In the clip above, Senator Debbie Stabenow has been fighting the good fight on health care reform. When faced with Orrin Hatch's amendment to increase restrictions on abortion in the health care bill, she let it be known she was "offended," saying, "This is an unprecedented restriction on people who pay for their own health insurance." Hatch's amendment would have forced women with existing coverage to have their coverage altered and restricted, which may result in riders, where abortion would default to being an outside health cost one would need to pay extra to have insurance cover.

Over at Broadsheet, Lynn Harris reminds us that even though the amendments did not pass, our rights are still at risk:

Ever since last November, women's rights advocates have been warning that when it comes to reproductive justice, even the election of a gag-rule-repealin' president hardly means that we can now just mix up an Obamatini and call it a day. If anything, we've seen newly galvanized state legislatures and abortion opponents take it up a notch or nine, resulting in not only the assassination of Dr. George Tiller but also the very real possibility that health care reform will leave women with even less access to abortion than before.

"Health care reform was supposed to be about expanding care, making sure that people get the basic comprehensive care they need to live healthy lives. The Obama Administration also promised that no one would lose the coverage they currently have," Stephanie Poggi, executive director of the National Network of Abortion Funds, told Broadsheet today. "Yet, unless we're able to really turn things around, millions of women are in great danger of losing coverage they already have — and this country is in danger of expanding inequality, instead of affordable coverage."

She adds: "If abortion is excluded from new public subsidies for health care reform, this will be an expansion of abortion restrictions. And an expansion of the restrictions that target poor women, who are disproportionately women of color."

Even though the Hyde Amendment has been in play for over thirty years and already prohibits the government from funding abortion, anti-choice advocates like Hatch are still pushing for even more restrictions.

The scariest part of all is in the numbers. While the measure was defeated, both bills still had 10 Senators in favor.

Abortion Amendment fails [Politico]
Stabenow ‘Offended' by Abortion Amendment [Washington Independent]
Will You Lose Insurance Coverage For Abortion? [Broadsheet]
What is the Hyde Amendment? [Hyde 30 Years is Enough]

MSNBC reports on the new hot trend in domestic workers - the Tibetan nanny:

For the past several years, Tibetan nannies have been all the rage in New York City. On message boards and playgrounds, some parents claimed Tibetan nannies were "very balanced and Zen" and aided in children's "spiritual development," whereas in areas such as Dallas, for example, Latino nannies have been more in demand for their Spanish-speaking abilities.

At the Diki Daycare Center in Astoria, N.Y., demand for Tibetan nannies became so great that the preschool began offering a Tibetan nanny referral service.

"Tibetan women are well known for being caring and loving nannies," reads the promotional literature. "They are recognized for becoming ‘one of the family' and offer the same compassion and quality of care for their charges as they do their own children." Furthermore, it says, "Cleanliness, organization & dedication to education are values of Tibetan culture."

Over the years, we hear about nanny trends that come and go. The always in-fashion Swedish or French au pair, the ubiquitous Caribbean nanny, the Chinese nanny boom in the 2000s, and now Tibet is the new hot spot. It can be tough for those who aren't the flavor of the month, or those coming from a similar class/race background as the employers:

"They talk about how everybody hires the Filipina nannies because you can get them to do anything or that families will look for a British nanny who has the right accent," says Tasha Blaine, a former nanny and Sacramento, Calif.-based author of the recently-published book "Just Like Family: Inside the Lives of Nannies, the Parents They Work For, and the Children They Love."

Blaine discovered this first-hand while working as a nanny - not just from fellow caregivers, but also from prospective employers. In one interview, a mother advised Blaine to warn families in advance of meeting that she was Caucasian, with a degree from a prestigious college. "She said, ‘I'm not sure that people would feel comfortable asking someone like you to make their beds or do the laundry,'" she says.

Ahhh. And this race/class dynamic resurfaces again when discussing the small matter of how to compensate some who is assisting in raising your children:

In fact, Tibetan nannies have become so popular that they may have become victims of their own success as they've been able to request and get escalating salaries - much to the annoyance of some employers.

"Our nanny has priced herself out of our range and I will let her go because she guilted us into paying through the nose," recently wrote an outraged New Yorker on the message boards of UrbanBaby.com.

Damn it, you darkie ingrate, what's wrong with cheap labor anyway? We brought you to this country!

