Frankly, I don't think you are going to convince anyone though to relook at the evidence from another perspective at this point though. I don't think that some are ready to be at the point to recognize this isn't about personality, it's about core principles(just as it was during the primary).

I viewed the statement about Maddow being a "hero" figuratively--an enthusiastic overstatement that was meant to express satisfaction in seeing someone state a progressive case sharply.  One would think all liberals/progressives would be fine with that sentiment.  But, no, the score-keepers jump in--even though most of them bend over backwards to show the rest of us dolts that they do not condescend to watch her regularly....but still judge her show as unprofessional--and recent shows at that, the ones that they have not seen that form the basis of what everyone is talking about. So, a casual statement about Maddow being a "hero" justifies a round of tut-tutting of how one should avoid hero worship, accompanied by all manner of condescending lectures about being duped etc.  What on earth triggerd such a response to a simple statement of enthusiasm?

"This is a landmark theological study -- a careful and systematic treatment of a thousand years of legal tradition dealing with armed resistance against the state, rules of engagement, aspects. The fatwa itself ... is categorically and comprehensively against terrorism in any form and for any cause," Ahmed said.

I frankly don't see the evidence that you are suggesting exists that shows Maddow did not "report honestly."  You have cited none.  But she did support Obama as did Josh Marshall--another pariah.  Thus, the distinction between supporting Obama and dishonest reporting makes no sense.  This is a rationalization that you make.  Many of rationalizations I see on this blog to attack other progressives because of the primary are quite elaborate--after all, we can't oppose anyone and anything that ever supported Obama just on that basis alone, so we have all these other reasons why we can't stand Maddow and Marshall, etc--and the list is endless.  

You did not like that Maddow supported Obama.  Fine.  But you take that to an unsupported level by calling it "dishonesty."  Your definition of that term is quite overdone.  You even call my disagreement with you dishonest....For you, it appears disagreement tends to equal dishonesty.  You sling that term around precipitously without regard to what it really means....or whether there is any evidence to support it.