Rhodes Scholar Reporting the News Show Discussion

[Egg]

I never knew this, but Wikipedia confirms that Hillary did, in fact, have nearly 300k votes more than Obama in 2008. So the arcane caucus rules were, in fact, what gave Obama the nomination.

[jjj]

Very interesting impromptu comments from Rachel on the air this Saturday afternoon; I love that she has such a deep pool of thoughtful insight ready to present on a topic like this. 

 

MSNBC pulled Rachel onto the air -- via phone -- to talk about the passing of Justice Scalia.  She started with: "whenever there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court, politics realign."   She noted the issues of the "lame-duck presidency," the "free-wheeling primary season", and said an event like this is "as big a jolt as we can get".  She threw one scenario out, that the president could throw into the mix someone who could get Senate approval, and who has been vetted, like Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson.  She said that in this volatile political season, this might be a path forward, rather than a more traditional judicial nominee.

 

And she was asked to comment about how this might be discussed on the campaign trail.  She said:  two things are going on with the election and the Supreme Court -- the Court is always lurking in the background, and with donors, who are "very, very concerned" about Supreme Court future nominees, which is heightened by the advanced age of some justices.  And this year, for some reason, she said, candidates already are freer in throwing around litmus tests for possible Supreme Court nominees.  She said normally, there are certain things you don't say, like what the litmus tests are -- but this year, these are out in the open.

 

She said that candidates are going to have to start taking about this -- and that the focus of political attention will shift from Nevada and South Carolina to the Senate --  she asked: will the Senate try to prevent the President from increasing the number of justices from eight to nine? 

 

ETA:  Now that several hours have passed -- I am glad Rachel was asked to comment just as the news was breaking, before all the strategizing began; it gave her a chance to provide this more dispassionate reaction to the political process than will be possible now that so many positions have been staked out by so many factions. 

Edited February 14, 2016 by jjj

[nowandlater]

Rachel was on twice. I tuned in around 3:30 or so, after reading on Twitter that she was commenting on the news. I was sorry that I missed her. But they brought her back on via phone.

[jjj]

As soon as I saw "4/4 time" on the screen, I laughed, because it is a musical pun, and saw where Rachel was going.  Wow, the "possible scenario" conspiracy theories will just ABOUND over the next six months. 

 

And I kept thinking for the past two days, has no one read "The Pelican Brief"?  (!!!) 

 

Also:  If the next President chooses the Supreme Court replacement, it will not be done on January 20, 2017.  It will still be months away.  Over a year without nine justices, well into the next term of 2017?  Two years of decisions without nine justices? 

 

Also:  Heaven forbid that another justice would need to step down in the next ten months.  It is so crucial to keep the forward motion of having nine justices. 

Edited February 16, 2016 by jjj

[represent]

But Rachel, this is a Civil War. Not the same uniforms, the artillery isn't the same, but make no mistake, this is a Civil War. It's felt that way to me for quite some time. I started to feel it towards the end  of Bush Jr's presidency, and it was solidified for me as soon as Palin came on the scene.

 

As well as every time Ted Cruz has opened his mouth since he  was elected to the senate, I've felt an air of a Civil War. I've said it before and I'll say it again, he for sure, is at the top of the list of representatives who want to break up the union and the irony is that he is NOT a natural born citizen of this country. He is who the founding fathers were afraid of, he's the interloper. He just gave up his Canadian citizenship like a year ago. Yeah right, America is where his heart and loyalty are, I don't think so. Lot's of people have dual citizenship, I'd just like my president not to. I need he/she completely committed to my country.

 

When he said he was going to Washington to break up the government, he meant it. He doesn't want it to work.

 

 

One last note, this Democrats, is the result of many of us sitting on our asses for the mid-term elections when Obama was all over the place begging us to come out and vote. Now Obama has nothing to help him out with this Supreme Court nomination.  I voted in the mid-term elections and I can tell you that it is an understatement when I say the lines paled in comparison to the lines in 2008. I listen to black radio sometimes and the popular DJ Tom Joyner was telling his listeners to practically not worry about voting because aw, we all should be upset because Democrats were bad mouthing Obama. 