Okay, at this point, I should explain that I am not exactly impartial in this whole designer nannies debate. From the time I was eleven years old until the time I was about fourteen or fifteen, I worked as a nanny. For a nanny. My employer was a lovely woman from El Salvador. In the 80s, she was forced to flee civil war, leaving behind her home country in pursuit of a better life in America. When she arrived here, she then fled with her two sons from domestic violence at the hands of her husband. When I went to work for her, I always noticed that her medical degree was prominently displayed on the walls of her apartment, in spite of the work she found as a nanny/domestic.

Back then, I didn't know anything about the situation, save for the fact that this nice lady (I'll call her Isabel, here) saw me playing with her children and my younger sister, and offered me the unheard of sum of $100 a week to stay with the children after school and to make them dinner until she came home, around seven or eight in the evening.

I didn't understand, then, what it meant to make money under the table, and why there were weeks when Isabel could not pay me the cash she promised. I did not understand why she would often call me around eight or so and ask me to stay later, or promise me $40 in cash for an overnight stay, when her employers wanted her to stay late to clean up after a dinner party where she remained in the shadows for most of the evening.

I didn't understand the strange dynamic of power when you assist in raising someone else's child because they have asked you to, and the even stranger dynamic that occurred as Isabel spent her days cooing over a white child and I spent my days helping her children traverse the hostile worlds of elementary school and middle school.

Later, when I grew older, I felt a bit of rage at Isabel's employers. Why did they keep her late, so many nights? They knew about her children. Did they just not care that their nanny had a life of her own as well, children she needed to raise? Why did they so blithely blow off payment so many weeks, weeks when Isabel would struggle to put gas in the car and feed her children on the already paltry wages they were able to pay in cash?

It is one of those situations where there aren't many good answers. Isabel, with her conversational English skills and non-transferable degree found a job where she could, and was grateful for the opportunity. She joined with an El Salvadorian church in the area and eventually worked her way into a better job, her own home, and a better car. We've lost contact over the years - I still hope she is doing well.

But my time with her changed the way I look at domestic labor forever.

In this month's Latina, Elizabeth Méndez Berry evaluates a new film called The Maid, a character study of a loyal domestic worker who often sabotages the other maids in the house to retain her spot as number one. Berry interviews Angélica Hernández, a former domestic worker that served families both in Mexico and the United States. She explains:

As a 20-year-old newlywed, she could only find work as a live in maid, so she saw her husband briefly on Sundays. "I used to go to my room and cry," she says. Her work was never done: She'd go to bed at midnight and get up at 6 a.m. to make breakfast and then get the children ready for school. After her husband died 11 years ago, she moved to New York City.

"It's hard for us because there are no rules and no support," says Hernández, who has had several employers refuse to pay her. "There are good employers, but it's like reading the lottery." While live-in domestic work in the States is less common than it once was, it's not extinct, according to Priscilla González of Domestic Workers United, a nonprofit in New York City. "Domestic workers are not protected by most labor laws in this country," González says. "Along with farm workers, they're explicitly excluded from civil rights protections and the right to form unions."

Indeed, it is a global problem. A wave of scandals involving the abuse of domestic workers by diplomats have surfaced around the world, but most of the issues of modern nannies revolve less around physical abuse and more toward labor coercion and withholding of wages - which serves as a very convenient method of control.

I am sure there are families who treat their domestic employees equitably and fairly. But I am also sure these would not be the type of people comparing and contrasting different ethnicities as if they were deciding between two of the latest "it" bags instead of hiring an actual person.

Tibetan Nannies: Parents' New Status Symbol? [MSNBC]
Latina [Official Site]
Diplomat's Nanny Lifts Lid On Modern Slavery [The Independent]
Diplomats May Often Fail to Pay Household Staff [Women's E-News]

In the clip above, Rachel Maddow explains that while every major breast cancer advocacy group in the country is in support of health care reform, the IWF wants Americans to think that women will not have access to life saving drugs and techniques if more people are allowed access to quality care. The organization is so serious about this premise that it has spent close to two million dollars to air the ads in eight battleground states.

Here is the full segment:

While we kind of like that Weaver refuses to be told how to conduct an interview, if this is actually a look into the average smart kid's mind, well, huh. (Although, we gotta say, we're kinda feeling for the kid: I mean, where do you go from interviewing the president? It's gotta be a letdown.)

This is one of those news-show booking crams where they randomly had Alexis and her cohost Jennifer Koppelman Hutt on with some economist who was talking about how some couples stay together because it's cheaper than divorcing. This had exactly nothing to do with the fact that this one time some "female" called into Whatever to talk about her sexless marriage - however, it was obviously necessary to put them on a split-screen with the economist for a chaotic 30 seconds, with a banner headline reading: "Show hosted by Martha Stewart's daughter mocks Stewart's show."

