Ken Berwitz
Rachel Maddow is the closest thing MSNBC has to a superstar — which is to say that she is a distant second to Fox News Channel in the ratings, but just about everyone else is even worse.
Ms. Maddow, despite her poor viewership level, is certainly a smart, savvy person. And, as such, I believe she knows why the Democrat Party – under DNC chair and ultra-loyal Hillary Clinton supporter Debbie Wasserman Schultz – has scheduled so few debates – and has scheduled them on low-viewership evenings: to keep front-runner Clinton in the lead by giving her opponents so little opportunity to make inroads that the task goes from difficult to herculean.
But I don\’t know that for a fact. It is also possible that she is hopelessly naive.
Tell you what: read her comments about tonight\’s upcoming Democrat debate, and judge for yourself:
“The last two Democratic debates with viewership down therein the 8-million range, those were both held on weekend evenings, not a greattime to get big audiences. That scheduling plan is also true ofthe next Democratic debate which will be this weekend on NBC, 9 o\’clock onthe Sunday of a three-day weekend. It\’s kind of amazing — theDemocratic Party has done everything it can to ensure the smallest possibleaudiences for their candidates\’ debates this year.
“Here\’s the truly amazing thing though about the Democrats\’ debate schedule.This Sunday night debate for the Democrats — this is it. They\’re not holdingany more Democratic debates before Iowa or before New Hampshire. Imean, contrast that with the Republicans last night, that was there sixthdebate. They\’ve still got another one scheduled before Iowa and then they\’vestill got another one scheduled after that between Iowa and New Hampshire. Butfor the Democrats, no! It\’s just this Sunday night of MLK Dayweekend and that\’s it until mid-February. It\’s just, just amazing.
If Ms. Maddow had invoked the term “amazing” once, my assumption would be that she was amazed. If she had invoked it twice, I would consider the possibility that she was trying to sell me on it. But Ms. Maddow invoked “amazing” three times, in less than a minute. That makes me 100% certain she was trying to sell me on it, and makes me wonder if she was trying to sell herself on it as well.
Please note that nowhere in there was any suggestion that there was an ulterior motive for scheduling so few debates, and making sure they were scheduled for times that would be least likely to generate viewership.
That is not “amazing” at all. Not if you understand what Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who has no problem playing political hardball, is capable of. And I have no doubt Rachel Maddow knows who she is and what her capabilities are.
For those reasons, I conclude that, attractive though Bernard “Bernie” Sanders\’ policies may be to her, Ms. Maddow believes Hillary Clinton – who she has made it clear she very much likes – is her preferred candidate. Thus this “amazing, amazing, amazing” routine is not the product of naivete, it is designed to fool viewers into thinking the dearth of debates and scheduling selections were something other than a premeditated political move to provide clear sledding for Ms. Clinton\’s nomination.
How about you?
Oh, one other thing: tonight\’s debate is scheduled to coincide with an NFL playoff game.
I rest my case.