 

Fucking idiot, his sidekick Cybill, a woman, of course she was voice of reason, it usually takes a woman, interjected and said no, you still have to vote otherwise the president doesn't get the support he needs in the House/Senate. But Joyner is the top dog, he's the voice the listen to first and still he was harping on oh they said less than complimentary stuff about Obama so...I was like you have got to be kidding me. Obama is from fucking Chicago, he's played Chicago politics, which is some of the nastiest politics, he doesn't need you to be outraged on his behalf because his fellow Democrats aren't paying him compliments and are criticizing him. He actually asked you to go out and vote, yet an influential DJ in the black community decided to act like a bitch, whatever.

 

You can come out and scream about how "Black Lives Matter" but if you don't put your vote where your mouth is especially in off-season elections it won't matter. 

Edited February 16, 2016 by represent

[attica]

I liked Rachel floating Klobuchar's name as a candidate for SCOTUS. Who doesn't love Amy? Not me! 

 

If I got to nominate, my picks would be 1) Anita Hill (Charles Pierce suggested it, so I give him credit), not only because she's qualified, but because it would put Thomas into apoplexy; 2) Bryan Stevenson, the capital punishment scholar; 3) Neal Katyal, former Solicitor General and Guanatamo defense guy (and hottie); and 4) Amy's Minnesotan counterpart, Al Franken. Yes, I know he's not a lawyer, but he's good enough, and smart enough, and gosh darnit, people like him! Plus, it would make it a start towards my ultimate wish of living through the era of the Frankencourt!  That makes a black woman, a black man, an Asian-American man (and a hottie!), and a white Jewish dude. 

[Sharpie66]

Ooooh, I love that idea of Anita Hill!

(I saw someone online post about how they were sitting in an airport reading her autobiography when she heard a voice ask, "So, do you like the book?" and looked up to see Anita Hill standing in front of her!)

Edited February 16, 2016 by Sharpie66

[NextIteration]

I posted about Amy on another forum I frequent yesterday morning.  Rachel really does love her some moderate female senators (Claire McCaskill)!  Given the conversation last night about Loretta Lynch (love that idea as well) maybe Amy would consider the shenanigans that would ensue should she be named, but I'm not sure that SCOTUS is what she has her sights on (in the unlikely chance that she be confirmed, she was considered for the AG position and signaled no thank you), it feels like it might be POTUS down the road.  @Attica, I appreciate your love for my awesome senators, we haven't had a lovelier pair for decades (Humphrey/Mondale - though Paul Wellstone is my heart).  The advantage of Klobuchar is that we have a liberal Governor Dayton in place, so the seat is guaranteed to stay Democrat.

[M. Darcy]

 

Also:  If the next President chooses the Supreme Court replacement, it will not be done on January 20, 2017.  It will still be months away.

 

Exactly!  Even if the new President names their nominee on Day One, the Senate is not ready to go then.  It takes a while for the Congress to decide who will be on the committees...and when (gotta hope) the Democrats regain control, that takes a little more time for the switch over.  

 

I would love Anita Hill to be on the Court but I wouldn't want her to have to deal with Clarence Thomas every day.  But would be awesome if when Thomas leaves the Court, if he is replaced by her.

 

Amy's Minnesotan counterpart, Al Franken.

I agree!  I love Al Franken.  I still get giddy when he calls our office. 

[attica]

I see that the great Dahlia Lithwick is on my Bryan Stevenson team, even though she doesn't think Obama will name him.  

 

Of course I love how Rachel and Klobuchar relate to each other on air.  But it's downright appalling that there are more women on SCOTUS than on the Judiciary committee, though. Flames on the sides of my face!

 

Good to see Rachel covering the backtracking on stonewalling the nom. Somebody must have hinted that they might as well confirm Bam's nominee, lest Hillary win and she nominate Bam himself! Which would be just delightful on any level -- except that I think the family wants to move out of DC. 