So far, Michelle has worn a coat that looks like a Chanel but isn't, which is important because she was in Britain and France is in Europe too. But the real burning question is whether she will go sleeveless in front of the Queen. Diliberto says that would be inappropriate, so we hope she doesn't. After all, the fate of the world is riding on Michelle's fashion choices! Clip at left.

MEGAN: So Jason, another typical day in the world except for the harbingers of the financial apocalypse and all.

JASON: Oh but yes. And welcome to the party, AIG! Pull up a chair. Dig that crazy Friday. It's an unmitigated mess.

MEGAN: Ah, yes, AIG, which keeps telling me over the television that I should choose them for car insurance over Geico. Hmmm, maybe next week...

JASON: Not to worry, of course. Our brave politicians will save us, with platitudes:

"The challenges facing our financial system today are more evidence that too many folks in Washington and on Wall Street weren't minding the store," Obama said in a statement. "Eight years of policies that have shredded consumer protections, loosened oversight and regulation, and encouraged outsized bonuses to CEOs while ignoring middle-class Americans have brought us to the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression."

MEGAN: Oh, but, at least it's not John McCain's fault or anything.

"I certainly don't fault Sen. McCain for these problems," Obama said, "but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to."

JASON: Right! And then the next graf is about "sleazy ads." Keep watching the shiny object, America. On the upside of course, is that sleazy political ads are at least an economic growth sector.

MEGAN: Hilariously, actually, I was watching Murder She Wrote last night on the Hallmark Channel and every commercial break was a McCain-Palin ad. For 3 full hours, yo. Old people for McCain-Palin!

JASON: But these are tremendous losses that are being socialized. And what's coming next are the auto manufacturers, looking for their bailout. Of course, THEY DIDN'T SEE ANY OF THIS COMING.

MEGAN: Oh, of course they'll get bailed out — Michigan's a swing state.

JASON: But don't worry about a thing, America! The commercial airline industry will TOTALLY KEEP ITSELF ALOFT on their new business model of luggage surcharges.

MEGAN: Also, fuck those luggage surcharges. That shit is really a pain in the ass to expense!

JASON: Word. Our reimbursement forms need a new line item, "RANDOM GOUGING."

MEGAN: Anyway, did you know McCain already has an ad up about the financial crisis? Amusingly, when it says "end special interest giveaways" (except when it involved giveaways to the lobbyists that work for the campaign), it shows a picture of the Lehman Brothers sign. You know, the organization going bankrupt instead of being bailed out? I laughed. Also, by the way, drilling will fix Merrill Lynch.

JASON: Yeah! That's hilarious the way they stuck it to Lehman! Meanwhile, his running mate thinks that Fannie and Freddie were, prior to their bailout, a "too big" burden on taxpayers. And really, McCain needs to stop using oil drilling as the centerpiece of a platter of economic solutions. Drill, baby, drill. I think we might need to start drilling ACTUAL babies, a la a Jonathan Swift solution to our crises.

MEGAN: Well, they are a big burden on taxpayers now! Before, they were privately held! But they support the bail-out. Like George Bush, they want to cut taxes but they will definitely, definitely increase spending.

Also, hilariously, I tried to write an essay for an essay contest in about 2003 that was Jonathan Swift-esque — the question was about the trade-off between freedom and security. But then every time I came up with something that seemed SO ABSURDIST that it couldn't be true, like eating babies, the Republicans went and made it policy. I finally gave up. I think they're reading my mind.

JASON: I want to point out, again, that Carly Fiorina and Franklin Raines both sit on the corporate board of Revolution Health together, and I wonder what they talk about when they are in the same room together. I like to think that they sigh with relief and joke about how no one in their right minds should take either of them seriously. Fiorina was on teevee this Sunday, armed with many a platitude, and only came off looking okay because Claire McCaskill suddenly and unexpectedly veered into the territory of OMG! JOHN MCCAIN IS TEH OLDZ!

MEGAN: Oh, Claire. Shhhh. Everyone knows he's old, but they only care when it's funny. Do you want, by the way, to talk about cronyism in the Palin administrations? Or is it so blindingly obvious that you wonder how there are still people in the world who don't know that every administration is cronyist?

Oh, wait, whoops, cyncism is democracy's biggest enemy! Never mind, rewind...

OMG JASON, Sarah Palin hired her friends when she was mayor and governor! She fired people that worked for her predecessor! I'm shocked! Horrified!

Fuck, that still sounds sarcastic, I give up.

