S13.E24: Sen. Claire McCaskill, Donna Edwards, Charles Cooke, Marc Maron, Dan Buettner

[GHScorpiosRule]

MO Senator Claire McCaskill, MD Rep. Donna Edwards, Charles Cooke, Marc Maron, and Explorer Dan Buettner.

[paigow]

Missouri Senator gets no St. Louis barbed questions, but always time for fat jokes about Christie. During Blue Zones segment, expected Bill to drop a pot joke when discussing how alcohol contributes to longevity.

[rallymantis]

Tuned in for Charles Cooke (yum!); stayed for Bill's great Ap takedown.  Nice to know I'm not the only one who had that reax to "AirBnB".  Thirty seconds reminded me of what I used to like about him in his PI days.

Edited August 22, 2015 by gutette1

[amsel]

I fail to remember anything McCaskill said. Much of the show was forgettable. That conservative guy cited some numbers. Maron had a couple funny comments. Donna Edwards sounds like someone who's running for office.

Meh.

[alias1]

I agree with amsel.  Most of the show was pretty boring, including Bill's New Rules.  But I really enjoyed the last guy with the Blue Zones.  That was very interesting to me.  And I usually rail against the mid show guest.   Not this time.

 

Donna Edwards just had to defend Black Lives Matter, regardless of who they interrupt.  And Hillary's answer to those guys about changing the laws was spot on.  Lots of people were for expanded health care, or equal pay, or letting gay people marry, or any number of things.  But nothing ever gets done unless someone is courageous enough to have the laws changed.  Hillary and Bernie are already fighting for those things.  Aren't they preaching to the choir?  Sure they have more chance of actually getting into those venues (Trump would just have them thrown out) but I don't think they're changing any hearts with their tactics.

[scrb]

But Bill is right in this specific context, Black Lives Matter is correct, not All Lives Matter.

 

In the wake of all those police shootings of black men, saying All Lives Matter is at best oblivious and at worst outright mendacious.

[ganesh]

And Hillary's answer to those guys about changing the laws was spot on.  Lots of people were for expanded health care, or equal pay, or letting gay people marry, or any number of things.  But nothing ever gets done unless someone is courageous enough to have the laws changed.

 

I wish Bill actually showed the video clip than just reading the quote. Clinton was the most real I've ever seen her, and she made her point extremely well. The congresswoman really missed the mark in her response. 

 

I'm sick of the new canard on climate change: yeah, it's real, but doing anything is going to cost *so* much and not really make a huge effect. So, the same old do nothing until FL and CA are half underwater. 

[babs1226]

Bill called Bernie Sanders Bernie Frank once, and Barney Frank the second time.  I know that he said he assumes Clinton will be the nominee, but it would be nice if he could get Bernie's name right.  I was hoping he would apologize for his bloopers in Overtime, but he didn't.

[Victor the Crab]

I actually enjoyed a lot of Bill's New Rules. Especially the one about stoners stealing mile 420 markers off of highway signs having to take a math test. That made me LOL a lot.

[ktwo]

I fail to remember anything McCaskill said. Much of the show was forgettable. That conservative guy cited some numbers. Maron had a couple funny comments. Donna Edwards sounds like someone who's running for office.

Meh.

Totally agree on the meh. Although I love Sen. McCaskill. Politico ran a great excerpt from her book about how she completely manipulated the Republican Senate primary so she would run against Todd "legitimate rape" Akin in the general.

And Donna Edwards is running for office - the Maryland Senate seat currently held by Barbara Mikulski who announced she's retiring.

[iMonrey]

Yeah the panel was pretty weak, and I didn't think Marc Maron or Donna Edwards contributed much. At least Charles Cooke was somewhat thoughtful in his responses to Bill, but someone needed to bring up the fact that if Clinton ends up running against Bush as the nominee, the whole e-mail gate thing goes away, because Bush did the exact same thing as governor of Florida. In fact if it comes down to a contest between Clinton and Bush the entire Republican smear machine will be disarmed because Bush matches Clinton baggage for baggage.

 

Good God, what's wrong with the Olsen twins? Maybe that was just a bad picture but they looked freaky.

 

Lord, Rick Santorum next week?

[IndianPaintbrush]

Who was that guy in the middle with sort of a British accent?

That's the Oxford-educated writer Charles Cooke, one of the only conservatives I respect.  He impressed me with his comments on Trump and I agree with him about not understanding what the Black Lives Matter activists were trying to get from Hillary Clinton. She can't change the hearts of racists, but she can change laws and policies.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

I didn't think Bill was referring to Bernie when he mentioned Barney Franks.  Didn't he say something about the Dodd-Frank bill?  I miss Barney being on the show...

