Morning Joe on The Huffington Post

Scarborough: Health Insurance Stocks Reached 52-Week High On Friday

2009-12-20T11:41:57Z

On Sunday's Meet The Press, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough was asked a simple question about health care: What has President Obama achieved? His answer: "He has made a lot of people with insurance stock a lot richer."

"This [bill] is great for insurance companies," he explained. "They were going to reform the system [but] neither side wanted to take on the insurance companies. Neither side wanted to get rid of anti-trust exemptions. Neither side really pushed hard to allow you or me or anybody here to buy across state lines. And as Howard Dean said -- and this is a devastating fact -- insurance companies' stocks reached [52-week] highs on Friday after this so called reform bill got its 60th vote. So David Axelrod, who I love and respect, but David Axelrod kept saying 'we took on the insurance companies, this is real reform, they're against it.' Really? I don't think so."

Watch the discussion below:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Huff TV: Arianna Discusses Health Reform, State Of The Nation: 'The Lobbyists Are Winning'

2009-12-17T10:09:35Z

Arianna was a guest on MSNBC's Morning Joe today to discuss the health care reform bill making its way through the Senate. She criticized the degree to which the legislation has been twisted into benefiting industry more than the public. The lobbyists are winning, she said. ""You know who should have been on the cover of TIME magazine? The lobbyists."

She also discussed the waning enthusiasm for President Obama among progressives and if he's capable of making a course correction to get his agenda back on track. When asked if she is happy with the direction in which the country is heading, Arianna replied "absolutely not."

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Christopher Hitchens Slams Palin: 'A Disgraceful Opportunist And Real Moral Coward' (VIDEO)

2009-12-15T09:56:28Z

Christopher Hitchens followed up his long Slate column detailing the dangers of Sarah Palin's brand of populism with more harsh criticism on MSNBC's Morning Joe today.

Appearing with the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson, who has an op-ed in today's Post about Palin's shifting stance on climate change, Hitchens denounced Palin as a "disgraceful opportunist and a real moral coward." However, he cautioned that we should not be too hard on her for her climate-change denying op-ed because "she didn't write that piece and she probably hasn't read it."

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Hitchens: Don't be too hard on her. She didn't write that piece and she probably hasn't read it. I doubt she could either read or write it. Everything she does is for effect, she's, and is always deniable. She could switch back in a minute. At the moment she thinks her tea party crowd wants to hear this kind of thing so she'll say that. She's been out to say, 'well, I don't know but I think the President ought to produce his birth certificate. I'm not saying it isn't a good question. Then later, cause she's got to go to the Gridiron dinner in Washington, and learn how to use a knife and fork and be taught by Fred Malek. She takes it back. She's a disgraceful opportunist and a real moral coward.

Elizabeth Warren Talks Death Of The Middle Class On Morning Joe (VIDEO)

2009-12-11T14:55:10Z

Elizabeth Warren, chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel created to monitor TARP and a Huffington Post blogger, appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe earlier this week to talk about her recent blog post that warns of the death of the American middle class.

"We are at serious risk in America of having 'middle class' no longer synonymous with the old notions of security and solid, but instead meaning living one paycheck to the next, living one bad diagnosis or pink slip away from financial collapse," Warren told MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski.

In her blog post, Warren highlights some disturbing statistics.

One in five Americans is unemployed, underemployed or just plain out of work. One in nine families can't make the minimum payment on their credit cards. One in eight mortgages is in default or foreclosure. One in eight Americans is on food stamps. More than 120,000 families are filing for bankruptcy every month.

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Joe Scarborough: Remembering John Lennon, 29 Years Later

2009-12-08T17:22:57Z

It's hard to believe it's almost been 30 years since I heard Howard Cosell deliver the news on Monday Night Football that John Lennon had been killed.

I was still in high school when John Lennon died so I was too young to remember the Beatles as anything more than a former band.

When the Beatles invaded America, I was less than a year old.

Three summers later, when Sgt. Peppers transformed popular music and America's culture, I was still a toddler.

But regardless of my late start, John Lennon and the Beatles still changed my life in a way that few others have. I didn't see the Fab Four introduced to America by Ed Sullivan, or endure the pain of a breakup to the strains of "Yesterday," or drop acid with my friends while listening to Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band. But I did have their music, and in the end that's all that mattered.

My transformative moment with the band came on the last day of 8th Grade when my friends and I rode our bikes home from school in Upstate New York. When we reached the mall, we dropped our bikes and ran into the record store. One friend bought the latest Kiss album and another grabbed something by AC/DC. Instead of buying something in my decade, I settled on the Beatles' 1967-1970 "blue album." That decision would change my life.

By the end of that first weekend, I was hooked. I spent the next four or five years hunting down every Beatles album, bootleg, solo album and documentary. I'm not sure why I had so much trouble tracking down albums like Let it Be during the mid-1970s. Maybe it was because Elmira, New York record stores had limited stock or maybe it's because Capitol Records hadn't figured out yet that they could sell more albums by a band that broke up years ago than a new band exploding on the scene.

Regardless, all I know is that this Beatles scavenger hunt made my obsession with the band all the more exciting. My friends and I would spend our time on vacations with our families running into record stores trying to find Beatles albums and rare imports that escaped our grasp.

Let it Be was the hardest to find and was soon viewed among my small band of friends as the Holy Grail of Beatles recordings. And though I found and devoured that album years ago, I still haven't gotten my hands on the damn movie! (Come on, Paul. Release it already.)

Soon after buying that first Beatles album, I began writing music. I learned to play the guitar and bass. I started recording my songs. I locked myself in my room almost every night, put on my headphones and got lost in the music. I melted into the second side of "Abbey Road," "You Never Give Me Your Money," the White Album, "Happiness is a Warm Gun," Rubber Soul, "Norwegian Wood" and that wicked twist McCartney added to Lennon's song about burning down a snob's cherished home.

The Beatles gave me a love for music that got me through one heartbreak after another. When my parents moved our family from New York to Florida at the end of 9th Grade, it was music that got me though that tough transition and it was music that helped me find new friends and navigate a new high school.