JASON: We're still talking about Palin in America, but now the story is tied to the McCain-lies-all-the-time backlash. I'll tell you, the NY Times chronicles a cronyism that's going to remind many of the Bush years. Obviously, Brownie comes to mind. But for my money, Palin's cronyism smacks of another old master: Marion Shepilov Barry.

MEGAN: But she trusts them, and trust is so important!

JASON: Ha. Funny you should mention trust! Because the added ingredient that Palin brings to Barryism is fear. The one big takeaway from that story, for me, isn't that Palin inserted her unqualified friends in positions, hither and yon, it's that she's rooted not in a populist style of politics - which is how McCain paints her - but in a paranoid style of politics.

MEGAN: See, the only thing I remember about Marion Barry is that he's a crack-smoking whoremonger. I don't fear crack-smoking whoremongers because they're usually too busy smoking crack and paying for sex to mess with me. Oh, you mean Marion Barry made people fear other things, like rampant crime and being caught by someone other than just your wife for being a crack-smoking cheat.

JASON: She's Nixonland's Arctic Circle outpost. Cronies got advanced, loyalty tests were handed out, opponents trashed and fence-sitters squeezed.

MEGAN: Well, I mean, I am a hater. Like terrorists, I hate her freedom. Her freedom to do whatever the hell she wants in government, like solicit and spend the Bridge to Nowhere money and claim no less than 9 times that she turned it down.

JASON: In just my brief toe-dip into AK politics, I've come away with a strong impression that paranoia rules out there. Here's a true story, in fact:

Some time ago, I did a short "Bridge to Nowhere" post. In the course of selecting an image to run alongside, I accidentally grabbed the wrong bridge to nowhere (yes, it seems there were many). I got an email from someone, correcting me, pointing me to the correct image. And I ran a correction, lauding the assister by name. Not fifteen minutes later, I got another email from another Alaskan, warning me to NEVER name anyone who helps out in the course of writing anything critical of Palin. He said, "Everyone knows everyone out here. You could make things very difficult for people."

MEGAN: Oh, that's just sad.

JASON: He went on to list a handful of helpful Alaska blogs, and closed by saying, "DO NOT THANK ME! DO NOT MENTION THAT I GAVE YOU THIS INFORMATION!" I was like: "O-kay, nutlog!"

MEGAN: He then proceeded to erase every electronic mention of his very existence and drop off the grid Ted K. style to escape the clutches of Sarah Palin's minions.

JASON: Exactly. Retreated back into the tundra. Gonna live Jack London-steez.

MEGAN: WAIT! You know what that kind of paranoia reminds me of? Kathleen Willey, who thinks Hillary Clinton's minions killed her cats.

JASON: To think I associate Willey with a more innocent time!

MEGAN: Switching gears, did you know it's all our fault that John McCain is going negative?

Ours and Obama's, of course. We forced him into it! It's the only way he can get press coverage without talking to the press!

JASON: Yes. It's high time we all took responsibility for McCain going negative. It's everyone else's fault. The man has got to win news cycles, after all. Had Obama lent his "celebrity" to McCain's planned "Shambling Town Hall Meeting Tour 2008," everything would have been hunky-dory. But Obama wouldn't get with the program, so America needs to be taught a lesson.

MEGAN: And that lesson is that Barack Obama wants to bring sexytime to your kindergarteners.

JASON: Of course, this shit works, to a certain extent. If Spencer were here, and hopefully, he'll return safely, he'd probably note that ravaging the airwaves with demonstrable lies helps McCain get inside Obama's OODA Loop. "Lipstick on a Pig." I cannot believe GROWN UPS subjected us to pillar-to-post coverage of a fucking APHORISM.

MEGAN: He called her a pig! He called her a pig! LALALALALA I can't hear your logic!
(In other news, yes, I too hope Spencer gets back safely from Afghanistan.)

JASON: It's worth pointing out that at the Pundit Forum in Denver, Stephanopoulos talked about how he and his colleagues had to become "editors" as well as "reporters" because they are besieged with campaign emails on a daily basis and needed to be selective in what they ran. America should remember that it was "Lipstick On A Pig" that everyone decided they'd run with that day. Days before a trio of financial institutions went in the shitter. It took 9/11 NOSTALGIA to end that particular stupidity.

MEGAN: Wait, it's over? Has the media begun its post-mortem yet, trying to explain/apologize for going over the top and running with a fake and stupid story? Because that's the real fat lady singing.

There I go again! I just insulted Snuffleupagus's weight and gender identification!