Lord, I wish he'd stop derailing the panel with his madeup comedy stuff.  Finally get a good talk going - no Ann Coulter, etc - then stop for what he thinks is funny...

Agree New Rules were pretty lame this week...

Who was that guy in the middle with sort of a British accent?

 

He said Barney Frank the first time--with respect to the Black Lives Matter at the rallies--and the second time, when referring the Dodds-Frank Bill, was right when he said Barney Frank. So yeah, he goofed the first time, because Barney is not running for President.

Edited August 23, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[ganesh]

At least Charles Cooke was somewhat thoughtful in his responses to Bill, but someone needed to bring up the fact that if Clinton ends up running against Bush as the nominee, the whole e-mail gate thing goes away, because Bush did the exact same thing as governor of Florida.

 

He did. And I don't think there's anything wrong with either doing that. However, I am concerned that this won't even be brought up. The Democrats have utterly failed at directing the national narrative in the last couple of years. 

 

Maybe Barney should run for president.

 

That's the Oxford-educated writer Charles Cooke, one of the only conservatives I respect.

 

I didn't like his typical, well we'll spend a ton of money on climate change and it won't make much of a difference and maybe lower the temperature by 0.00000001 degrees. But I admit he wasn't spewing the typical talking points, and his comments on BLM with Clinton were correct.

[elzin]

I did agree with Bill on the "who cares?" aspect of the whole email thing and while I liked Cooke (as in he didn't make me yell at the screen), he never explained why it was important but kept trying to cite the law. 

 

I mean, I get that personal and work emails need to be separate for security reasons and campaign finance regulations, etc, but someone making a mistake to me isn't the same as deliberately trying to skirt regulations. I can see where it COULD be a huge big deal, but it comes off as mountains out of molehills instead of finding something significant and important.

[ganesh]

The reason why people care is because this issue has been screamed at for months on end. Whether there's substance isn't relevant. I think everyone here knows that if Clinton is the nominee, the general election is going to consist largely of "email!" and "benghazi" on and on and on. It's a complete lose-lose situation though. Because it's like, "well if she's got nothing to hide, why delete any emails?" At all. Ever. It's not fair that Clinton has to seemingly make literally every email ever public.That's what it is though. It was the same thing with the birth certificate with Obama. Even when he released it, people we like, no, it's totally faked. I honestly don't know how Clinton gets around it. She's released over 55000 emails, right? That's not enough. It's that 55001th email that says, 'kill everyone at benghazi.'

[Victor the Crab]

...but someone needed to bring up the fact that if Clinton ends up running against Bush as the nominee, the whole e-mail gate thing goes away, because Bush did the exact same thing as governor of Florida. In fact if it comes down to a contest between Clinton and Bush the entire Republican smear machine will be disarmed because Bush matches Clinton baggage for baggage.

 

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. The Republican smear machine is perfectly comfortable in their hypocritical viewpoint and methods. If Hillary does it, it's worse than Watergate and she should be hauled off to prison in chains. If Jeb does it, it's no big deal, and why is the liberal mainstream media ALWAYS unfairly picking on Republicans? Why do you filthy liberals find joy in continuously bitchslapping America like the unpatriotic cretins you are?

 

And the "liberal mainstream media" will always capitulate to their demands so as not to appear biased, whatever the fuck that means. It always comes down to the timeworn anacronym, IOKIYAR.

 

 

Good God, what's wrong with the Olsen twins? Maybe that was just a bad picture but they looked freaky.

 

They always look freaky. Google image Olsen Twins, they always look like someone shown a flashlight in their faces.

[Ruby25]

I just can't imagine that anyone's vote for or against Hillary Clinton depends on her not having used the right server for her emails. It's seriously the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I can't imagine meeting anyone for whom this is a concern in any way.

[Hanahope]

I just can't imagine that anyone's vote for or against Hillary Clinton depends on her not having used the right server for her emails. It's seriously the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I can't imagine meeting anyone for whom this is a concern in any way.

Seriously.  If that's the only thing you can say that's bad about Clinton and that's why you're not voting for her, then you weren't going to vote for her anyway for some "other" reason you really don't want to say.

 

Its 'immoral' for her to use a different email server, but not for Trump to declare bankruptcy 4 times?  Really?

[ganesh]

And the "liberal mainstream media" will always capitulate to their demands so as not to appear biased, whatever the fuck that means.

 

And the democrats. That was the problem with the midterms. No one ran on what was a good quality record. One of the representatives who was a delegate for Obama wouldn't even say she voted for him. Clinton has agreed to testify at Congress and wants it televised. I hope she just puts it all on the table, so later on she can just say, "I went to congress and answered all of their questions truthfully. As you can see, there's nothing bad happened."

 

And really, people love it when politicians apologize for whatever. "I'm sorry this caused so many problems, I honestly didn't think it was that huge of a deal because it's a fairly common thing." 