Halfway through my senior year, I was watching Monday Night Football with my dad when Cosell broke the news that John Lennon had been shot dead in New York City. I stared at the TV unable to speak. My father stayed focused on the football game on the screen while my mother tried in vain to offer consolation. But there was nothing she or anyone could say.

I couldn't explain to them how much this hurt. After all, how do you explain to anyone that some guy I had never met, never spoken to, or never even seen in concert, had taken a more central role in my life than many people I dealt with every day?

Nor could I explain it to my friends (who had always thought I was more than a little bit strange for refusing to listen to anything recorded after 1969 unless it was a Beatle's solo album.) So I did the only thing I could do. I walked quietly back to room, slipped on my headphones and began listening to "Plastic Ono Band." Then "Imagine." Then "Walls and Bridges" and "Shaved Fish" and "Somewhere in New York City" and anything else I could get my hands on.

I listened to Lennon's last BBC interview with Andy Peebles. I read the Rolling Stone tribute issue that told me how my hero's last word was "yeah." I remember watching Elton John singing "Empty Garden." I remember listening to Paul's tribute "Here Today." But nothing really helped in a murder as senseless as this one. Nothing, sad to say, but the passing of time.

Almost 30 years later, I still can't believe what happened that cold night in December 1980. But tonight, I will kiss my 6-year-old daughter goodnight under the sign on her wall that reads "All You Need Is Love." Then I'll be listening to Lennon on my iPod when I walk a few blocks over to 72nd Street and Central Park West. When I reach the Dakota, I'll keep pushing my iPod's button until "Merry Xmas (War is Over)" starts playing in my ears.

I'll say a prayer and walk back home.

Joe Scarborough For President? Mark McKinnon Floats The Idea On Hardball (VIDEO)

2009-12-03T04:33:13Z

Joe Scarborough could be a great Republican presidential candidate in 2012, according to Republican strategist and media adviser Mark McKinnon.

McKinnon appeared on Hardball With Chris Matthews Wednesday to talk about Mike Huckabee's viability as a candidate in the 2012 presidential race in the wake of Sunday's shootings. After arguing that Huckabee could not and would not win the presidency, McKinnon floated the names of Republican leaders who he believes could compete against President Obama in 2012.

Joe Scarborough, the host of MSNBC's Morning Joe, is one of McKinnon's top picks. Before he was on TV, Scarborough was in Congress, representing Florida's 1st Congressional District. Scarborough, a Republican, served from 1995-2001.

McKinnon argues that Scarborough is an independent thinker with media savvy who can be called a "genuine conservative." Scarborough, McKinnon says, "appeals to people like me."

"I think there are a lot of Republicans out there that aren't happy with the prospective field out there. I think he surprises folks with the positions he takes. I think he's a genuine conservative, but he also takes moderate progressive positions, and he doesn't just drink the kook-aid on a lot of issues."

MicKinnon wrote a list of the top-10 Republican presidential contenders for 2012. Among McKinnon's four classifications of "The Unlikely," "The Improbable," "The Impossible," and "The Probable," MicKinnon listed Scarborough as "Probable."

MicKinnon's List:

1. Mitt Romney
2. Tim Pawlenty
3. John Thune
4. Mike Huckabee
5. Sarah Palin
6. Newt Gingrich
7. Haley Barbour
8. Rick Santorum
9. Joe Scarborough
10. Mitch Daniels
(Long shot: Michele Bachmann)

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

During the 2008 presidential election, McKinnon made headlines for exiting Sen. Jon McCain's campaign staff after the Arizona senator won his party's nomination. McKinnon admired then-Sen. Barack Obama and said his departure would be best for McCain.

Stanton Peele: Caffeine Addiction -- As Real As Nicotine Addiction?

2009-12-02T13:58:21Z

Sting has given up coffee, "because I'm addicted to it," he said on the Morning Joe show. Everyone laughed. Mika Brzezinski opened a package of Starbucks and waved it under his nose, then ordered coffee for him, which Sting refused.

"How ridiculous," we think. "Coffee, addictive - what will they think of next."

Let's dial back to 1964 - the Surgeon General's Report (SGR), Smoking and Health. You know, the one that banned smoking - well, it made all sane people decide that they were glad they didn't smoke, or that they would quit.

The 1964 SGR revealed smoking was addictive, right? Not quite. Cancer-causing, but not addictive. No, it didn't FAIL TO SAY tobacco was addictive. It said: "tobacco is not addictive but only habituating."

Tobacco was not addictive, SGR concluded, because (a) it isn't intoxicating, (b) it creates a desire but not a compulsion to continue, (c) smokers don't increase their dosages, (d) it doesn't create physical dependence - only psychic dependence, (e) it is not an anti-social drug - but only harms the individual.

Stanton Peele's Warning: This is the U.S. Surgeon General's argument - I was the first to say smoking was addictive in 1975, in my book Love and Addiction.

Back to SGR 1964: "The tobacco habit should be characterized as an habituation rather than an addiction, in conformity with accepted World Health Organization definitions. . . .Besides tobacco, the use of caffeine in coffee, tea, and cocoa is the best example in American culture."

The Surgeon General did finally declare tobacco addictive in a separate 1988 report entitled, well, Nicotine Addiction. Smoking and Health was 387 pages; Nicotine Addiction was 618 pages - see, that shows nicotine is REALLY addictive. But how did it take a quarter century for the world's scientists to discover what everyone now knows? More than that - haven't people been using tobacco for centuries?

You can see addiction in people's brains, with MRIs, can't you? God made tobacco addictive, right? Only communists and tobacco capitalists say it's not addictive. They must have bought off the Surgeon General and World Health Organization pharmacologists!

Let's do a mind experiment. Suppose we discovered coffee caused cancer, and everyone's doctor (everyone who HAS a doctor) told them to quit. Many people would struggle - and some would fail. Coffee-drinking rates would drop to perhaps half, with many of the remaining coffee drinkers being those who have fewer life alternatives and support systems. Wait - that's what happened with cigarettes!

You mean, then they would drag Starbuck executives - and Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski - in front of Congressional committees to embarrass them for their crazy claims that coffee wasn't addictive?