JASON: Oh, no. That's not going to happen. But I cannot imagine working for a news organization, covering that story. I couldn't believe there wasn't SOMEBODY at, say, MSNBC, who couldn't have suggested, "You know? We could say no to this story. It's really simple. We could just not talk about this."

MEGAN: Oh, see, there you go, doing your part to not destroy democracy with too much cynicism. I won't ruin it by pointing out that the conversation went something like "OMG, Fox News is going to cover this wall-to-wall and we can't miss out on this shit-fest. Advertisers love shit shows!"
Fuck, wait, just ruined it.

JASON: Well, if advertisers love shit-shows, SURELY they'd enjoy the sight of Steve Capus being chased down the street, pelted with dogshit. Honestly, if I could incite your readership to do just that, I'd be a happy man. I'd probably be a JAILED man, but fuck it.

MEGAN: Ladies and gentlemen, start collecting canine fecal matter now!

10:00 ET: That's it! If you've got something to say, email "them" or stick around in the comments.

9:59 ET: She goes out on footage of the White House T-ball game and how Bush made all the Joint Chiefs participate. Kent says, "It might have been less humiliating if he let them pitch!" Bonus rogering reference about Bush and the Joint Chiefs right after Rachel mentions that Bush took neocon think tank advice over theirs per Woodward's book? Kent redeems himself. He can be the most annoying bastard, but if he can work in the buttsecks references under the radar, he's my boy.

9:58 ET: Lance Armstrong might come out of retirement in 2009. Kent is a little annoying.

9:57 ET: "Just Enough" with Kent Jone on pop culture? Ok, whatevs. MTV Video Music Awards: Rihanna, P!nk, Jonas Brothers, and then Britney Speaks won three awards including video of the year? Man, the things you miss.

9:54 ET: "It's a little unfair to accuse me of trashing her religion and then trash [Jeremiah Wright], Pat. But it was a pleasure to have you." She needs to have a fucking hook for him. Or a slave hood she could zip shut like The Gimp from Pulp Fiction.

9:54 ET: "I would love to ask her that, but I'm afraid the campaign would think me not appropriately deferential." ZING.

9:52 ET: It's also unfair to criticize her church, according to Pat. She's a Pentacostal, by the way, not an evangelical. He accuses Rachel of "trashing" that religion.

9:51 ET: "It was the scruvy lies and slanders on the DailyKos... They didn't do this to John Edwards." Rachel points out that all blogs did cover it while the MSM didn't, and the MSM wouldn't if Palin hadn't put the statement out.

9:50 ET: It's Pat! His combover is way less obvious on TV than in person. Also, he's pissed that the Washington Post put Bristol Palin's pregnancy above the fold... and that's, like, totally unobjective of the,

9:48 ET: Keeping Sarah away from the media. Rick Davis calls coverage of her "unobjective." On Fox News. No irony.

9:48 ET: FedEx lemming commercial! Love this commercial!

9:47 ET: Alli commercial! I like my fat ass, thanks. Sometimes. I like it better than shitting weird, anyway.

9:44 ET: "We are Day 9 into Sarah Palin's Media Avoidance Tour." Also, she calls Pat Buchanan her fake uncle and shows Michelle Obama dancing and Michelle looks fucking awesome dancing and is better than Barack. Michelle and I need to go dancing. Michelle, call me!

9:43 ET: She says Obama's message is that, "Did you like the last 8 years? Great, go vote for John McCain??" Umm, the fuck? Yeah, not so much.

9:41 ET: Rosa doesn't have a good answer: we're really divided, national polls don't matter, polls don't capture new voters, Sarah Palin's too divisive and Obama has more of a can-do attitude than Palin. Yeah, seriously, remain not impressed with Rosa. And not because I'm a whiny, trying-to-lose hang-wringer.

9:40 ET: Rachel asks a good question: if Obama's so totally going to win, why are they tied.

9:39 ET: LA Times columnist Rosa Brooks. "Democrats seize every opportunity to wring their hands." I already find her a little annoying.

9:38 ET: Ooh, they just show Barack being sarcastic: "With the exception of [every policy issue under the sun, John McCain] is totally going to shake things up in Washington."

9:35 ET: Back to Olbermann's Obama interview! Obama likes the John McSame meme. Rachel doesn't seem to be buying that he is better off sticking to his current tactics.

9:32 ET: Congress won't take up SCHIP again despite the fact that Republicans don't want to have to vote against it before an election because they're scared of the veto pen. Wahhhh.

9:30 ET: Federal government took over Fannie Mae and Federal Mac. McCain twice was all about not bailing them out: now, naturally, he's all for it. Palin said today that they've become too big and expensive for taxpayers... only they weren't until the federal government took them over.

