Stupak language passes.
Kryptik
@Jonny Scrum-half:
The problem is, I believe, where it prohibits any insurance provider that takes a part in any federal exchange program from allowing coverage for abortion, even for private insurance plans that would never see a dollar of federal funds.
In other words, if you cover abortion in any way, you don’t get money.
toujoursdan
It doesn’t outlaw abortion, but I don’t hear her claiming that. The language of Stupak’s bill is similar to the Hyde Amendment in the 1970s actually.
But other government sponsored insurance schemes (insurance programmes for government workers specifically) don’t have those strings.
freelancer
@sukabi:
Yes, that was epic. I posted the segment with Frank Schaeffer at my site, because he is peerless at nutshelling lunacy.
HumboldtBlue
Also, I don’t know a lot about his proposed amendment, but from what I’ve read it wouldn’t “outlaw abortion,” but rather only prohibit federal subsidies for insurance coverage for abortions. Why is that such a big problem?
Because there are already bans on Federal dollars for abortions, and it’s not sticking to principles, it’s called being a proponent of forced pregnancy, something this fuckstick Stupak will never have to endure.
Stupak is using his bullshit belief system, one that is tied to the modern day equivalent of Lords and Vassals called the Catholic church (you know, the child-raping-gay-sex-selling paragons of virtue) to block health care reform because of his own superstitious beliefs. That’s the fucking problem.
arguingwithsignposts
while I LOVE me some Rachel, the sad reality is that her journalism is sadly missing amongst most of the villagers. Good on her, but the tragedy is for American journalism.
now back to reading all of your wise BJ comments!
Arclite
Oh, the exact address of the C-street townhouse is:
133 C St SE, Washington, DC 20003
TuiMel
@toujoursdan:
It is my further understanding that the amendment prevents any plan offered under the “exchange” from covering abortion – period. So, a woman wishing / needing to purchase insurance under the exchange, cannot purchase a policy that will cover abortion – even if she uses her own money to do so. It is possible (I’ve heard likely) that the policies under the exchange will serve as templates for non-exchange coverage; if this were to be the case, any woman would find it more and more difficult (expensive) to obtain such coverage. The language – as I understand it – goes further than the Hyde amendment.
mak
And lest we forget the point of Rachel’s piece, the real potential shitstorm for Stupak is if it is discovered that he received an in-kind financial benefit by living at the “church.” She also noted that they’d contacted Stupak’s office and were awaiting a response. Not that they’ll get one, or at least one of any substance. But Rachel ain’t done chewing on the Stupak bone (wait, that came out wrong).
toujoursdan
@TuiMel:
Keeping in mind this is Wikipedia it says:
The purpose of the amendment was to prohibit the use of federal funds “to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion” except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother, which is being interpreted to mean abortions not included in the exceptions may not be covered in the public option or in any of the exchange’s private plans that take subsidized customers. The exceptions are similar to those included in the Hyde Amendment; it also specifically allows individuals to purchase supplementary insurance that covers other abortions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupak%E2%80%93Pitts_Amendment
So if this is to be believed, people can purchase other coverage for abortions out of pocket (though I have to wonder who would? It’s not something you plan for.)
Tony J
You guys just don’t get the Stupak Stratergery. It’s Eleventieth Dimensional Chess played by a master at the height of his game. Let me dumb it down for you little people.
Abortion has been one of the hot-button issues you can rely upon to get the WEC voters to the polls on behalf of Republicans for decades. It’s up there with Guns R Kewl! and Gayz Hate Teh Jeebus! as a rallying cry for the modern Confederate voter. Everyone knows this.
Stupak’s genius is that he’s seen that all the Democrats have to do to strip this voting block away from the Republicans is to sell Health Care Reform to WECs as an anti-Abortion bill. It’s going to pass anyway. D’uh! So why not turn it into a wedge issue that can reposition the Democrats as the Party of Life?
It’s brilliant in its simplicity, because once the WECs see a Democrat willing to put the lives of the unborn before those of millions of Post-Birth Americans, including themselves and everyone they know, they’re bound to think again about the Democrat = Babykiller label the Republicans have been selling them, and that whole issue, a grisly battlefield in the Culture War that the Republicans were winning, it just goes away. Poof.