Thank God coffee is good for you, so we don't have to quit. But, wait - if it's addictive for some - like Sting - doesn't that mean it's bad for you?

This is twisting my brain too much. I'm going back to those lists which tell you: "This drug is addictive; this drug is not." I know, I know, they just moved tobacco - and cocaine - from one column to the other in the 1980s, followed by marijuana.

What will they do next - put video games, gambling, and binge eating in the addiction column? That's crazy!

Stanton Peele's Warning: This post is not about how coffee is bad and addictive, or how smoking is good. It is about how addiction is a relative concept that has changed, is changing, and will continue to evolve.

Huff TV: Arianna On "Morning Joe": War Is Not A Right-Left Issue (VIDEO)

2009-12-02T09:39:46Z

Arianna was a guest on MSNBC's Morning Joe today to discuss President Obama's speech last night explaining his plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan.

She debated Jane Mayer of the New Yorker about Obama's decision to order a surge of roughly 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Mayer argued that critics of Obama should realize there are no easy options on the table, and that advocates of withdrawal will not be held responsible the way that Obama will be if something goes wrong or there is another attack by al Qaida. Arianna countered that criticism of Obama's war escalation plans is coming from across the political spectrum, from Tom Friedman to Keith Olbermann to George Will, and is about what's in the best interests of the nation.

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama has announced plans to begin withdrawing troops in July 2011, but Arianna argued that the proposed drawdown means little since it is "contingent on conditions on the ground." Asked by host Joe Scarborough if she thought this was a continuation of George Bush and Dick Cheney's policies, she replied, "Absolutely."

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Help Rebuild John McDonogh High School in New Orleans

2009-11-18T17:57:37Z

Coming here from joe.msnbc.com? Scroll down to the widget below and click the "Contribute" button to give to City Year. Don't know what we're talking about? Read on...

As we've previously reported on Impact, MSNBC's "Morning Joe" has teamed up with the HandsOn Network and Starbucks for Brewing Together, a new joint initiative aimed at encouraging public service and community involvement.

Their partnership kicked off a few months ago, with the "Morning Joe" crew proudly sipping from Starbucks cups during their morning broadcasts. Just last week, Starbucks announced an updated coffee, named Gold Coast Blend: Morning Joe Edition, which you can read about through Starbucks.

This morning, "Morning Joe" broadcast live from John McDonogh High School in New Orleans, Louisiana. The show discussed the devastation still seen in NOLA four years after Katrina, how this high school has struggled and ultimately excelled despite the setbacks. Joe Scarborough, an advocate for more effective reconstruction in New Orleans, has wanted the media to refocus on the tragedy of Katrina and what individuals can do to contribute to the rebuilding effort. The Brewing Together campaign also wants people to make public service a part of their everyday lives, starting tomorrow with a sponsored Day of Service.

To discuss these issues, "Morning Joe" put together an all-star line-up of writers and advocates for today's show: Newsweek contributing editor Julia Reed, ESPN's Digger Phelps, Starbucks U.S. President Cliff Burrows, Obama Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett, and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, who joins "Morning Joe" via satellite from Washington, D.C.

They also highlighted City Year, a nonprofit which organizes a full year of public service for dedicated youth. City Year effectively instills a sense of magnanimity in today's young people by putting them in positions to be mentors and tutors to America's underprivileged. They're also facilitating many of the donations to John McDonogh High School, and a contribution to their New Orleans affiliate will go a long way toward many of their reconstruction efforts.

If you watched the show and want to know how you can further get involved, below are some actions that will point you in the right direction:

Look up volunteer opportunities in your area through the HandsOn Network. Though "Morning Joe" was in New Orleans this morning, they want you to take action on whatever cause you're most passionate about. Ours is a country full of people in need, so take the time and look at how you can help in your community.

Upload your videos on volunteering to joe.msnbc.com. They want to see how you're getting involved in public service and could show your video on the air!

Donate to City Year through this link or the widget below. Your donations go directly to providing young people with the tools they need to give back to their community.

As a sign depicted on "Morning Joe" this morning said, "Education Is All A Matter Of Building Bridges." Watch Joe and Mika discuss the obstacles that John McDonogh High School has overcome and how you can get involved with Brewing Together's Day of Service:

Get HuffPost Impact On Facebook and Twitter!

Contributions made through the above widget go to the Causecast Foundation, the online donation nonprofit partner of The Huffington Post. Causecast does not take any fees from this transaction and guarantees that 100% of your donation, minus the PayPal transaction fee of .044%, will go to City Year.

Jill Brooke: News Flash to Mika Brzezinski: Not All Women Get Your Breaks And Can Have It All

2009-11-17T12:41:00Z

With the smugness of someone in the winner's circle, MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski churlishly chastised women for not having babies while also having careers. Her commentary lacked any compassion for the many women who desperately wanted husbands and children, but fate -- not desire -- worked against them.

As she recently wrote, "You should go for your dream career but never forget that you're a woman who deserves a balanced life that includes a loving family."

Yup, that's true Mika, but also naïve and simplistic. Not everyone's dreams come true. I know. They're in my office and my home and I'm helping them rebuild lives with broken dreams.

They're the women who went out on countless dates that never turned into marriage proposals. They're the women who meet divorced men who say they don't want a second family and must make the Faustian bargain of having a husband but no children of their own. They're the women who went out with men who promised a future and then two years into the relationship changed their minds leaving them devastated because they know the perils of time marching on and the pain of being a bridesmaid and not a bride. They're the women who got divorced before having a child because the man was emotionally or physically abusive and now time has run out.

I honestly don't know anyone who doesn't want a loving supportive partner in their life. Nor does any woman, thanks to researcher Sylvia Hewitt, believe any more that their window of opportunity for having children is finite. Ideally, and that is the word, one does have children in their 20s as Mika suggests, though that does curtail careers and create higher rates of divorce. Early 30s is still the best time to marry and procreate -- and possibly afford family life.

But it's not like a grocery list that you can just check off since there are many rotten apples out there and not every person gets rewarded for the fruits of their labor -- at work or at home.