9:29 ET: Underreported stories! Yay! First up: the GSA wants the government to repeal post 9/11 safety codes because developers won't make enough money if they have to put up glow tape in stairwells. Man, when will the Bushies be evac'd from D.C. again?

9:26 ET: eHarmony commercial. They don't allow Teh Gayz to participate, but apparently enough lonely straights watch Rachel anyway. Then AT&T and Crestor for the Oldz.

9:26 ET: Awww, Rachel hits on one of my bugaboos — Congress should fucking pass some legislation Bush has threatened to veto. Fuck his veto! Fuck it!

9:25 ET: McCain is now saying they won't let Palin give an interview until they're sure the media would be "appropriately deferential." The media is supposed to be deferential? Where the fuck did that get this country after 9/11?

9:24 ET: He's never endorsed a candidate since he's been a pastor? Is that even allowed anymore?

9:22 ET: Rachel wants to know if its appropriate to ask Palin about why she sat in church and listened to that crap, and T.D. says we should ask her if she believes it but it isn't fair to judge her for not being rude to a guest speaker. Man, he's so even-tempered. I guess Rachel's leaving the fire-breathing for Olbermann. I'm kind of cool with that.

9:21 ET: He says politicians prolly shouldn't speak for God as it related to war. Amen.

9:20 ET: Bishop T.D. Jakes is here!

9:19 ET: Jews for Jesus founder preached of her church, and God uses terrorism to express His displeasure with Jews. Can we officially say Jews for Jesus people are as creepy as Scientologists.

9:18 ET: God has a plan for Iraq (according to Sarah Palin? Hmmmm, could that be... Barack Obama?

9:16 ET: Cialis commercial. I guess it's not just women that think Rachel Maddow is fucking hot.

9:15 ET: Sarah Palin's pastor thinks that Alaska will be a refuge during the apocalypse... Man, evangelicals make Catholic orthodoxy look completely rational.

9:14 ET: Pro-drilling commercial? WTF?

9:13 ET: "Unlike chocolate and peanut butter, church and state are not two great tastes that go great together," says Rachel.

9:12 ET: Rick Davis said that this campaign isn't about the issues? WTF?

9:11 ET: "If anyone is the ideological heir to George W. Bush, it's Sarah Palin." No, Rachel didn't say it, but it was a great line.

9:06 ET: Breaking down how Sarah P

Megan: I don't know if you read Jezebel...

Rachel: Sure.

Megan: ... but everyone is a really big fan of yours, so the opportunity to speak to you is really exciting!

Rachel: That's so nice. I don't think of myself as existing in the world in a way that people can see me. But I can see Jezebel and you can see me, apparently. It's a strange dynamic.

Megan: It is! So what has it been like, this furor since it was announced that you'd gotten your own show? Obviously, seeing the crowd reaction here every time you open your mouth, it seems pretty positive.

Rachel: It is positive. I haven't been able to see any of our coverage, I've only been on it. So the thing that I'm worried about is that I don't know how much our voices carry over the sound of the crowd, and if we ought to be yelling in order to be heard and if we should stop talking when the crowd is yelling. So just as a physical matter I'm not sure what to do. And I also don't want to be rude to my colleagues here. I'm not running this show — I'm part of a four-person panel that is a tertiary thing. I am a very small cog in this machine, so I don't want to be a distraction. But, that said, I can't say that it's not nice that people are being so nice to me. It's very flattering. I don't know what to say but "Thank you," I just keep saying, "Thank you."

Megan: Do you read your own press?

Rachel: I read some of it. I actually haven't read really anything recently. I read a little bit of the response to finding out I was getting my own show. There was a strange thing that happened with The New Republic, they ran that piece and then Glen Greenwald at Salon having written that long rebuttal to it but I just thought that was like, whoa. That was a discussion of me as an issue rather than of me as an individual. And I found that fascinating academically. But I try not to read too much. It warps your sense of importance and your sense of self. I need to focus on what I think, so that I can stay original. Does that make sense?

Megan: Yeah, absolutely. Do you have some idea what you might do with your new show that's going to premiere in about a week to be original?

