There was a time that I didn't like Rachel Maddow. That time was January, and she was on a panel on MSNBC's election night coverage and she was going off on something about Hillary Clinton that I disagreed with. Then she ripped Pat Buchanan a new one about something else and my cold, cold heart melted, just a little. And then she made Pat Buchanan look really stupid, and said some stuff that made Chris Matthews grudgingly agree that he had been wrong and I was totally hooked. If the New York Times profile of her today is anything to go by, I'm not the only one who fell for her hard, and fast.
If you aren't an obsessive MSNBC watcher, you might not know, but Rachel's the new Golden Girl of political prognositication. She's cute but not dumb, intelligent but not intimidating and she manages to not only hold her own on a male-dominated network (on male-dominated shows) but to best the boys. With the death of Tim Russert and the excommunication of Tucker Carlson, there's an opening for a new anchor and Rachel seems likely to get the slot.
What is sort of interesting — and something Rachel has never tried to hide — is that she's a lesbian. That little tidbit of information is left until the last hundred words or so of the Times' profile, even as her open (and thankfully unabashed) sexual orientation has caused some to question whether she can be successful as a news network anchor. Listen, MSNBC honchos: if Rachel can cause me to question my lifetime commitment to men with her intelligence, wit and composure under fire, I think even my sometimes-conservative grandma can get on board.
Now in Living Rooms, the Host Apparent [NY Times]