I remember when I was in my doctor's office for my sixth in-vitro fertilization before having my son. The doctor asked why hadn't I married earlier. "I've always wanted to get married and have kids," I replied. "I know the stats. But you still have to find the right person."

Yes, after mustering the courage for a divorce, I got a healthy son, a second husband, and two stepchildren. But I never think it is because I was so smart or planned well. I know too many women who are caring, successful, beautiful, and smart, who don't have kids or a husband. I just have always respected how luck figures into life.

Not Mika. She breezily validates her thesis by pointing out how her 20-something assistant found this information so revealing, while negligently not looking beyond the fawning and into her own newsroom filled with forty-something women known as "news widows" whose choices weren't as plentiful as hers. Not only did they not have assistants but no assistance with management to, as she wrote, "shut down this computer and beat the rush hour traffic home to see my girls. After all, homework waits for no one."

These invisible but admirable women have no choice but to work long after rush hour so Mika can help with her kids' homework and they stay at the office around the clock helping produce shows and newscasts in order to pay their bills, put food in the fridge, and possibly squeeze in a few hours for any semblance of a social life.

Furthermore, many 20-somethings can't afford that extra bedroom yet for the baby nor childcare. But they are not the daughter of former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski and didn't grow up with the opportunities she has.

I don't begrudge Mika for reminding women that time is finite and focusing on home life provides the richest rewards. Her normalcy is also to have things work out. She got the husband, the kids, the high-powered career, the great shoes and the opportunity to work with hunky Joe Scarborough every morning. How great is that?

But I guess I'm one of those other girls where nothing has ever come easy. My life has had many career and personal disappointments. So Mika, remember us when you're promoting your book, All Things At Once. Things don't always work out as you wish despite Herculean efforts. Sometimes it's also a lot of luck too. One has to work with the cards you're dealt and just play your best hand. Please show some tenderness to those women too.

Taylor Marsh: Mika Brzezinski as Life Coach

2009-11-17T10:19:18Z

Mrs. Brzezinski has a new book coming out, All Things at Once. If that title is any indication of what's inside, I'd say it's the reason in recent studies that women were found to be less happy than men. In her kickoff posts at Huffington Post, Brzezinski focuses on one main aspect. The importance of having it all, but going for it all early, particularly if you want to be a mom. Don't Forget to Have Kids -- Part 1, Part 2 were posted on Huffington Post. Here are two excerpts:

But let's talk about the greatest gift a woman can receive: being a mommy. For professional women, there simply is NO good time to have a baby. Putting it off only makes the challenges greater. Having babies after 35 increases medical risk and is, lets face it, exhausting. It is also trying on a marriage and a career. - Don't Forget to Have Kids- Part 1

But I am speaking to the women who DO want to have a family and consider a lifelong relationship valuable, rather than a badge of weakness or a sign that she missed the boat on the women's rights movement. I am not afraid to say my relationship with my man is important, even vital, to who I am as a person. A woman shouldn't feel the need to shy away from wanting to build a world around a man she loves and do whatever she can to make him happy and whole -as he should for her. - Don't Forget to Have Kids- Part 2

Now, I've actually been a relationship (and life) coach, "Relationship Consultant" to be exact, delving deep into the life of different women on their way to achieving their bliss. I've guided women, back in the day when personal ads were huge, on how to navigate the language of love to attract the right type of man. But it went much further. I then gave advice on how to choose who's right and ready to have a relationship. I took on The Rules and Dr. Laura. I also received literally hundreds of emails and cards from people who met their match who became their lifelong mate, most of whom I guided along the way. It was an extraordinary experience for me, with what I learned about love and living in the modern era incredibly valuable, which I expanded on when I learned more and more about the sexual habits of humans.

However, when you bring modern feminist revolution into it, the one thing I learned a long time ago is that the majority of feminists I've known have never shied away from saying "my relationship with my man is important, even vital, to who I am as a person." It's what took women down the I Can Have It All path. After all, who can imagine a life without love?

So, Mrs. Brzezinski's whole premise is wrong. It conjures up an old-fashioned, even right wing version, of what feminism has meant from the start. That career women think a desire for a man equates to "her badge of weakness" is ludicrous. In the hundreds of women I have talked to over the years spent in the relationship and sex world, I never came across this claim.

This theory is so fundamentally out of whack it's hard to believe Brzezinski is actually running with it. Of course, she is Mika of Morning Joe, so she automatically gets the platform. Lucky for her, even if she's resurrecting a feminist line that was rejected back in the 1980s. She needed to do homework beyond her own life.

Mrs. Brzezinski might have simply started with the film He's Just Not That Into You. Or perhaps the Sex and the City movie or HBO series, which has enough variety of women, their struggles and the choices they make to have easily further educated her.

The conflict Brzezinski addresses isn't new. Trouble is her remedy isn't either.

One woman whom I coached had a great career, but what she longed for most of all was children, a family. She had been living with a man for years, someone who was never going to marry her, which I told her over and over again. Each time she broached the subject he'd warn her, but she just knew he'd change. After years of waiting, I finally got her to look at her choice starkly. Peering into her mid-thirties, which was over the horizon, helped. She broke it off and walked into what seemed at the time the scariest prospect of all. Having kids without a man. We had talked for months about what she wanted in her partner. One of the things was that he be a practicing Catholic. So, it seemed obvious that's where she should start. Long story short, she met a man in church, they fell in love, and even in her mid-thirties she had two children, whose timing was just right. It all worked out when she was ready and attracted her dreams.

Another woman was a big shot in advertising. She had loved deeply, but never found that right man. One day she did, in her mid-thirties, with marriage to follow. It wasn't easy, both pregnancies incredibly difficult. However, she just hadn't met someone in her early twenties that offered marriage for her. It wasn't as if she wasn't looking. She also had to work things out for herself, some of her own baggage that needed to be stored away. When she was done with that he entered.

A woman who had always wanted children, dated, loved, but just couldn't find the person she wanted to marry, after having one marriage that ended terribly. When she finally got married, she and her new husband just couldn't make a baby... but step-motherhood further filled her up.

