Her excuse could be, "I was referring to the frigate also known as Old Ironsides." My bad if I caused any confusion for my 100 or so viewers.

Facts are like kryptonite to the liberal.

And skip that whole unfortunate colonies thing. 

Maddow can't be bothered with the DOI or the US Constitution.  She spent all her time studying Das Kapital.

With a misattribution, it's not immediately obvious whether Boehner said the wrong thing or never knew better. The BOD is on that he said the wrong thing. Maddow's game is so gotcha, so oriented to displaying the right as fools, that she states something that is dead wrong as fact, when she's "correcting" Boehner.

Misattributions happen all the time, so harping on them is even pettier than faulting Obama for wearily miscounting (perhaps) territories for states and coming up with 58. Again, we don't know why Obama said 58 states, we just know that he did. At the time, I argued that BOD goes to Obama. But that all the dems playing gotcha games with Bush's misstatements needed to re-assess the validity. The libs responded by apologizing a and ignoring the incident or with some sort of Special Pleading like saying it didnt' create a "pattern". But no attempt to reassess the value of gaffes for fundamental disproofs.

The whole mocking thing that Olbermann and Maddow does is based on a thin premise that were the argument to be more fully stated would be close to a false dichotomy to support an ad Hominem argument. (I maintain that neither Beck nor even Rush do this as a matter of course.)

Whether 1) the fact checker wrote it down wrong, 2) the teleprompter made her say it, or 3) she misunderstood the conversation with her fact-cheker, she said something dumb. Boehner's claim is "Some statement in the Constitutional Preamble is a statement about self-evident rights" and it can be widened to "Some statement in some founding document is a statement about self-evident rights". Maddows is "No statement in the Constitution is a statement contained in a section called a Preamble." as well as "Some statement in the Declaration of Independence is contained in a section called a Preamble." Boenher's statement is particular, but wrong. However it can be widened to the class and be right. Maddow's first statement is already global, so it can't be widened, her particular is only right by argument, and to be more explicit should be expanded with the words "by some scholars". Whether or not there is a legitimate argument for a "Preamble" to the Declaration of Independence, very few educated people can doubt that the Preamble to the Constitution (...) is a much more commonly used and mentioned text. If we qualify Maddow's first statement to make it arbitrarily more accurate, I say that we lose any sense of her second sentence as accurate. If we say that the "Constitution--proper" does not contain a preamble, referring to the Articles, well the DoI has only the salutation that remains outside the body of the declaration, the "preamble" well-embedded.

But if there can be forces that make her say something that is not redeemable except by sheer generousity, it kind of makes her job of reading things with not the slightest hint of intellectual generousity suspect. If there are reasons for her looking totally wrong besides "She's a total idiot," then the assumption is not easily made in lesser and more common situations.

I mean she calls forgetting a word in the Pledge is "botching" it, and includes the Boenher gaffe as a "Congressman Aiken was not alone in stumbling over a little basic US history" Okay, it's basic, so what was the implication to that word when applied to Boehner that isn't double or triple in a basic fact of the Cons.! 

What is the purpose in any of this!! But the implication that nobody should listen to somebody--or take seriously somebody--who gets such basic facts wrong. That's the implication on Olby's show as well as Maddows. (Again, Beck's argument has never been as thin.) False dichotomy: No one who misattributes the Constitution can be taken seriously, ad Hominem: because they cannot be taken seriously, whatever they said is invalid. 

If allowances can be made for her, she's invalidated her entire job as gotcha girl.

I don't watch MSNBC, but wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Rachel has a condescending smirk that should be wiped from half of her face?

 LOL--that is funny.  Man Cow always looks like she's tasting something foul. 

The absolute cringe-worthy gaffe this week was Obama's shout-out to a "Congressional Medal of Honor" recipient who wasn't even in the military.  I think O must have had it mistaken with the frivolous Nobel Prize.  

The Decalrarion Of Independence does NOT have a "preamble"

Here, for your reading enjoyment and ENLIGHTENMENT is the Declaration in its entirety.

Please READ and COMPREHEND

Declaration of Independence

Here is the complete text of the Declaration of Independence.
The original spelling and capitalization have been retained.

(Adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776)
The Unanimous Declaration
of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Source: The Pennsylvania Packet, July 8, 1776

http://gjresult.com

Maybe he read the one that Roland Burris, previous attorney general and now senator says has a health clause in it.

"2. Replace "Babe" with "Boy" and it still works with Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann."

And, ironically, it works for Maddow too.