Nov 12th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Blogger Solidarity
Rachel Maddow is a national treasure:
For many years I’ve owned no pajamas, but shortly after I moved (into a condo I bought, thank you very much, not my parents basement [not that my dad has a basement]) Sara bought me a pair and, frankly, they’re great blogging gear.
57 Responses to “Blogger Solidarity”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Defense Budget
Demographics
Denmark
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Gender
Health Care
History
Immigration
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Labor Markets
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 12th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Oh come on, blog naked!
November 12th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Cheetos or Doritos?
November 12th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
If blogging in your parents’ basement is cool, consider me Miles Davis!
November 12th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Feh. An old t-shirt & boxers is all the ‘jammies’ you need, ya poodle-walkin’ blouse-wearer. And don’t even get me started on how creepy (on so many levels) silk pajamas are…
November 12th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
http://jstarrblog.blogspot.com/. Yglesias helped inspire the product.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
*thinks about this*
Oh right. Sara, your girlfriend, not Sarah, the governor, bought you the PJs. That makes much more sense now.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Take part in my Newsvine poll, re: Maddow in Pajamas!
http://hippiechick42068.newsvine.com/
Maddow Rocks!
November 12th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Am I the only one here who finds both Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman insufferably–almost obnoxiously–smug? It’s great that MSNBC is giving a voice to liberal commentary, but I simply can’t bear to watch either one of its commenters.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
FDL had a post about the qualifications of bloggers, but failed to address the attire and location of the actual blogging. Yes, you can have an advanced degree and still blog from your mom’s basement.
Or you can be a well dressed blogger inside the McCain campaign.
What is strange is that anyone who cares about their professional reputation would participate in a discussion where the other party thinks location and attire determine the merit of their argument. I don’t let my daughter get away with this s*it, why is it allowed in public?
November 12th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
I thought this was a Bloggers Solidarity for Rachel Maddow thread? Am I the only one down with joining that? Sad…
November 12th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
James, of course they’re both smug. Who the teevee isn’t? Keith takes himself far too seriously, but all I get from Rachel is that she a Jon Stewart-like sense of irony. I’m sorely tempted to get cable just to watch her show.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
I love the YouTube logo on top of a ThinkProgress logo ontop of MSNBC ontop of Fox News.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Sunbelters don’t have basements, you insensitive clods!
November 12th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Palin is such an elitist twit.
I say that even though I’m sitting in my pajamas as I type this. But it’s not a permanent state…
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/
November 12th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
hmmm……. Rachel in pajamas blogging…… the daily dishette?
November 12th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Sara who? Did the RNC pay for your pajamas, Matt?
November 12th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
1) Maddow certainly knows her fans.
2) James @9:32, you’re not alone. I would add Colbert to that list of TV personalities that the young and the liberal typically love, but I can’t take except in small/short doses. “Too much!” I say to the screen as I reach for the remote. But then again, TV, particularly since the advent of cable, has never been known for subtlety.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
she could dial down the smug and dial up the smarts as far as im concerned.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Did Sara buy you the PJs because she was tired of seeing your burnt groin?
November 12th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Bloggerdarity?
November 12th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Am I the only one here who finds both Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman insufferably–almost obnoxiously–smug?
I have to say I really don’t get that off of Maddow at all. Olbermann definitely but what has always struck me about Maddow is how incredibly nice and respectful she is to everyone. Can you recall any examples of exactly what you mean?
November 12th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
I do think she’s smug, smug as a bug… in a rug! Smug smug smug. Smug. Smmm. ug. Smmmug.
Anyways, what was I saying? Oh yeah, no, she is all gleeful and Keith is all worried. They should have a show together and call it Rachel & Keith’s Gleefully Worried Hour.
Anyways, yeah I think she’s smug, or maybe she’s just self-conscious or nervous and uses the gleefulness as a cover. And sometimes it seems awkward. And for some reason that makes me say she’s smug. I don’t really know what I’m talking about.
Pajamas!
November 13th, 2008 at 12:10 am
As funny as this may sound, it turns out Palin’s right.
Check this out: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/arts/television/13hoax.html?em
the dude’s totally wearing pajama-like clothes in his parents basement, and he totally made up lies about Palin which got repeated by bloggers and the media everywhere…
November 13th, 2008 at 1:22 am
More importantly, why do U.S. English-speakers refer to “a pair” of pajamas? Or to sleepwear consisting of a single-piece jumpsuit as “pajamas,” a word that takes the plural?
These are significant questions. The people demand more mereology-blogging!
November 13th, 2008 at 2:08 am
Rachel’s show can be viewed online with somewhat of a delay at
http://rachel.msnbc.com
(The same is true for Olbermann, countdown.msnbc.com) No need for cable
November 13th, 2008 at 2:13 am
it turns out Palin’s right
And not only that — any political junkie worth his/her salt should have realized that the Palin/Africa thing was suspicious because it was George Bush who made that gaffe in 2001.
The statistical probability of Palin making the exact same gaffe in 2008 was zero.
And yes — Olberman is always totally insufferable and Rachel only occasionally less so. But this is what Murdoch — through Fox — has done to our culture. What are the ratings of mere talking heads these days (Moyers? Rose?) MSNBC is trying to fight Fox by copying it — and CNN is close behind.
November 13th, 2008 at 5:00 am
Underwear, you morons! Underwear! It’s the only way to fly (besides naked, that is – but my chair is steel and it would be ridiculously cold to sit on it bare ass nekkid! And when it’s hot, the butt sweat would make it slippery!)
And everyone in broadcast news is insufferable. It’s a job requirement – their job is to bullshit you while looking down on you.
If I was running my old game from 15 years ago, most of the news anchors on TV would be dead now (or I would be, more likely.)