I could go on and on.

Mrs. Brzezinski has a full life and she has her own experiences that no doubt are worth sharing. But her set-up on feminism, what it means, as well as the breadth of what women face today is stunningly sparse. Take it as one woman's experience, but reader beware. It also says something about the publishing world, that celebrity can sell something as deeply difficult to understand as relationships, without the person writing being armed with anything but her own life.

Then there is the obvious that's missed.

Feminism has never been about having it all or, as Mrs. Brzezinski puts it, All Things at Once, which I'm certain is a lot easier to do when you're making big media money. Of course, it does happen, but it's rare, which is another reason why the recent study revealed women losing on the happiness quotient. Expectations and unrealistic goals can defeat any fabulous woman on her way to happiness. In fact, if there is any rule that feminists like myself who are older have known since the modern feminist revolution began, it's that this is about having choices, but not necessarily choose "all of the above." Considering all of the choices possible for women, without thinking we are men, because as time has shown as feminists went through our paces, we are moored by our biology, though, thankfully, no longer trapped.

In fact, not being a mommy has become another choice, which women are also just as happy to choose. A woman choosing to be child-free no longer "her badge of weakness," to use Mrs. Brzezinski's words.

The greatest surprise and gift of my life is my husband Mark. He's taught me more about love than the thousands of people I've interviewed, because being in relationship is the biggest learning curve there is. But even as a confirmed career gal, I never ignored drawing a relationship into my life. I just didn't want marriage, as every long-term monogamous relationship always got down to the man not understanding the dedication I had to my work. But I also had to be ready for it or I might have missed it completely.

Feminism isn't about having it all or "all things at once," though it clearly is for Mrs. Brzezinski. It's about following your bliss to manifest your heart's desire and embracing them on the road as they manifest. It's about intending to attract those elements you want, while living your life.

I moved out of Los Angeles to launch my dream of having my own radio show. Twelve hours after I was in my new home this man walked in to turn on my gas. He ended up igniting my life. That wouldn't have happened if I hadn't been following the one constant thread of all my dreams, that of changing my little corner of the world. Being true to my bliss, never giving up even through the heartache, struggles and disappointments.

A woman shouldn't feel the need to shy away from wanting to build a world around a man she loves and do whatever she can to make him happy and whole -as he should for her. - Mika Brzezinski

If feminism means anything as the 21st century dawns, with women's independence for those of us living in the United States within our grasp, even as we fight anew to keep the rights won over a century so that our civil rights are not diminished. It is that no man can make us whole, any more than we can him. That's a fundamental point every person should embrace before they ever enter into a relationship.

Then start by asking for what you want. If you don't know what that is you're not remotely ready.

And if there is one thing that feminism didn't change and wasn't meant to touch, it's that no matter how well your career is going, love still makes the world go 'round. And you're most likely to attract it while you're living your own authentic life. Often when you least expect it.

Oh, and about that archaic bra burning talking point Mrs. Brzezinski hoists from history. Over 15 years ago I was writing about how modern women could wear sexy lingerie, while sporting a wicked smart intellect, without selling out their inner lioness. It's the 21st century and no one and I mean no one is burning their bras anymore.

Taylor Marsh, with podcasts available on iTunes.

Mika Brzezinski: Don't Forget to Have Kids -- Part II

2009-11-16T08:17:37Z

Last week I let you know my thoughts on how children could fit into the lives of the professional woman.

Some were not amused.

"Not only is your post embarrassingly stupid," began one tweet, "it's offensive to anyone who believes in reproductive choice"

Thank God the many on twitter only have 140 characters to tell me what they really thought.

But many were grateful that I shared my own personal thoughts in my last blog "Don't Forget to have Kids".

What surprises me is the sheer volume of reaction I've gotten from women, young and old, about a topic we just don't talk about enough.

For years, feminists have been insisting that we women could have it all. But since diapers, bras and babies have been seen as symbols of oppression from the Old World run by the likes of Don Draper, there hasn't been enough written about women like me who want to work like hell, rise to the top of my profession, and then rush home to be with the kids and also work to make my husband happy and build his life.

For me, having it all doesn't mean having the corner office at work and a penthouse at home if there aren't kids running around as I'm trying to cook my husband something special.

For those who still want to take off their bras and burn them, so be it. But I'd rather find one to wear that is pretty. And when it comes off, its not because it's being thrown into the fireplace.

So with apologies to those who think we women should put off love and babies in our younger years (which I passed too long ago), I am going to risk going there again.

My 22-year-old assistant says the blog spurred a big conversation amongst her peers who have rarely even considered the concept of embracing the possibility of children and a career earlier on in life.

They were shocked at my advice to consider finding a man (or partner) as seriously as pursuing a career.

Sarah, a graduate of Fairfield University, tells me that her friends were stunned to hear that advice from me, of all people.

She says talk of babies and business sparked a debate of young women around a kitchen table on a Friday night, just before they were going out to a bar in the Village. Among her peer group, it is simply assumed that "kids and marriage must be saved for your thirties". And any poor fool who is "looking for a husband" is "embarrassing herself."

That's too bad.

Women face enough pressures and challenges in a workplace that is still depressingly biased against a female's success. Add to that, the fact that the very thing many women I know find most rewarding (having kids) is now frowned upon.

Some of Sarah's friends say they felt relieved to read my blog--that they weren't sure what to do with their desire to get married and have children. That it was great to hear someone they watch come out and say it.

Others, reflected the views of my critics in twitter streams.

The "twenties" are for "me".. while family and kids can definitely wait for the thirty-something years.

My worry is that these new age rules that urge you to wait on family-- whittle away at your possibility to have it at all--- IF that is what you want out of life.

Another huffpo blogger wrote this: "We don't all lose sleep over finding the perfect partner, whether that partner is male or female. The dreams and aspirations of women cannot be summarized so neatly. It is disheartening to see a successful woman like Mika Brzezinski operate on such a blind assumption regarding those aspirations."

You go girl. That's your opinion and I respect it. But I am speaking to the women who DO want to have a family and consider a lifelong relationship valuable, rather than a badge of weakness or a sign that she missed the boat on the women's rights movement.