Rachel: [laughs] Week and a half! Week and a half! Two weeks from yesterday! I mean, the mission of the show is that at 8 pm there is "Countdown." And at 10 pm, there is "Countdown." At 9 pm, there is something in the middle that needs to hold that audience as much as it can. That's what the corporate mission is, and that's what the program I deal with was created, that's why they asked me to do it because they think that I'm the best person to do that. So, that's the mission. What's the strategy to get there? The consistent advice that I have received, and I've received it from — and I've received it from people in my personal life from whom I regularly take advice, I've received it from people who I don't know but who I respect in terms of what they've accomplished in media — across the board, the advice from everybody has been "Figure out a way to be yourself." And there's a big difference between TV and radio in the way that they are produced. Radio, it's me and one other person. The maximum size of me and my team is three people and two of them are part-time. I mean, it's a very solitary enterprise. And my reading, and my writing — my radio show is scripted — it's cone of silence, big time. A television show has a cast of thousands that are involved in producing it and therefore it is much more of a process. It is much easier to start off as me and end up losing it. It is much easier to start off as my show and end up with another approach. And so I want to find a way so it can be show.

I don't really think that I can compete on the level of "TV Bot," you know, the normal, generic TV host. I'm not that pretty. I'm not that accessible, I'm not that... all of these other things. I'm on specific things, they like what I've got already, so we need to find a way to reproduce that on a show every day. And that's been my entire purpose, figuring out a way to make it to most me as possible. And that's the strategy.

Spencer: As someone in whom the netroots and the blogosphere is very invested, someone that speaks our language, someone who tries specifically to bring our perspective out, do you think it will be hard? Do you think you'll be getting more scrutiny from MSNBC, from the corporate side, than a right-wing addition to the line-up would?

Rachel: I feel like I could answer that in theory and academically, but my experience thus far is that MSNBC has not nudged me. At all. The only experience I've had is to say, "I'm not interested in talking about this topic and if you guys are going booking me for a long time to talk about that topic, I've gotta say I don't have much to say about blank topic, so, you might not want to book me." And they've been like, "Oh, c'mon, you want to talk about it," and I've said, "Nope, I don't want to talk about it," and that's it. That's been the extent of my editorial back-and-forth as a guest on MSNBC. They've never gone there with me, ever.

And I have asked management, upon them offering me the show — and I have no idea how I would've responded if they answered the other way— but what I asked was two things. I asked "Are you looking for me to be different than I am? Talk about different things, or seem different that you've already seen?" Second question, "Do you want me to change the way I look?" I asked the questions because I was curious, but I literally have no idea what I would have said had the answer been anything other than "No, you're fine, we picked you because we like you." But the answer was, "No, you're fine, we picked you because we like you."

Megan: Did you think they would ask you to grow your hair out, dye it blonde and get Botox or something?

Rachel: I guess I was curious as to whether they secretly wanted that but felt they couldn't bring it up because I'd get mad. And who knows what it will eventually be like, and who knows from here on out. They're launching the show, and working on a very short time frame, but it's not been my experience so far.

Megan: Something I wanted to ask, that you brought up a little earlier, is this idea of being seen as An Issue as opposed to a person. Obviously your personal life has come into play in some of the coverage, in terms of being the first lesbian to have a news show. How does it feel to have your personal life out there in a way that it wouldn't be if you were heterosexual or divorced or whatever.

Rachel: Yeah, you know, there is definitely a fascination with the personal lives of people that are on television. I get that, it's a visual medium, that's how we connect to people. I have never been closeted, like, never — I came out when I was 17. I couldn't be closeted even if I wanted to. So I'm out, that's not an issue for me, it's not a decision for me, it's not something I've ever thought about my whole adult life. More than half my life, I've been out. I think it is something that of more interest to people that are thinking about me for the first time than it is for me in talking about it. I don't, this is going to sound crazy, I don't like talking about my personal life. I don't like talking about the media. These aren't my topics. I'm really interested in Afghanistan. That's what I want talk about. My radio show today — you know, I was here and then I ran across town to the Gates Center and was like "Okay, okay, okay, finally I get to talk about Iraq now! Ok!" I geek out on the news.

Earlier: Rachel Maddow For President (Of Cable News, That Is)

• Rachel Maddow has finally been given her own show at MSNBC. She's taking over Dan Abrams' 9:00 ET spot on September 8 (the Monday after the conventions). Congrats! [NY Times]
• Barack Obama told John McCain to stop questioning his patriotism just because they disagree on national security. It won't work, but it was well-said, so go read it. [Politico]
• John McCain might really be prepared to piss off the fundies and pick a pro-choice VP, which should mean that very few pro-choice women will actually vote for him but could mean the fundies will stay home in a snit on Election Day. [CNN]

