Quilt Fairy January 18, 2020 Share January 18, 2020 15 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said: What I noticed, which really surprised me, is that Lev seems kinda smart. His looks & manner are misleading. I figured he'd barely be able to put 2 words together & he'd be cagey as hell. He was the total opposite. He was very straight-forward with Rach, and even articulate & sharp. His observations were consistent with what is known, but they showed him to be intuitive & really worth listening to. Smart enough that he "kept the receipts"! All the documentation he's provided will be key to verifying what he's said. I was surprised that he has no discernable accent. I expected an Eastern European accent for sure. I liked her follow-up questions. It seemed like every time I was getting confused by what Parnas was saying, Rachel asked a clarifying question that cleared things up. Definitely one of the best interviews she's ever conducted. But to be fair, this is a guy who wanted to talk, and he seemed as prepared as she was. I don't think Rachel got any information out of him that he didn't want to give. I know people have criticized how his lawyer was staring during the interview, but he had to look somewhere. I'm not sure why Parnas insisted his lawyer be right next to him. 6 Link to comment
freddi January 18, 2020 Share January 18, 2020 24 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said: I'm not sure why Parnas insisted his lawyer be right next to him. I suspect the attorney insisted on that, to be able to intercede if necessary. I did see the lawyer’s head swivel on the second night, when Parnas as said he had fired his “White House lawyers “ when he realized they would not represent him well. 3 Link to comment
Moose135 January 19, 2020 Share January 19, 2020 On 1/18/2020 at 5:14 PM, Quilt Fairy said: I was surprised that he has no discernable accent. I expected an Eastern European accent for sure. That really surprised me as well. 1 Link to comment
meowmommy January 20, 2020 Share January 20, 2020 On 1/18/2020 at 3:14 PM, Quilt Fairy said: I was surprised that he has no discernable accent. I expected an Eastern European accent for sure. He came to the US at age 3. What I can't believe is that he's only 47 years old. He looks at least ten years older. 8 Link to comment
ScoobieDoobs January 22, 2020 Share January 22, 2020 (edited) So Val Demings included a short clip of Rachel interviewing Lev, when arguing for an amendment last nite. Yay, Rach! Watching this Impeachment is making me nauseous & anxious, but seeing Rach (even for a brief & fleeting moment) was nice. Made me smile for a sec, but now I’m back to feeling anxious & nauseous . . . Btw, did Val include a clip of Anderson interviewing Lev? Noooo. Just sayin’! Edited January 22, 2020 by ScoobieDoobs 9 Link to comment
ahisma January 23, 2020 Share January 23, 2020 I’m not usually a fan of the big panels, but this one was really good. Claire McCaskill was a great get for that Senate insider perspective. Noah Feldman was excellent. I’d be happy if he became a regular MSNBC contributor. And Sherrilyn Ifill brought back around the excellent point that all of this boils down to the integrity of our elections. Overall, exactly the coverage of the proceedings that I needed. 4 Link to comment
freddi January 25, 2020 Share January 25, 2020 (edited) OMG, Bondy *SPEAKS*! Rachel: "You may remember Mr. Bondy, the attorney who sat next to Lev Parnas last week." Why yes, yes we do, Rachel. Although, it was odd to see him not staring at you like a dog staring at a pound of raw beef and choosing the moment to pounce. ETA: But at the start of the second hour of Rachel, he was again staring at her. Now from a mere 18 inches away. It is just creepy. Edited January 25, 2020 by freddi 4 2 Link to comment
ScoobieDoobs January 25, 2020 Share January 25, 2020 Bondy seems OK — maybe he’s got resting creepy-face? Rach, get to the Pompeo-curses-out-NPR-reporter story! I so want her to spotlight him showing off who he really is . . . 2 1 Link to comment
tres bien January 25, 2020 Share January 25, 2020 I know the Bondy interview/Les Parnas tape was considered a huge get by Rachel, but, in the overall scheme of things, to me it's just another nothing. Link to comment