I am not afraid to say my relationship with my man is important, even vital, to who I am as a person.

A woman shouldn't feel the need to shy away from wanting to build a world around a man she loves and do whatever she can to make him happy and whole --as he should for her.

One can love her husband and be a strong career woman. They aren't mutually exclusive. Any life partnership is a challenge that is filled with love, consternation, joy, and a thousand other emotions.
But ultimately, it is an extremely fulfilling part of my life.

I consider my girls the greatest gift from God in life. And I also love the career that I have built, lost and rebuilt. But the highs and lows of my career would not have been as exciting or manageable to me if I didn't have children and a partner for life with whom to share it all.

The ups and downs.

Getting to this point wasn't easy and it didn't happen by chance. I was open as a young woman, and make it clear that I wanted to try and have a career, a marriage and mommyhood. And I looked for it all.

I considered the possibility of being a wife to be the most exciting and fulfilling proposition. I love the chance to share in the challenge with a soul mate and make his life better. Again, this does not preclude my being a strong focused career woman. It just means that when I go to work, I go there fulfilled. And, dare I say it, being a woman with her own goals and interests at work makes me a better, more interesting partner at home and a happier person. (My apologies to those women who don't want children but if you could, keep your invective-laden, F-Bomb laced tweets to yourself.)

I'm not naïve. The path I travel is not a simple one to navigate. I'll be the first to admit that my path has not been without great challenge and trouble and failure.

Trying to cope with the constant needs of caring for a husband, two children, and an intense job is often an impossible juggling act. At times I feel helpless at playing any one of those roles well. In fact, I usually feel like I'm failing miserably at one of my many roles and overcompensate ridiculously at times.

But in the early morning hours when my husband and kids are asleep, I go off to work knowing that I am doing my best as a wife and mother and that Jim and I are doing pretty darn well raising extraordinary girls.

I intend to share some of my personal stories in blogs to come and tell a great deal more in my upcoming book, "All things at Once". But again, for young women considering so many choices and options in life, I stand by my advice.

Go for it all at once, if all of it is what you want. Don't be afraid of telling the world that marriage is important to you. Sarah says that her peers feel that wanting a husband and babies is "backward" and looked down upon. She said it shows that you lack ambition.

I say wanting love and children and career is about as ambitious as it gets. And a young woman should be proud of that desire to be fulfilled on every level.

Don't miss out because it is not in fashion this year to want a man in your life and to build a family with him. Women should be upfront with their friends, their dates, and more importantly, with themselves.

Today's woman doesn't have to put her dreams on hold be "modern". She just has to be true to herself and all of her desires. THAT is what is truly modern.

So if you want it all, go for it all. This 42 year old will tell you that life is too short.

Get to work chasing all of your dreams.

For more go to www.morningmika.com

Mika Brzezinski Empties Her Purse On "Morning Joe"...What's In YOUR Bag? (VIDEO)

2009-11-11T17:00:52Z

Mika Brzezinski dumped out the contents of her purse on today's "Morning Joe" in honor of guests Nora and Delia Ephron, whose play "Love, Loss And What I Wore" devotes amonologue to women's handbags.

"Oh my god!" Joe Scarborough exclaimed when a mess of makeup, credit cards, hair clips and, much to his delight, prescription pills spilled across the floor.

"We might want to use these," Joe said to Willie. "Oh, that's the good stuff," Willie responded.

Watch the video below and tell us what's in YOUR purse!

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Get HuffPost Style on Twitter and Facebook!

Mika Brzezinski: Don't Forget To Have Kids

2009-11-09T09:55:49Z

When I speak to young women about life lessons and TV career choices, I try to check off the basics of the business for them.

First, you have to love what you do.

Second, you have to be willing to start at the bottom and linger there until your moment arrives.

Third, you have to know when your moment has not yet arrived, even when others tell you it has.

Fourth, you have to be fearless and force yourself to get outside of your comfort zone.

Fifth, you must know how to make the most out of all your talents. That means if you're brilliant, lead with your brains. If you're savvy, go with your gut. And if you are luckier than me and are born beautiful, at least make sure you wash your hair regularly and wear a clean blouse.

Sixth, you have to learn how to face rejection (again and again) and learn more from those failures than your successes.

Seven, you have to perform under extreme conditions--long, crazy hours.

Of course all of this advice is not as radical as it would have seemed a generation ago. Most young women expect to have a career and plan to go the extra mile.

But what I find always gets bulging eyes and double takes is when I say something like this as my closer.

"Ladies, one more thing: and perhaps the most important thing I will say here today. If you plan to have a family, please .. PUH-leeease, do NOT forget to get married and have kids. And start now. Even in your 20's!

"Huh? Did she just say that? Doesn't today's woman have options? Doesn't today's woman need to get her career in line before she thinks about getting weighed down by a family?"

Despite the shocked responses I am sure to receive for blogging this, I know that the strategy to "put off" having kids and developing a family is about the most shortsighted concept I have ever witnessed among my colleagues and close friends.

Finding a job is hard enough, but have you ever considered the odds and the challenges of finding a good man?

Bad news, girls. The odds are definitely better on getting the right job than getting a good partner for life. Someone who will grow with you. Someone to develop memories with. Someone who was there in the beginning. Someone who will be there at the end.

Don't push away that chance if you're one of the lucky ones who find that partner. And remember, you can always change a job. I hear it's much harder to switch out a husband.

But let's talk about the greatest gift a woman can receive: being a mommy. For professional women, there simply is NO good time to have a baby. Putting it off only makes the challenges greater. Having babies after 35 increases medical risk and is, lets face it, exhausting. It is also trying on a marriage and a career.

Don't make your journey through life harder by placing rules on yourself like, "I can't get married till I get promoted to your dream job.

That's just ridiculous. Your "dream" job can wait, because chances are good that you will find this prize you so desired wasn't a dream job after all.

I say, "Go for it all."

A marriage and career could take a decade to launch and nurture. Why wait on either?