[alias1]

I love the idea of Anita Hill going to the supreme court.  Clarence Thomas has to be the worst justice we've ever had.  He just votes along party lines, sits there like a bump on a log, and has never had an original opinion in his life.  Anita Hill could walk all over him if they were on the same level.  It might actually make me believe in karma.

 

I like Amy Klobuchar, but I think Obama will pick a minority of some sort. 

Edited February 17, 2016 by SierraMist

[attica]

I think Amy's being a woman still fits the bill of minority status (tragically, and in spite of population stats), but what truly makes her minority among the current court is that she went to U of Chicago Law! Not Ivy! If that doesn't get you clutching your pearls... :)

 

Point taken, though.

[NextIteration]

Yay Rachel!  She scored an interview with Biden for tomorrow night 8:00 pm est (special time because of the Sanders/Clinton town hall) here in the Twin Cities.

[nowandlater]

As soon as I saw "4/4 time" on the screen, I laughed, because it is a musical pun, and saw where Rachel was going.  Wow, the "possible scenario" conspiracy theories will just ABOUND over the next six months. 

 

And I kept thinking for the past two days, has no one read "The Pelican Brief"?  (!!!) 

 

Also:  If the next President chooses the Supreme Court replacement, it will not be done on January 20, 2017.  It will still be months away.  Over a year without nine justices, well into the next term of 2017?  Two years of decisions without nine justices? 

 

Also:  Heaven forbid that another justice would need to step down in the next ten months.  It is so crucial to keep the forward motion of having nine justices. 

 

I heard that the new justice, if not confirmed until the next president takes office, won't be able to hear cases until October 2017 when the new term starts. I don't know if if's true, but I guess you can't have a justice joining in during the middle of a Supreme Court year.

 

So we may not have a justice working full time for 20 months.

[shok]

Oh for crying out loud. Rachel's show has become one long loud commercial for Bernie Sanders. The polls that show him ahead or even close are notable but those that show Clinton ahead are just dismissed. Bernie's organization in a couple of states is praiseworthy but let's mock Clinton for sending a high ranked surrogate to one of them. Big crowds for Bernie always get mentioned but never any coverage of Clinton's events unless it's something negative. It's really discouraging to see Rachel being so biased.

[alias1]

There's no place else I can vent this so here goes (even though this isn't the place).  Why is MSNBC giving Donald Dump a full hour of free coverage?  I can't stand Joe and Mika anyway.  Isn't three hours of them enough in the morning!  

[jjj]

There's no place else I can vent this so here goes (even though this isn't the place).  Why is MSNBC giving Donald Dump a full hour of free coverage?  I can't stand Joe and Mika anyway.  Isn't three hours of them enough in the morning!  

There is actually an MSNBC thread over in "Network Talk" (link below) -- in fact, I had just checked there to see if anyone had been griping about this very issue!

http://forums.previously.tv/forum/936-network-talk/

 

Missed Rachel on the first airing, so looking forward to the show, but not the Sanders product placement.  I figure this will all get sorted out soon enough, and then we will have many months of coverage on the actual candidates. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by jjj

[alias1]

There is actually an MSNBC thread over in "Network Talk" (link below) -- in fact, I had just checked there to see if anyone had been griping about this very issue!

http://forums.previously.tv/forum/936-network-talk/

Thanks!  I didn't know that.

[j5cochran]

Oh for crying out loud. Rachel's show has become one long loud commercial for Bernie Sanders. The polls that show him ahead or even close are notable but those that show Clinton ahead are just dismissed. Bernie's organization in a couple of states is praiseworthy but let's mock Clinton for sending a high ranked surrogate to one of them. Big crowds for Bernie always get mentioned but never any coverage of Clinton's events unless it's something negative. It's really discouraging to see Rachel being so biased.

 

Fascinating!  On Democratic Underground, the group consensus seems to be that Rachel is a Clinton groupie.  I guess it depends on one's personal side of the fence -- the other side is always greener and covered better by Rachel Maddow.