And if this awesome sauce wasn’t enough, it also makes it so much easier for Obama to achieve his aim of bringing a Bipartisan atmosphere to Washington. After all, if the Republican know that the Democrats are going to tie all of their signature inititives to really regressive shit the Republicans thought they had trademarked, they’re – obviously – going to take a step back and re-evaluate the value of voting No on everything. I mean, it’s not like they’d claim it as a victory for their side and dial the crazy up even higher.
+ Eleventy
fraught
I’m not a straight man or a gay woman and I don’t feel I want to change either Rachel or myself so that we can have sex..WTF? I’m fine with our present arrangement. But I do think she just looks really beautiful in a simple classic way. Like the old movie stars in big screen closeups with perfect lighting and make up. It’s a very glamorous look she has there.
I also like the way she keeps talking so that you feel yourself drawn into whatever stream of thought she’s going for. Unlike Mathews and Kieth she’s not afraid of doing 15 minute segments on a single topic. Very confident of her appeal. Nice to see.
El Tiburon
Daily Holwer & Maddow
Any regular readers of Daily Holwer over here? I used to read his stuff fairly regularly. But somewhere along the way he got an extreme hard-on for Maddow, and not the good kind.
I appreciate Somerby’s dedication and all, but it seemed most of his complaints were trivial and without merit. I don’t know if he was jealous that she was a Rhodes Scholar or what, but I got where I couldn’t read him anymore.
WaterGirl
@demo woman: I have the same problem. Just empty space where (presumably) the video should be. Can someone post a clickable link?
Allan
Oh, and since the thread is really about Rachel being hot and not about how to put Stupak on the defensive for a change? Yes, definitely. She’s hot.
Brains are sexy.
And I do not believe that Rachel and her partner, artist Susan Mikula, have availed themselves of the institution of marriage available to them as MA residents. That doesn’t mean she’s available, just noting it for the record.
Fred Fnord
Movie doesn’t work for me. Tips?
geg6
@Origuy:
I think you need to read the book then. Because that is exactly what they are. You may have, perhaps, heard of the proposed anti-gay laws in Uganda that proposed the death penalty for homosexuals and life in prison for the friends and families of gays?
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/12/hbc-90006165
geg6
@Jonny Scrum-half:
Then perhaps you should learn a little more about it. What it will do is prohibit any subsidies from going “to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion.” What this means is that even private plans in the exchange cannot offer abortion coverage, even if the individual is not getting a subsidy. Since every insurance company will want to be a part of the exchange, NO insurance company will offer abortion coverage. Not just for those getting the subsidy, but for anyone who buys insurance in the exchange and, eventually, anyone who gets insurance from their employer. That’s the whole point of it. To make insurance coverage for abortion extinct. If it was simply to stop government money from being used for abortions, the Hyde Amendment already does that and has since 1976.
BubbaDave
Also self-confident and a comics nerd. She’s pretty much my ideal woman, except for the “I’m the wrong gender for her” part.
Bill Section 147
@John Cole: I am with you. I don’t need qualifiers. Rachael is fine. I don’t care for her on air clothes but I bet she looks sweet in a pull-over and jeans.
kay
I think Rachel Maddow is the best interviewer on television.
She’s prepared, she’s a good listener, and she somehow disarms the guest. They actually say something and she lets them speak.
Partly that’s how the questions are crafted, but in part it’s a very specific and particular talent.
I love it, because she’s not the main character in an interview, like so many of them. She’s not trying to show how tough she is, or how smart she is, she’s trying to get them to answer the question, in their own words.
She is actually working (hard) on behalf of the viewer.
robertdsc
<3 Rachel, back during the radio days and to today.
Ana Gama
Forget the showers. Think of elephants.
Jim C.
Damn…sexually aroused is absolutely the right way to describe this.
I SO wish Rachel was straight. :-)~~~
John O
Rachel is indescribably hot, regardless of team.
Jonny Scrum-half
geg6 — Why couldn’t insurance companies offer policies that are not part of “the exchange” (I’m not sure what that is) that include coverage for abortions?
John O
@kay:
You got that right, Kay. She’s very respectful while disagreeing, and she’s smart like Rhode’s Scholar smart, and she’s engaging and charming at the same time.
The only other one I’ve seen pull this off consistently is Stewart, who, IMHSO, doesn’t quite pull it off quite as well, as it were.
I have immediate disrespect for anyone too chicken to come on either show.
GuavaEmpanadas
I liked RM on A/A, loved her when she debuted on MSNBC, but no more. Between the thinly veiled condescension towards her own audience, prattling, mugging, grade school dick jokes and single-minded obsession with tawdry sex scandals she lost this viewer some time ago.