In my upcoming book, All Things at Once, I talk about the challenges of my choices, the costs of those choices, and how they led me to where I am today.

Marriage is the ultimate challenge, and like most, mine isn't always perfect. Nor are my husband and I the perfect parents. But who is?

Parenting is the ultimate ULTIMATE challenge, and as a doctor at our local ER will tell you, the strains of working hard and carrying your family often comes at a high price.

Those stories to come, and regardless of all the bumps in the road I had to endure, I still stand by this simple truth: You should go for your dream career but never forget that you're a woman who deserves a balanced life that includes a loving family.

Speaking of which, I've got to shut down this computer and beat the rush hour traffic home to see my girls.

After all, homework waits for no one.

For more check out www.morningmika.com.

O'Donnell To Steele: "You Led Your Party To A Disastrous Loss... Congratulations" (VIDEO)

2009-11-04T10:53:02Z

Lawrence O'Donnell had some tough words for RNC chairman Michael Steele this morning regarding the GOP's loss of the 23rd congressional district in New York for the first time in history. O'Donnell accused Steele, along with Sarah Palin and others, of leading the Republican party to defeat in the 23rd by ousting the Republican candidate Scozzafava from the race in favor of a more orthodox conservative who proved too orthodox for the voters. An incredulous O'Donnell asked Steele how such a stunning defeat could happen.

Steele responded with some humor: "Lawrence, I'll start by apologizing for letting you ask me a question in the first place... I don't apologize for anything. Last night was a great night for the Republican Party." The RNC chair argued that there wasn't much significance in the GOP losing that seat because it will have to be defended again in 2010, and he is confident the GOP can pick it back up.

It was here that O'Donnell got aggressive:

O'Donnell: Michael, you made the 23rd the most important congressional district in the country. The Democrats didn't do it. You did it. You lost it. You led your party to a disastrous loss that it has never experienced in that district before. Congratulations, nice work.

Steele: Hey Lawrence, if it makes you feel good, baby, then have at it. Just lay it on me. I'll shut up and listen to you. Because clearly you've got your talking points from the DNC. You roll them out and have fun with them. You're not going to spoil my juice right now; you're not gonna take this high away from me.

We would be remiss in not mentioning Steele's brilliant introduction in which he expressed his joy with yesterday's results by simulating the Heisman move and saying "assume the Heisman position." Co-host Mika Brzezinski was mortified enough to bury her hands in her face. A screenshot of Steele's move and Mika's embarrassment is below.

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Joe Scarborough Mocks Plouffe's Use Of Stem Cell Research To Defend Obama's Record (VIDEO)

2009-11-03T16:11:21Z

On the "Today Show" Tuesday David Plouffe defended President Obama's record in office so far by pointing out a number of things he has achieved. One of the ones he mentioned was his effort to expand stem cell research. This may seem like a logical thing to mention in the president's defense, but as far as Joe Scarborough was concerned, this was hardly worth bragging about.

Scarborough: If I can just interrupt here. I am sorry, this guy. Ok my house is on fire, it's burning to the ground, I'm running from room to room trying to get everybody out ... And he's talking about stem cell research? That is what's wrong with Washington, D.C. Republicans do it, they're like, over here, over here, gay marriage, gay guys in Iowa are getting married! The house is burning to the ground. We've got Plouffe on The Today Show going, stem cell research, stem cell research! And they have turned Wall Street over to the same characters that ruined Wall Street. But that's what he's doing-- he's fighting for stem cell research. You feel better about that?

WATCH it here, starting at the 8:11 mark:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Huff TV: Arianna Discusses Candidate Obama Vs President Obama And Nation's Growing Discontent With DC (VIDEO)

2009-11-03T10:44:24Z

Arianna was a guest on MSNBC's Morning Joe today to discuss her latest column comparing candidate Obama to President Obama, as well as the public's growing discontent with its political leaders, from both parties. She noted that the the same feelings of disenchantment that Obama the candidate tapped into to win his historic election are now seemingly lost on Obama the president as he works to enact his agenda.

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) joins the discussion on the GOP revolt in New York and dodges question about whether he would back moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Newsweek Editor Jon Meecham joins the panel.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

So, one year after the election, what do you think Candidate Obama would think of President Obama? Tweet your response (our Twitter hashtag is #OneYearLater), or post it in the comments section.

Joe Scarborough: Election Night Preview: GDP Trumps Gay Marriage

2009-11-02T19:28:34Z

Tomorrow night's election results will be read, discussed and interpreted for weeks to come. But even before the first vote is counted, we can probably draw some conclusions from those races.

VIRGINIA

Let's start in the South. A big Republican win in Virginia will not be an earth mover, but instead confirm that the home of Thomas Jefferson and Robert E. Lee is a toss up state that still swings Republican. A Bob McDonnell victory will be seen by most in the media as reflecting a rising discomfort with the explosive growth of Washington, but also, perhaps more importantly, the weakness of the Democratic candidate.

While a Virginia loss may be easily explained away by Democrats, a New Jersey loss will not.

NEW JERSEY

Unlike the Virginia governor's race, the weakest candidate in the race for the Garden State's top job is a Republican. Chris Christie could never be confused with a first tier candidate, but the overweight former prosecutor may soon be moving his bulky frame into the governor's mansion in Princeton.

Every Democratic consultant I've talked to over the past few days has let loose involuntary groans every time they talked about this race. Many Democrats began quietly predicting the collapse of the independent candidate at the end of last week and assumed that factor would help Christie.

Last minute polls suggest they may be right.

Still, I believe the Democrats' turnout operation should keep this race tight all night. If the race is instead a blowout, that can only be bad news for the Democrats.

And for those second guessing the president's active involvement in Corzine's race, the fact is that Barack Obama had no choice but to jump head first into the Jersey fight. All the president's men know that a Republican sweep in New Jersey and Virginia will strike fear in the hearts of those swing state Democrats who now hold the future of health care in their sweaty moderate hands.

That reality may upset progressive Democrats but it is the reality that confronts the Obama White House tonight.

NEW YORK 23

While the twists and turns in Virginia and New Jersey have been fascinating to follow over the past few months, no race has been as entertaining as the special election for New York's 23rd congressional district.