 

I just can't imagine that anyone's vote for or against Hillary Clinton depends on her not having used the right server for her emails. It's seriously the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I can't imagine meeting anyone for whom this is a concern in any way.

 

No, it's not the thing that will sway anyone. They weren't going vote for her in the first place.

 

Edited August 24, 2015 by ganesh

[Easyspreestep]

I agree with amsel.  Most of the show was pretty boring, including Bill's New Rules.  But I really enjoyed the last guy with the Blue Zones.  That was very interesting to me.  And I usually rail against the mid show guest.   Not this time.

 

Donna Edwards just had to defend Black Lives Matter, regardless of who they interrupt.  And Hillary's answer to those guys about changing the laws was spot on.  Lots of people were for expanded health care, or equal pay, or letting gay people marry, or any number of things.  But nothing ever gets done unless someone is courageous enough to have the laws changed.  Hillary and Bernie are already fighting for those things.  Aren't they preaching to the choir?  Sure they have more chance of actually getting into those venues (Trump would just have them thrown out) but I don't think they're changing any hearts with their tactics.

This is the problem I have with Hilary's candidacy I am a die hard Democrat and her response does not sit well with me.  It is not the job of the people to come up with laws and to appropriated the funds correctly.  Is this not why we elect/hire the politicians.  They reason why I vote for a particular politician is because I have identified a problem in my community and a particular politician tells me to vote for them because they have the solution.  This protest was planed and Hilary knew what the group was about she should have been prepared with ideas for the group of how she as the candidate will fix things and WHY the black community should feel comfortable voting for her because she gets it.  Not tell me what you want me to do, if that is the case then someone from BLM should run.   

[b2H]

And really, people love it when politicians apologize for whatever. "I'm sorry this caused so many problems, I honestly didn't think it was that huge of a deal because it's a fairly common thing."

 

 

I wish I could have some confidence that Hillary would put her animosity aside and do precisely this.  I get that she's been vilified by many for being who she is, but the one thing she has never demonstrated is any sense of humility.  An earlier discussion today spoke of Jimmy Carter and, for all his flaws, he always exhibited a dash of humility.

 

I guess, in her perception, she would appear weak by doing so, but at some point she's going to have stop doing what she's doing with this, because it isn't working.  She needs to do a better job of getting ahead of the story and control the narrative instead of letting others do it for her.

 

It is not the job of the people to come up with laws and to appropriated the funds correctly.

 

 

On the contrary, it is our job to come up with the concepts we want to live by and our history is loaded with such events, e.g., women's suffrage, prohibition, prohibition repeal, civil rights, gay marriage.  Then, like BLM, we find out where our candidates stand on the issue and, if they agree with our position, they get voted in, pass the law and appropriate the funds to implement it.  In all of the above mentioned events, folks were in the streets, marching, to get the word out that this was the word of the people.  We don't do that as much anymore and it is to our peril.

Edited August 24, 2015 by b2H

[sistermagpie]

On the contrary, it is our job to come up with the concepts we want to live by and our history is loaded with such events, e.g., women's suffrage, prohibition, prohibition repeal, civil rights, gay marriage.  Then, like BLM, we find out where our candidates stand on the issue and, if they agree with our position, they get voted in, pass the law and appropriate the funds to implement it.  In all of the above mentioned events, folks were in the streets, marching, to get the word out that this was the word of the people.  We don't do that as much anymore and it is to our peril.

 

 

Yeah, I could definitely see both sides of this. Because on the one hand, it's true that the protestors' job is pointing out the problem. But then when I thought about people like Susan B. Anthony, she focused on specific things she thought ought to be done. Because otherwise you're just giving people another an excuse to not act. They can just say they care about it and hopefully they'll think of something. I did feel like the guy's description of that particular conversation, especially, was kind of accurate, that they went from laying out the problem really well to flipping a defensive position and then saying she wouldn't listen to them so what was the point--it's like saying they don't expect anything to happen so it probably won't. You can do some good just bringing attention to the problem too, but it seems very good to have demands. Sometimes it's not so easy to figure out the best ones and the politicians should definitely be expected to come up with these ideas too, but watching that clip I did see what Cooke saw, just even on a conversational level.

[attica]

Here's an interesting graphic (scroll down a skosh) offered by a branch of the BLM group. It's even color-coded. See? Make it simple, make it more likely to happen.

[charlieboo]

An earlier discussion today spoke of Jimmy Carter and, for all his flaws, he always exhibited a dash of humility.

 

And was a one-term president because he was seen as too weak for anyone to take him seriously. 'Murica likes their leaders with giant balls, no matter how tiny the mind is (Exhibit A: G.W.Bush). Never ever ever apologize. Ever.