Pearson80 January 27, 2020 Share January 27, 2020 On 1/25/2020 at 6:32 AM, tres bien said: I know the Bondy interview/Les Parnas tape was considered a huge get by Rachel, but, in the overall scheme of things, to me it's just another nothing. I agree with you in a way in that it will not move certain craven people in congress to act. I do think it will resonate with the public as more and more information comes out. 2020 is going to be an unbelievable ride. 8 Link to comment
freddi January 29, 2020 Share January 29, 2020 (edited) Well, this was a different kind of handoff -- literally, Chris handing it over to Rachel: Edited January 29, 2020 by freddi 1 Link to comment
freddi January 29, 2020 Share January 29, 2020 And then, another handoff at the end, letting us all see how very happy they are at today's news. Just a day at the top of the roller coaster, before the next plunge. Glad they are enjoying it: 2 Link to comment
ScoobieDoobs January 30, 2020 Share January 30, 2020 (edited) Jeez, Rachel’s manner was so happy & peppy & giddy last nite. Uh, WTF? What she was saying sure as hell wasn’t. She sounded very somber & real when she said everything is very fluid (it absolutely is) & she’s not going to make any predictions. Good move. But still, the content of what she was saying was so glum & depressing — and yet her manner was the exact opposite. I don’t object, but it made me wonder if she had a belt or 2 before going on air . . . Edited January 30, 2020 by ScoobieDoobs 1 Link to comment
Pearson80 January 30, 2020 Share January 30, 2020 1 hour ago, ScoobieDoobs said: Jeez, Rachel’s manner was so happy & peppy & giddy last nite. Uh, WTF? What she was saying sure as hell wasn’t. She sounded very somber & real when she said everything is very fluid (it absolutely is) & she’s not going to make any predictions. Good move. But still, the content of what she was saying was so glum & depressing — and yet her manner was the exact opposite. I don’t object, but it made me wonder if she had a belt or 2 before going on air . . . I think it is her way of dealing with it. It is all so horrifying and sad to see how up is down and down is up.. Nothing makes sense anymore.. 7 Link to comment
FoundTime January 30, 2020 Share January 30, 2020 I also think there's something in her that gets a kind of rush out of being so close to what are truly historical events and reporting on them. It could make one a certain kind of giddy. 7 Link to comment
Sharpie66 February 4, 2020 Share February 4, 2020 Lawrence: Rachel, you have won the romance argument. Rachel: For the first time in my freakin’ life. Hee! 5 Link to comment
freddi February 8, 2020 Share February 8, 2020 The opening segment on Friday, about all those who testified and have left or been marched out of the building as a result of their testimony of truth, was one of the bleakest segments I can remember. "We'll make sure retaliation never happens." Well, says Rachel, here are the pictures of the departed. Oh, and the brother of one of them. I knew all this before her show, but it was still stunning to see her summation and the mirror image from 1973-74, when the checks against abuse of power ultimately worked. Thanks, Rachel, for continuing to shine a light on all this. 13 Link to comment
Calvada February 8, 2020 Share February 8, 2020 the president has always been one to "butter his own cup" ---- is that what Rachel said? Is this an expression? I've never heard it before. Link to comment
Xena February 9, 2020 Share February 9, 2020 On 2/7/2020 at 9:32 PM, freddi said: The opening segment on Friday, about all those who testified and have left or been marched out of the building as a result of their testimony of truth, was one of the bleakest segments I can remember. "We'll make sure retaliation never happens." Well, says Rachel, here are the pictures of the departed. Oh, and the brother of one of them. This. A thousand times this. I, like many, many others, have become numb and worn down over the last three years, it takes a lot to garner alarm at this point. But this opening segment sent chills down my spine. Exactly because nothing can garner the nations attention anymore, and this should. This (retaliation) is just once more slow slide towards the the death of our democracy. This isn't supposed to happen here. When it does happen, there should be repercussions. The fact that we all know there won't be is proof that we are no longer waiting to be a banana republic, we already are one. 12 Link to comment
