Rachel Maddow Enters Facebook Contest To Interview George W. Bush

It may not come as a shock that, despite repeated efforts, Rachel Maddow has not been able to secure an interview with former president George W. Bush. Now, Maddow is trying to win an interview with Bush by entering a contest that he is running on Facebook in support of his upcoming memoir, "Decision Points."

Contestants were required to submit five questions to Bush's Facebook wall. Of the thousands who submitted the questions before the Oct. 21st deadline, 100 finalists will be asked to submit a two-minute video. Of those 100, five videos will be put to a public vote. The winner will then be flown to Dallas for an interview with the 43rd president himself.

Maddow reached out to her viewers for questions over the past week, and submitted the five she had chosen just before the deadline:

Speaking on her show Thursday, Maddow mused aloud about what kind of video submission she should make if she is chosen for the next round of the contest:

"What is the most compelling approach [for George Bush]? Do you go for funny, do you go for substantive, substantive funny, surreal, flattery, charm, intellectual heft, ostentatious lack of intellectual heft?"

WATCH:

Comments

[The Cause Endures]

01:07 PM on 10/29/2010

"Nolan Eller" is too stupid to vote.

[koyak23]

02:16 PM on 10/27/2010

Rachel,

You need to come up with a good nickname for Bush. He really loves nicknames...

[jeremyfive]

01:10 PM on 10/27/2010

There are many thing's I'd like to do to George Dubya Bush, but interviewing him would not be among them.

[gangawah]

12:34 PM on 10/27/2010

Rachel's won many Bush prizes.

[Scar]

03:58 PM on 10/27/2010

Did you think of that on your own or did you have help?

[HowardScottPearlman]

12:09 PM on 10/27/2010

I could see Rachel asking Bush about the 85 Pentagon tapes that Bush hid because they incriminate Bush after 911 .

And then at the end of the interview producing one of the tapes that does implicate Bush !

And the seeing Bush arrested at the end of the show !

[nbb]

08:49 PM on 10/26/2010

No way on Earth Rachel can win. Because her name is Rachel Maddow... and even those people can figure out who she is!

[hifiguy]

05:36 PM on 10/26/2010

The Chimp would be playing with his toes and gibbering after one or two of Maddow's polite, razor-sharp questions. The total meltdown would be a hilarious sight.

[jeremyfive]

01:11 PM on 10/27/2010

Again, the big words. That's what always trips up the GOP, those darn big words.

[wee weed up]

04:31 PM on 10/26/2010

If you don't win Rachel I bet you can get an Obama interview.

1 Ask him why he is spending 200 billion a year to just clean up BushCo's war.
2 Where's Usama?
3 Why is the Afghanstan war the good war?
4 Will his oldest volunteer like they wanted the Bush twins to do?
5 Are you looking for WMD's still?

[MizLiz]

02:03 PM on 10/26/2010

Att Huffpo:
that's such an unfortunate headline...you ought to change it

[CammyV]

09:08 AM on 10/26/2010

If having to interview W is the prize, what do you get if you lose?

[olddognewtrick]

02:00 PM on 10/27/2010

Two interviews with Shrubya...

[TheGreyDuck]

06:31 AM on 10/26/2010

I'm doing the same type deal. You can have an interview with me, so just send me five questions. (Note: I will pick the 5 questions I think I can most use to fix my image) I have a better chance of W winning my contest than Rachel does of winning w's

[kareemachan]

12:37 PM on 10/26/2010

I do believe we all realize that shrub will never attempt (or be able) to answer her questions.

[Carolyn LeBeauf]

12:39 AM on 10/26/2010

You will never win Rachal. You got them republicans scaruuud of you.

[ForVivi]

09:01 PM on 10/25/2010

I don't think he'll go on her show or Colbert's.

[Lolasmom]

07:20 PM on 10/25/2010

I have never understood Rachel's passion for interviewing morons. From Pat Buchanan on down. WHY?
What can she possibly discuss with W?
She has nothing to prove, and giving him air time is terrible.

[Frostfly]

12:50 PM on 10/26/2010

confronting the opposition is an old american political tradition. It's not hardly Rachel's fault the opposition isn't as smart and their positions are inconsistant and wacky. Rachel (and Thom Hartman on the radio) give even wack jobs enough room to explain their points and then carefully destroy all their arguements. It's as important to know who we are fighting aginst as to know what we are fighting for.

[way2muchsense]

07:08 PM on 10/25/2010

So sad, I got somebody all wee wee'd up, trying to sell us some snake oil that is apparently going around about WMD and such. Mods deleted the thread. Then I found what Mr. Wee Wee'd Up failed to provide - attribution. Well, here it is:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201010250022

Basically, Wired is saying exactly what I was saying, which was that the WikiLeaks post the right is pointing to to suggest that there were working WMD was utterly false. Bogus. Balderdash. Same old stuff about previously destroyed munitions we were treated to during the war.

[hope61]

06:19 AM on 10/26/2010

F&F for your diligence. Something the "others" are missing.