This is how news people should be treated, heh, heh:
http://videos.summer-glau.net/view/372/tscc-2×07-12/
November 13th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Hold on, Thorstein, as I read the NYTimes article the hoax is that “Eisenstadt” is taking credit for the leak — it’s not that “Eisenstadt” was the source of leak in the first place. That is, there may have been a McCain advisor who told FOX that Palin couldn’t identify who was in NATO; “Eisenstadt” hoaxed MSNBC by saying he was the leaker.
I could be wrong about that, but that’s the way it reads to me. And Palin’s denial seemed like a confession; you don’t say “If there are allegations based on questions or comments I made in debate prep about Nafta — about the continent versus the country when we talk about Africa there — then those were taken out of context” unless you actually made those comments, otherwise there isn’t anything to take out of context.
I could be wrong — Palin is unfluent enough that she might say her remarks were taken out of context when she means she didn’t make them — but I want more confirmation before I decide that “eisenstadt” was the source of a false story rather than falsely claiming to be the source of a story.
November 13th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Okay, seriously, anyone who thinks Rachel Maddow is smug doesn’t know what smug means.
Hell, even Olbermann isn’t really “smug” per se, but at least bombastic and hyper-partisan can be reasonably misinterpreted to that effect. The technical term for Rachel’s demeanor is “dorky,” which, while not the antithesis of smug, isn’t even in the same area of the Venn diagram.
Jesus. I know liberals can’t just allow one of our own to have some success without a disproportionate backlash, but let’s at least get our adjectives right.
November 13th, 2008 at 9:31 am
I love the blue fuzzy slippers at the end. Rachel rocks!
November 13th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Bloggers respond to Sarah Palin’s quote.
November 13th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Because I just need to write it: I freaking hate Sarah Palin.
November 13th, 2008 at 10:09 am
JS@26:
The statistical probability of Palin making the exact same gaffe in 2008 was zero.
Show you math!
November 13th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Never did Sarah know to reach the Presidency she’s have to get by a army of pajama bloggers.
blogged in tee-shirt and gym shorts!!! so highly truthful
November 13th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Yeah, I don’t think either Olberman or Maddow are smug; particularly Maddow. I’d grant that Olberman can be obnoxious, and that he uses the frothed-up fury schtick too much, but I still like his show. Maddow, on the other hand, is unadulterated awesome.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Of course Maddow and Olbermann are smug! They’re liberals standing up for liberalism, aren’t they?
Everyone knows that anyone to the left of Hannity should be deferential and apologetic for their beliefs. We need more progressives like Alan Colmes on teevee. Where’s Michael Kinsley when you need him?
Seriously, Keith is bombastic but Rachel is pleasant and respectful without giving an inch on her position. Smug is NOT the word I’d use for Maddow.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Show you math!
Show you grammar!
November 13th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Rachel Maddow makes me want to get cable, again…and I will, once the GOP-caused economic collapse is over. Till then, I sit in my jammies and surf the web and, on occasion, blog. Ah, what a life we liberals lead…and happily so.
And may Alaska always keep that two-faced, hate-mongering, idiot-disgrace-to-womanhood (whose name shall never again be mentioned by me, someone who used to LOVE the name Sarah) within its borders.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
I read that Rachel Maddow is a monster truck fan. To show solidarity with her, perhaps Matt should purchase a monster truck and proudly drive it within three feet of cyclists all over DC.
November 13th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Kyle Michel Sullivan: You can still use the word “Sarah” – as long as it applies to Sarah Connor.
OTOH, Sarah’s been screwing up so bad this season on “Terminator” that fans are beginning to call her “Sarah Palin”.
Even Cromartie – before he got offed this week – said that explicitly this week. He concluded Cameron must have chip damage because she made mistakes, which led Cromartie to the Connors. But then he said, “Not as many as you made.” Then he threw it in her face that he found them because of the boy she let live in the bowling alley (after Cameron whacked the other three). He told her, “You should have killed him.” Sarah, agonizing over the fact that her and John’s predicament is all her fault, says, “I’m not a murderer”, to which Cromartie replies, “Who is?” – an interesting response.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Rachel ain’t smug in the least. She’s a very nice person. And frickin’ smart. And probably the best political pundit-host on teevee. Which ain’t saying much, granted. But I dig her. Obama oughta pick her for VP in 2012 if Joe wants to retire.
Calling her smug makes you smug, you bug.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:20 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
March 1st, 2009 at 7:47 pm
cialis
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:02 am
levitraIf you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 13th, 2009 at 12:16 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:35 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:41 am
buy viagra online
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 25th, 2009 at 4:44 am
Very nice site! cheap cialis http://apeyixo.com/ysyrqos/4.html
March 25th, 2009 at 4:44 am
Very nice site! cheap viagra
March 25th, 2009 at 4:44 am
Very nice site! [url=http://apeyixo.com/ysyrqos/2.html]cheap cialis[/url]
March 25th, 2009 at 4:44 am
Very nice site!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:29 am
Incredible site!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 6th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
[...]Good day! my probem:
Your doctor knows which treatments could work and can determine what might work for you. [...]
April 9th, 2009 at 8:41 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right viagra
April 10th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
[...] Good day! great info -really insightful 206676367.[...]
April 16th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
great support!.
I am from Monaco and also now am reading in English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Some random bits scribbled by jeremy zawodny.”
Thank you so much for your future answers 8-). Caprina.
April 19th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
miygNT gycizoowkbns, [url=http://ghoffqderqcy.com/]ghoffqderqcy[/url], [link=http://zevphrmouibh.com/]zevphrmouibh[/link], http://ekmqayeckcgw.com/