freddi February 13, 2020 Share February 13, 2020 So, on Friday, when I said that her opening segment was one of the bleakest I had ever seen? Tonight was that bleakness on steroids. Then, when she showed the ceremony with the standing ovation for Marie Yovanovitch, and the way it went on and on -- I cried. In gratitude for her bravery. And because she got to hear some of that gratitude in the reaction of the audience. (And my goodness, she has the most elegant outfits! Showing us that being brave and being vilified can be accompanied by impeccable style.) 12 Link to comment
BuckeyeLou February 14, 2020 Share February 14, 2020 I am really impressed with what Prof. Timothy Snyder is saying! I need to read his book about Tyranny. He was somber in describing what is happening but he emphasized that we cant just give up & accept what is happening...that we all need to be energized and inter-act with our fellow citizens & do lots of reading. Prof. Snyder said Putin & Trump want citizens to just accept what is happening & just give up. Meanwhile, I still have a pit in my stomach... 9 Link to comment
freddi February 15, 2020 Share February 15, 2020 (edited) Oh, ouch, Rachel. That was a spectacular opening, and I had not heard of the unsealed documents in the Andrew McCabe case, so it was fascinating. But she said the documents "were ex parte, which means under seal." No, although the documents were sealed. This is a basic legal principle, where ex parte means that one side has been party to a discussion or presented a document without notice to the other party. (Not all ex parte communications are sealed -- some are emergency communications.) Essentially, the prosecution was communicating with the judge outside of the knowledge of the defense, within the rules. And the rules for this are restrictive, to be fair to both parties in a proceeding, i.e., to prevent one side from making its case without a chance for rebuttal. Edited February 15, 2020 by freddi Link to comment
Sesquipedalia February 16, 2020 Share February 16, 2020 (edited) Rachel is truly a leader of the resistance now. Like others have said, her opening segments the last few nights have sent chills down my spine. I am listening to her and her guests and following their lead. I like how she is not just reporting the facts but asking "What do we do?". Just started reading On Tyranny. ETA: On Tyranny is a very quick read! I already finished it. Highly recommend. Edited February 18, 2020 by Sesquipedalia 4 Link to comment
Sharpie66 February 26, 2020 Share February 26, 2020 I bought The Coming Plague not long after it was published 25 years ago, and it freaked me out completely. Interesting timing on the ad that preceded her appearance, which was for HIV, which is covered in the book. 1 Link to comment
ScoobieDoobs February 26, 2020 Share February 26, 2020 Oh Jeez, what a choice tonite -- watch Rach scaring the shit outta me over what Trump & his lunkheads are NOT doing about the Coronavirus coming to the US, or watch the crappy crew of Dem candidates beat the fuck outta each other. I chose to watch Rach tonite, instead of the debate. No regrets, but that reporter Rach had on at the end of the show was way too dramatic -- er, at least I'm hoping she was, cuz if she's right we're all doomed. And Rach not shaking hands with her made me very, very nervous. And Rachel's chuckles didn't make me feel any better. 2 Link to comment
Sharpie66 February 26, 2020 Share February 26, 2020 Just found out that the Dr. Nancy Messemeier who gave that phone briefing and will be calling her child’s school for their emergency plans? She’s Rod Rosenstein’s sister. 4 1 Link to comment
Ladyrain February 26, 2020 Share February 26, 2020 14 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said: And Rach not shaking hands with her made me very, very nervous. And Rachel's chuckles didn't make me feel any better. The whole show made m twitchy. Rachel's pretty good at smoothing over rough edges/news, but something about her approach to this coronavirus thing is making me think even she's scared. I'm old enough to be her mother, yet I always look to her to make me feel at least a little better about all the things she reports on. This story, however, is unsettling in that there's nothing she can say to make us feel better/safer/comfortable. That speaks volumes to me. 2 Link to comment