• Diane Feinstein, expected to chair the California delegation at next week's Democratic convention, won't be able to attend because she broke her ankle last week. Get well soon! [CNN]
• Polls show pet owners strongly prefer John McCain over Barack Obama. Quick! Get cute pictures of Obama with puppies! [US News & World Report]
• We might consider offering corrupt, almost-impeached former military dictator Pervez "Uncle Pervy" Musharraf asylum because he faces perprosecution in his home country. God forbid he face that! [AFP]
• There's an 8-year-old boy named James Robinson on our government's Do Not Fly list. Our government won't take him off, but it turns out if they use his middle name, he doesn't get stopped. Foolproof system we got there to deter terrorists. [CNN]

• Hey, remember how we were going to, like, tax oil companies more and stuff? Yeah, not gonna happen anytime soon. [Washington Post]
• But, hey, monkeys can fish! So, as long as we don't eat all the fish or kill all the monkeys before we drive ourselves into extinction, they can totes rule the world later. [AP]
• Yes, that was a cheap distraction before I told you that we're totally fucked in Afghanistan and no one has any idea what to do about it. [Washington Independent]
• But that's ok, because Obama might pick Ret. Gen. James Jones, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, as VP, because now the Democratic party is all about getting the military dudes on the take so they can look "strong" and shit. Only, the story is actually complete bullshit because he's already a McCain adviser and someone is laughing at MSNBC besides me. [MSNBC, Politico]

• In other news of the stupid, Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma has crowned himself the new Miss South Carolina by releasing a commercial trumpeting his foreign policy credential: "Ethiopia. Zambia. Iraq. Twenty-nine intense trips in 12 years to the front — to the saddest parts of Africa." Oh, wait, where's Iraq again? [Washington Independent]
• And, apparently we're going to try to make all the lefty protesters crap their pants at once at the conventions this summer. Oh, that's a brilliant idea. Better shitting than shouting? [Fox News]
• But in good news, Republicans in the Senate have now defined electoral success in November as only losing eight seats to the Democrats. If they lose 9, they can't even filibuster, which is the only thing they give a shit about doing anyway. [HuffPo]
• And, just to mess with you, McCain said today, "I will veto every single beer." Damn that man, even if he is willing to call his home turf a swing state. [CNN, Washington Independent]

All the same, the results of the survey illustrate a society where the dual-income household has become the norm. 35% of men and 40% of women said that the key benefit of having a working spouse is that it alleviates the pressure of being the sole breadwinner. Of the 25% of men surveyed whose wives did not work, 40% of them wished their old lady would get a job. MSNBC added, "Of the approximately 75 percent of men whose wives did work, only 5 percent wished she was at home." Coontz says most men don't want to come home to a wife who hasn't been intellectually stimulated. They're irritated by "a wife who was frequently either bored or boring."

The only real divide that remains, according to MSNBC, is in domestic chores. Over 40% of women say they do more than their fair share of housework, and 29% of men agree. Even with women contributing more to the household income, about 50% of couples say they fight over money at least once a month. Sigh. In some ways, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Sea Change' Seen In Spouse's Financial Roles[MSNBC]
Love (And Money) Story Of Our Time [MSNBC]

Whoah. Our responses, after the jump.

How often do you fake an orgasm?:
MSNBC survey takers said:
Never: 49%
Once in a while: 36%
Often: 10%
All the time: 5.6%

Jezebels said:
Never: 33%
Once in a while: 67%
Often: 0%
All the time: 5.6%

Have you ever lied about the number of partners you've had?
MSNBC survey takers said:
Yes: 44%
No: 56%

Jezebels said:
Yes: 17%
No: 83%

Have you ever lied about having an STD?
MSNBC survey takers said:
Yes: 6.4%
No: 94%

Jezebels said:
Yes: 0%
No: 100%

Have you ever lief about using birth control?
MSNBC survey takers said:
Yes: 6.2%
No: 94%

Jezebels said:
Yes: 0%
No: 100%

Do you have sexual fantasies you've never shared with your partner?
MSNBC survey takers said:
Yes: 70%
No: 30%

Jezebels said:
Yes: 33%
No: 67%

Have you ever lied about being a virgin?
MSNBC Survey takers said:
Yes: 12%
No: 88%

Jezebels said:
Yes: 0%
No: 100%

Have you ever lied to your partner about his or her abilities in the bedroom?
MSNBC survey takers said:
Yes: 43%
No: 57%

Jezebels said:
Yes: 17%
No: 83%

Have you ever lied to your partner about the size of his or her genitals?
MSNBC survey takers said:
Yes: 21%
No:79%

Jezebels said:
Yes: 0%
No: 100%

Who knew we were so honest? What's wrong with you lying losers?

Lies We Tell in the Bedroom [MSNBC.com]