Frank Rich used his Sunday column to suggest that conservatives' success in that district would signal the rise of Stalinism in American politics.

Other press reports have boiled the race down to a civil war over abortion and gay marriage.

And for their part, some conservatives have declared the rise of Doug Hoffman as an indictment of Barack Obama.

But all of these interpretations miss the bigger point.

Hoffman's ascendancy in NY-23 is less about Barack Obama than it is about a decade of bloated and corrupt Republican leadership in Washington, D.C. This race gave the same conservatives who helped drive Ronald Reagan's victory and the 1994 Republican Revolution something to cheer about for the first time in a long time. It also gave them an opportunity to stick it to an incompetent GOP Establishment.

This was, after all, same political party that promised to balance budgets in the 1990s, but then turned around and produced record deficits a over the next ten years.

And those same Republican leaders who called for military restraint and a focused foreign policy while Bill Clinton was president then spent the next decade promising to rid the world of tyranny by exporting Democracy across the globe.

For years GOP politicians would come on my set in Washington and quietly grouse about the political disaster that was George W. Bush. But then the red light on the camera would then come on and they would meekly fall in line. New York 23 suggests that sorry chapter may be coming to an end.

Who knows? Maybe the conservative movement is finally coming to terms with a lesson I learned long ago: that Republican political leaders can't be trusted any more than Democratic party leaders. After all, party bosses of all persuasions pledge loyalties to the advancement of their own party instead of your principles.

It took the departure of George Bush and the continued bungling of GOP leaders to finally stir up the sufficient amount of courage for small government conservatives to take on the Republican establishment.

The press will continue to make this race about abortion, gay marriage and Sarah Palin, but the fact is that Doug Hoffman has focused on his opponents' positions on the stimulus package, card check and higher taxes.

If you're a progressive, don't blame this race's outcome on Focus on the Family. Responsibility rests instead on Club for Growth. Tomorrow, the races in upstate New York as well as Virginia and New Jersey will be decided on one issue. The economy.

Here are my predictions a little more than 24 hours before the polls close:

Virginia-- Bob McDonnell by 10+
New Jersey-- Chris Christie by 1
New York 23-- Doug Hoffman by 7

After calling me all sorts of unseemly names for my backward thinking and knuckle-dragging ways, comment below and give me your predictions. I'd love to see what you think. I'm especially curious about what New Jersey residents think of their governor's race that will be seen by most voters as a choice between two uninspired candidates. (Despite my prediction, I still have a hard time seeing Jon Corzine losing this race.)

Michael Sigman: Thank You for (Not) Running for President

2009-11-02T15:26:26Z

The U.S. is the best country in the history of the world, Americans like to say, because here any child can grow up to become president.

But now that our 24/7 cable/Internet news culture has opened a window on how thankless a job the Presidency can be if you win -- and how humiliating it is to lose -- it's more fun to explain why you're not running for President, though God knows you'd be a great one and plenty of people want to back you.

Pitiful pay is one excuse for turning down high office. Shortly after Jimmy Carter was inaugurated in 1977, I stood beside Sid Parnes, the owner of Record World, the music magazine I worked on, when he took a call from Hamilton Jordan, Carter's chief of staff, offering him a job in the new administration.

Sid was a wonderful man who drank way too much. One time, when a staffer came back from lunch falling-down drunk and reported he'd downed eight Bloody Marys, Sid's only response was to ask, "How in the world did you drink all that tomato juice?"

Sid slurred a bit when he asked Ham to tell the president that, while he was flattered, he'd have to decline because, as he put it, "I make too much money."

In 2006, Time Magazine's Joe Klein demonstrated the power of the double negative when he titled a column, "Barack Obama Isn't Not Running for President." Barring catastrophe, President Obama will not not run again in 2012, so most of the not-running has been on the Republican side. (Though delusional Democrat Rod Blagojevich recently told The New Yorker -- who didn't ask! -- "When I say comeback, I'm not necessarily saying I'm going to run for President. You understand that, right?").

Two months ago, right wing talk-show host and full-time bully Sean Hannity declared he would consider a Presidential run, but only if God directs him: "I've never made a decision in my life without - whatever destiny God has you've got to fulfill it," he mused, ungrammatically. "I'm not sure that's my destiny." Any bets on how and when Sean will thank his well-wishers but announce he can do more liberal-bashing by taking his name out of the running?

And last week, MSNBC host/erstwhile Republican congressman Joe Scarborough and Fox News titan Roger Ailes -- neither of whom has much more of a chance than Blago to get nominated, much less elected -- addressed the burning question of their possible candidacies. Ailes, after encouraging a draft-Ailes rumor, took a page from Sid's book, quipping "I can't take the pay cut."

Scarborough, amidst the cable networks' trumped-up descriptions of "rumors swirling" that he would run, told his own network, "No, I am being drafted by the Huffington Post, which is going to help me a hell of a lot in those early, conservative Republican states." (Speaking of trumping, The Donald himself declaimed that he wouldn't run for President in 2000, after being seen by some as the "stop (Pat) Buchanan" candidate. Buchanan, himself a cable pundit, withdrew when it became clear he had no chance of winning.)

At least those guys had a sense of humor about it. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told C-Span's Washington Journal that he will run in 2012 only if he and his (third) wife, Callista, feel "a requirement as citizens that we run." Translation: "I'm much more important than any office, but might consider the Presidency if duty calls. Deep down, of course, I know I could never win." And don't you love the "we" from a guy who beat even John Edwards in the Sleaze Sweepstakes by cheating on his first wife while she was hospitalized with cancer?

When Sid turned Ham Jordan down, he was being his honest, modest self. A decade later -- after Sid had drunk himself to death -- I had a different boss whose considerable talent took a back seat to his grandiosity. He told me more than once that he could get elected President of the United States but didn't want the job.

If you're over 35 and a natural born citizen of the United States, you need to get off the fence about whether to run for President in 2012. If the answer is no, start polishing that non-acceptance speech -- C-SPAN and the commercial cable networks have lots of hours to kill.