freddi February 27, 2020 Share February 27, 2020 6 hours ago, Ladyrain said: The whole show made m twitchy. Rachel's pretty good at smoothing over rough edges/news, but something about her approach to this coronavirus thing is making me think even she's scared. I'm old enough to be her mother, yet I always look to her to make me feel at least a little better about all the things she reports on. This story, however, is unsettling in that there's nothing she can say to make us feel better/safer/comfortable. That speaks volumes to me. I agree she is very concerned, and I think she is perhaps unintentionally using her show as therapy -- she can call on anyone to come on the show and answer her questions. Not that the answers are making us less twitchy. 13 hours ago, Sharpie66 said: Just found out that the Dr. Nancy Messemeier who gave that phone briefing and will be calling her child’s school for their emergency plans? She’s Rod Rosenstein’s sister. Now that is fascinating! News to me! 2 Link to comment
Quilt Fairy February 27, 2020 Share February 27, 2020 I find her discussions about the coronavirus are actually a nice respite from the daily political news. How f*cked up is that? 6 Link to comment
BuckeyeLou February 28, 2020 Share February 28, 2020 Really interesting conversation with the Juror from the Roger Stone case. He emphasized the importance of Jury Service. Two Thumbs Up for the Jurors in this case. 10 Link to comment
ScoobieDoobs February 29, 2020 Share February 29, 2020 Uh, Rach, we need to talk, hun — look, you are REALLY getting carried away with the coronavirus coverage. Once you’ve mentioned it 800 times, I’d say it’s enough already. 45 minutes into the show & still talking about it, I’m no longer scared, but totally bored. If that’s what you’re looking to achieve, Rach, then well done. Eh, the Times health reporter, who was so freakin’ dull, did say the most important thing to do — which is getting test kits out as fast as possible & everywhere. But it was too easy to miss this cuz I nearly fell asleep watching that guy. And Rach spent way too much time blathering on about stats of peeps with the virus in other countries. Ugh! So wait, did Rachel not even mention the court decision about Don McGahn? I mean she’s been talking about that, for what? Like 3 years? But she’s so side-tracked by coronavirus, she completely ignores this? And no discussion on the fool Trump nominated for National Security Advisor, who she has spoken at great length about before? Uh, how ‘bout just change the title of the show now to Rachel’s Coronavirus Hour? 1 Link to comment
ScoobieDoobs March 3, 2020 Share March 3, 2020 OK, so Rach went from an all Coronavirus hour on Friday to tonite’s no Conoravirus hour. Could someone have said to her to cool it, calm the fuck down & start covering Super Tuesday instead? Ya think? Well, I’m not lookin’ to pick on Rach, I’m really not, but she kinda bugged me tonite. She seems to wanna come off as not biased among the Dem candidates, but I got the definite impression she way favors Bernie. I’ve been really pissed off at how ALL of the media has outrighly said (before Saturday) that Bernie is the clear winner & it’s the end of the story — uh, like those who haven’t yet voted don’t matter. Sorry, but Rach is as guilty of this Bernie-is-sure-to-win crap storyline as the rest of those in media. Her manner & facial expressions seemed very suspect, if any of Biden’s recent momentum & endorsements could possibly have any effect on what looks like Bernie’s “sure win”. Ugh. Could Rach really be a Bernie Bro, and she’s just tryin’ to keep it on the down low? I know how Rach loves to say nice things about her colleagues, but if she mentions that creep Matthews, I’ll puke. 1 Link to comment
Sharpie66 March 3, 2020 Share March 3, 2020 I was just fine with her all-Covid19 coverage, because it is freaking me out and is just what I feared would happen under Trump. We need media coverage to expose what’s happening in our world in all areas, both good and bad, and when something is fast-moving like this virus, the more accurate info, the better. And I guess her opinions on the candidates is in the eye of the beholder—I was thinking last night that she was definitely favoring Biden! I was pleased that they covered both rallies for Biden and Sanders, considering how much airtime they gave Trump’s rallies in ‘16. 6 Link to comment
ScoobieDoobs March 4, 2020 Share March 4, 2020 Well, if there was any doubt of Rachel’s Bernie fan-girl status, there shouldn’t be any doubt now — she’s got him on tonite. Mmm, OK, so is Rach tryin’ to help him out after his shitty nite? Welp, Rachel’s support didn’t help Kamala, Cory, Warren or Amy much, so let’s see how a Rachel love-fest for Bernie goes. Link to comment