Also, she’s a sideways talker a la Greta van, which I always found vaguely distracting.
liberty60
Its when I watch Rachel that I get reminded of how awful, terrible, no-good rotten the rest of cable news is.
As much fun as it is to watch Keith body slam his counterparts on Fox, its a little sad to see it come to this, that Fox’s variations on the angry-drunk-at-the-end-of-the-bar personna is the standard for cable newspeople.
Shameless plug for my favorite new Facebook group- the CoffeeParty- which tries to create a community of Rachel-ized commentary, of smart and civil fact-based dialogue.
The only thing worse than a nation ruled by Fox and the Tea Party, is a nation that embraces that mindset, even if it pointed left.
waylon
@eltib
daily howler talks about maddow today (again)
he doesn’t say anything about how fine she is. :)
humbert dinglepencker
Frankly, this isn’t a man’s issue. Someone should perhaps remind Mr. Stupak that a man’s sole contribution to pregancy is 36 chromosomes, a teaspoon of fluid and a groan. Frankly, this issue is none of his business, nor the business of his buddies…this is an issue that should be settled by those who do, literally, the heavy lifting in a pregnancy: WOMEN. Until Mr. Stupak can show that he has more than a philosphical and theosophical investment in a pregnancy, he should SDASTFU.
Litlebritdifrnt
I have to admit to having a huge girly crush on Rachel, if I wasn’t straight and married I would be camped outside the MSNBC studios pitifully sending her e-mails begging her to meet me outside. She is smart, she is savvy, and mores the point she doesn’t take any bullshit. I like that in a person, of whatever gender.
Litlebritdifrnt
@humbert dinglepencker:
Ooooh Ooooh someone else with my point of view, I have been saying this for years, until men can actually get pregnant they should keep the fuck out of the discussion, it has NOTHING to do with them, absolutely NOTHING, I read somewhere else that if men could get pregnant federally funded abortions would be law today (as would a weeks federally funded sick leave during mensturation). It is mighty convenient to sit on your high horse and pontificate when your bullshit legislation will NEVER affect you or your life personally. Men simply should not be allowed to have a say when it comes to abortion. End of Story.
Autonomic
Here’s a two-part question for Mr. Stupak:
(1) What health care plan does he have?
(2) Are abortions covered by the company/plan?
If they are, he’s nothing but a hypocrite.
craptractor
I think Rachel’s awesome too but I gotta say I’m a little uncomfortable at your apparent need to express it in terms of boners and sexuality, facetious or otherwise. How much snark has there been about “thrills down the leg” and “starbursts” and whatnot? Apparently the irony is lost.
Irony Abounds
@John Cole: Well, I agree that the on-the-air Rachel is attractive, lesbian or not. Rachel in civilian dress, without the extensive make-up, and presumably more in her element, is, well, shall we say a bit less feminine. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but she doesn’t quite obviate the need for a good dose of Viagra for males of a more hetrosexual persuasion. She does have a great personality though.
Irony Abounds
Question: is use of the word lesbian, Viagra or hetrosexual the cause of my comment requiring moderation? I don’t see a single thing offensive in anything I wrote. Is there some sort of guideline as to what causes a comment to be subject to moderation?
cliff
@Arclite:
a nearby place just sold:
http://www.zillow.com/homes/413165_zpid/#/homes/for_sale/38.8865,-77.003798,38.885306,-77.005649_rect/18_zm/1_fr/1_rs/1_fr/
and some podcast links, whole show!
http://podcast.msnbc.com/audio/podcast/MSNBC-MADDOW-NETCAST-M4V.xml
http://podcast.msnbc.com/audio/podcast/MSNBC-COUNTDOWN-NETCAST-M4V.xml
<3 Rachel! watching tonight's podcast now
Platonicspoof
@Irony Abounds:
If you use the kind of product names that you frequently see in your browser’s spam folder, e.g. your V word, WP will make you sit in the corner.
Also see WordPress Codex, spam words.
Neil Morse
Autonomic, unless Stupak buys his own insurance (not bloody likely) he’d be covered by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act, which does not allow plans to provide abortions except in limited situations.
Maxcat07
She needs to work on her shyness issues a bit /snark
sfHeath
Daily iTunes podcast of the full episode of The Rachel Maddow Show, no commercials, for free. Subscribe and never miss an episode.
You’re welcome.