Someone with such promise, so much potential, and so much latitude is a shill and a pundit - not even one with a sizeable audience.
I'd give her kudos if she was some hardscrabble bootstrapping success story. I'd give her laurels if she was following her dreams and making the world a better place and the best she could do was being a part-time guest on a cable access show.
But this woman is a child of privilege. She attended Stanford, compliments of her Attorney father. Her undergraduate degree is in Public Policy. She then was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship, a true honor meant to encourage people to pursue careers in public service. Then she became a Rhodes Scholar, the cream of the crop, and earned a PhD in Politics.
So with all that she has received, what has she done with all this brilliance? Media pundit. Not even a media pundit that crashes barriers, one the breaks new ground, or even one that moves the needle of public opinion. No, she is a lesbian liberal on the most liberal network on TV. Her talent and camera friendly appearance coupled with her quick wit and social situation would have garnered that position. One doesn't need to be that bright to spout talking points, take pot shots at the competition, and tow the line for the politicians her bosses support. After all these student accomplishments and she just preaches to the choir? Really?
Her credentials and education would be much better suited in an actual public policy role - a White House advisor, a Congressmember, a Senator (and maybe later President), or even a town committeemember. She had a guaranteed affluent life handed to her and she chose the path that leads to more affluence and less influence.
As to her so often cited "conservative roots," well that's bullshit. Her California family was not conservative. They were Catholic, but they were "California Catholic" and that means liberal - nothing wrong with that, but it's not conservative. She likes to say that " "I'm undoubtedly a liberal, which means that I'm in almost total agreement with the Eisenhower-era Republican party platform." She's obviously too smart to not know Eisenhower's views on
gay people and
people of color. So that means she's just lying.
I watch Maddow from time to time, and I still get the sentiment that this woman hates me. She doesn't know me, she doesn't know that this person that is me even exists. However, she lashes out so viciously at people who say things that I also think. Not the wacko evangelists, not the deranged hypocrites, not the misogynists, and not the anti-gay activists. No, she lashes out at Libertarians that are fiscally conservative. She lashes out at anyone who supported the invasion of Iraq (without actually knowing anyone who deployed there, btw). She lashes out at anyone who doesn't agree 100% with her, if they are on the right side of the spectrum. She has contempt for Republicans that supported gays in the military, she has contempt for gay Republicans. She has contempt for anyone, of any party (except Democrats) that didn't support Obamacare.
So am I reactionary, or am I just reacting?