tessaray March 4, 2020 Author Share March 4, 2020 I don't know how Rachel will handle Bernie's interview but I suspect part of having him on is because MSNBC as a whole was called out for their anti-Bernie attitude. Having him on their premiere nightly show seems designed to counter those accusations. 2 Link to comment
freddi March 5, 2020 Share March 5, 2020 4 hours ago, tessaray said: I don't know how Rachel will handle Bernie's interview but I suspect part of having him on is because MSNBC as a whole was called out for their anti-Bernie attitude. Having him on their premiere nightly show seems designed to counter those accusations. This makes sense -- they were way too delighted at Joe Biden's great and surprising night. I'm all for it (anyone who could win), but was surprised at the tilt I saw. I'm sure Sanders was all too happy for the compensatory air time, which is extensive on the Wednesday TRMS episode. I'm watching with the sound turned way down, so look forward to hearing is there are parts I should listen to on the repeat. 1 Link to comment
ScoobieDoobs March 5, 2020 Share March 5, 2020 What “anti-Bernie” stuff was there on MSNBC before Super Tuesday? There was none, other than the wacko remark from Matthews & he had to apologize for it. Quite the opposite, actually. Up until Monday, Chuck Toad & most of the other MSNBC clowns (except maybe Rachel) had been saying with annoying assurance that Bernie is the nominee & that’s it. Nah, I don’t think this “Rachel’s Bernie-Lovefest Full-Hour Interview” has anything to do with MSNBC. Rachel has probably been requesting an interview with him & I don’t think he’s given her one lately, has he? So this was clearly his decision. Is she throwing softball questions at him & fawning all over him? Well, that’s for others here to say cuz — I tuned out. Bernie is what he is. Rachel (as much as I like her) isn’t gonna make me feel any differently about him. 1 Link to comment
tessaray March 5, 2020 Author Share March 5, 2020 If you Google "MSNBC Bernie bias" you can see an assortment of articles (WaPo, CNN, GQ among the more mainstream) from the last few months. I'm not saying that the network is (or isn't) biased, just that a lot of claims have been made. Link to comment
freddi March 5, 2020 Share March 5, 2020 (edited) I did see the end of the show, where Rachel looked at the camera and spoke directly to Joe Biden, telling him again she would like to have him on the show for an interview. She said she will go to Delaware, or American Samoa, or Vermont, whatever works for him. It reminded me of Lorne Michaels on Saturday Night Live in 1976 (I had to look up the date!), offering the Beatles a chance to reunite on SNL, and saying that money was no object, because NBC had authorized a certified check for $3000 for the reunion appearance ("You can divide it up any way you want. If you want to give Ringo less, that's your business"). He held the check to the camera to prove it ("Payable to 'The Beatles'"). Just another plea through the screen to a hoped-for viewer who might be lured into an appearance. Edited March 5, 2020 by freddi 5 1 Link to comment
ScoobieDoobs March 5, 2020 Share March 5, 2020 So why did Joe show up for a short interview with LOD? Look, I’ve noticed Rachel’s sneering looks & just-smelled-poop faces when she talks about Joe. She got awfully quiet last nite when the nite was going badly for Bernie. And man, she sure did play up that CA win for Bernie tonite, didn’t she? Maybe Joe just doesn’t wanna face someone who doesn’t like him & strongly supports his opponent. Can’t blame him for that. Rachel does not have a good poker face. Support Bernie if you want, Rach — all I ask of you is to hold back the sneering looks & just-smelled-poop faces on Joe & try to cover both the same. If she uses her show as a platform to promote Bernie, I’ll be extremely disappointed in her — I may even watch much less. 1 Link to comment
buttersister March 5, 2020 Share March 5, 2020 I love Rachel. I tried watching tonight's interview. Saw an old man with variations on his stump speeches turning multiple shades of red. Heard Rachel push back a bit on one thing, then just let him go off. Didn't/couldn't stick it out. Fwiw, all primary season she's been pretty enthusiastic when one of the candidates showed up. 1 Link to comment
shok March 5, 2020 Share March 5, 2020 3 hours ago, buttersister said: I love Rachel. I tried watching tonight's interview. Saw an old man with variations on his stump speeches turning multiple shades of red. Heard Rachel push back a bit on one thing, then just let him go off. Didn't/couldn't stick it out. Fwiw, all primary season she's been pretty enthusiastic when one of the candidates showed up. Is that what the interview was like? I couldn't watch it. Bernie bugs me just as much as Trump and I can't watch anything he's on. I wouldn't mind reading a transcript of the interview if one was available. It drives me crazy how whenever Bernie is losing it's because the establishment is rigging the election against him and I don't think the hundreds of thousands of African Americans and suburban housewifes who didn't vote for him Tuesday exactly represents the American establishment. 9 Link to comment
ahisma March 5, 2020 Share March 5, 2020 (edited) 11 hours ago, buttersister said: Heard Rachel push back a bit on one thing, then just let him go off. Didn't/couldn't stick it out. If you’d watched longer, you would have seen her pushing back more. On one question, on him getting fewer African American votes, she pushed like four or five times. (She did also explicitly say in the midst of it that she has always liked his policies/agenda.) 8 hours ago, shok said: It drives me crazy how whenever Bernie is losing it's because the establishment is rigging the election against him Also, at no time last night did Bernie say that he’s losing this year because the system is rigged by the establishment. He talked towards the end about 2016, and how Hillary walked into the convention with 500 superdelegate votes already for her. He fought for the rule change that means that this year superdelegates won’t be counted on the first ballot, only delegates representing voters. And he very calmly said that if Joe has more votes than him on the first ballot, Joe won, even if it’s not the majority. Overall he was very respectful of Joe and Elizabeth, and is already talking about how the Democrats will be completely united against Trump. He just laid out his case for igniting enthusiasm with progressive policies versus candidates using corporate/billionaire money and supporting more corporate friendly policies. In general, he came across as collegial and willing to respect the will of the voters. Edited March 5, 2020 by ahisma 1 3 Link to comment
ScoobieDoobs March 5, 2020 Share March 5, 2020 I was expecting a Warren candidacy eulogy from Rachel tonite, but an interview? Oh gosh, Rach, please not a whole hour with her. She’s made no decisions on who to endorse or what she wants from a winning Dem candidate. So please, please, please don’t give a whole hour to her, Rach. Sniff, now I’m almost missing Rachel’s Coronavirus Hour. Sure, her panicked manner & expressions were making me anxious as hell, but I always enjoy her snark on Trump’s predictable gaffes. Link to comment
Calvada March 6, 2020 Share March 6, 2020 (edited) 22 hours ago, freddi said: I did see the end of the show, where Rachel looked at the camera and spoke directly to Joe Biden, telling him again she would like to have him on the show for an interview. She said she will go to Delaware, or American Samoa, or Vermont, whatever works for him. It reminded me of Lorne Michaels on Saturday Night Live in 1976 (I had to look up the date!), offering the Beatles a chance to reunite on SNL, and saying that money was no object, because NBC had authorized a certified check for $3000 for the reunion appearance ("You can divide it up any way you want. If you want to give Ringo less, that's your business"). He held the check to the camera to prove it ("Payable to 'The Beatles'"). Just another plea through the screen to a hoped-for viewer who might be lured into an appearance. And then when George Harrison was on SNL, they did a hilarious scene where Lorne Michael is telling George that it was $3,000 for 4 Beatles, so it's only $750 for George. I couldn't watch the Bernie interview - a whole hour? I agree, I'd rather have the obsession with the the coronavirus. I'm hoping tonight that it won't be the whole hour with Warren. Rachel has got to devote some time to the federal judge lambasting AG Barr, doesn't she? Post show: once it was clear that Rachel was in Warren's house, I knew the hour would be devoted to the interview. I watched about 10 minutes only. I just don't get this lament that Warren (and Klobuchar, Harris and Gillibrand) dropping out means the death of all hopes that America will ever elect a woman as president. Wasn't a huge story in 2018 the number of women elected to Congress? Maybe one of those women will run and win? What about a female governor running? What about the thought that whether it's Biden or Sanders as the nominee, a woman might be on the ticket in the VP slot, and that at their respective ages, if one of them wins in November, he might only want to serve 1 term and thus his VP would be a favorite in 2024? However, the big question after the past 2 nights is does Rachel wear contact lenses usually and why don't they go on the road with her? The glasses look great on her, but why has she been wearing them on these road trips? Edited March 6, 2020 by Calvada updated 1 Link to comment
ScoobieDoobs March 6, 2020 Share March 6, 2020 The Warren interview was not the waste of time I thought it was gonna be. She gave an excellent explanation on why she felt it was important to take Bloomberg down as a candidate. I totally agreed with her. And she also gave a really good take on the Coronavirus’ likely economic effect on the country, particularly with this “incompetent” administration. I thought Warren was needlessly coy when Rachel pushed her on whether she’ll endorse Bernie. Rach didn’t ask her anything on her opinion of Biden, but given Rachel’s now obvious Bernie slant, I’m not surprised. Did this interview need to take up a whole hour? Nah. Look, given Trump’s current routine of doling out happy-talk babble on Coronavirus, I’m all for Rachel concentrating on facts every nite to counter Trump’s daily bullshit. Just keep your cool, Rach, and don’t overwhelm us or go overboard, please. 1 Link to comment
Sharpie66 March 6, 2020 Share March 6, 2020 (edited) As a woman not too much older than Rachel, I can attest that having Hillary lose in ‘16 could be written off by her having all of her Hillary baggage. I had much higher hopes for Elizabeth Warren this time around because she didn’t have that weight, yet she didn’t even get a decent performance out of her home state where she is popular. So, yes, there is some despair that the US will never elect a woman to that top spot. As for her getting the full hour for the interview, if Warren wasn’t a good interview and worth the time, I would be complaining as well. But she is very engaging and has good chemistry with Rachel, who always brings her interviewing A-game when speaking with Warren. Edited March 6, 2020 by Sharpie66 8 Link to comment
freddi March 6, 2020 Share March 6, 2020 And there was the beautiful dog at the conclusion -- eating Rachel's notes. I only listened to a few minutes of each interview. But who was "Steve" who loaned his living room for the Bernie interview -- Rachel mentioned "Steve" last night and again tonight. I wonder if these long, long days and travel make wearing glasses more comfortable for Rachel? Also, she has not taken a day off in a very long time, so I hope she can get a break soon. This is all intense, much more than usual. 1 Link to comment
Moose135 March 6, 2020 Share March 6, 2020 55 minutes ago, freddi said: But who was "Steve" who loaned his living room for the Bernie interview -- Rachel mentioned "Steve" last night and again tonight. I think she said he is a good friend of hers. And you can't go wrong including the dog! Link to comment
ScoobieDoobs March 6, 2020 Share March 6, 2020 OK, so The Times offers up some explanation of Rachel's Bernie interview- https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/business/media/msnbc-bernie-sanders-media.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage Whatever, did it help Bernie get more votes? Doubt it. She gave Bernie the op to appeal directly to black voters & instead, he just got defensive & didn't do it. Eh, MSNBC is more concerned if it got 'em decent ratings than whether they're being fair to Bernie. The above article states how the Trump era has made MSNBC's revenue triple. So is that why all the MSNBC clowns (except Rach) still play those damned Trump c;lips endlessly? Well, if Rachel doesn't talk about this, which should make her deliriously happy, considering how she's been talking about it nightly for what seems like forever, then I'll know she's too consumed by Coronavirus- https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/us/politics/mueller-report-barr-judge-walton.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage I want Rachel to read this judge's ruling as ONLY she can!!! Link to comment
Recommended Posts