[slensam]

Oh for crying out loud. Rachel's show has become one long loud commercial for Bernie Sanders. The polls that show him ahead or even close are notable but those that show Clinton ahead are just dismissed. Bernie's organization in a couple of states is praiseworthy but let's mock Clinton for sending a high ranked surrogate to one of them. Big crowds for Bernie always get mentioned but never any coverage of Clinton's events unless it's something negative. It's really discouraging to see Rachel being so biased.

I think its the whole rooting for the underdog thing and the desire for a horse-race on both sides. They all seem to have fond memories of 2008. I don't; even though my "side" won.

[Rhetorica]

There's no place else I can vent this so here goes (even though this isn't the place). Why is MSNBC giving Donald Dump a full hour of free coverage? I can't stand Joe and Mika anyway. Isn't three hours of them enough in the morning!

There's also a Morning Joe thread filled with people who think like you.

[nowandlater]

Maybe I'm not paying close attention, but I do watch every show. And I don't get the Bernie Sanders infomercial vibe. I think she's been pretty evenhanded.

[Sharpie66]

I read Salon, so I know all about annoying Bernie propaganda. I don't see it coming from Rachel.

[Egg]

I think last night's show was more pro-Bernie compared to usually even-handed coverage, but it certainly wasn't the worst there is out there. I think Rachel may be overselling his position on Super Tuesday probably because of the desire for a horse race. She seemed to be quick to discount poll numbers in favor of their own cursory research. I guess it's just a thesis that will have to be tested on March 1.

[alias1]

I read Salon, so I know all about annoying Bernie propaganda. I don't see it coming from Rachel.

I agree with this.  I think she's pretty fair all around.  She just loves politics.

[tenativelyyours]

I love the idea of Anita Hill going to the supreme court.  Clarence Thomas has to be the worst justice we've ever had.  He just votes along party lines, sits there like a bump on a log, and has never had an original opinion in his life.  Anita Hill could walk all over him if they were on the same level.  It might actually make me believe in karma.

 

I like Amy Klobuchar, but I think Obama will pick a minority of some sort. 

 

Do you know it never occurred to me until now.  With Scalia dead how on earth will Thomas know how to vote?????

 

ETA: I don't see Rachel as being pro-Bernie so much as simply happy that the Democrats have an actual nomination race.  A year ago and it was basically, once again, determined Hillary would be the nominee no matter what.

Edited February 19, 2016 by tenativelyyours

[BennyB]

 

There's no place else I can vent this so here goes (even though this isn't the place).  Why is MSNBC giving Donald Dump a full hour of free coverage?  I can't stand Joe and Mika anyway.  Isn't three hours of them enough in the morning!

Most everyone is venting over at the 'Morning Joe' forum:

 

http://forums.previously.tv/forum/361-morning-joe/

 

Vent away....you'll be in good company!

[attica]

With Rachel's show motto of 'increasing the amount of useful information in the world', I've been harrumphing lately about her interest, first from Bam, and last night from Uncle Joey, in what their electoral predictions are. Sorry, the business of predicting electoral results is a moron's game (unless you're Nate Silver, using actual data.) Who gives a flying hootytoot whether Bam thinks Trump will get the R nomination? How is that predictive of any blessed thing anywhere? Oh, well he said he didn't think Trump would win the general, but (gasp!) he didn't say whether he thought he'd get the nom...! Watch this space while we ruminate over something that is NOT USEFUL INFORMATION!!! Gah.

 

That complaint registered, I will watch a Biden interview anytime, anywhere. I love him. And he always impresses me with how deep he can go into the wonky weeds of policy questions. And no kidding, whoever the 'more than idle chatterers' are who insist Joey's getting named to SCOTUS: I love him, but he's decades too old for that appointment. Stop that right now.

[jjj]

I will have to watch the Biden interview online or On Demand -- but I also love hearing him talk, because he has few filters and has strong opinions.  But no, not the judicial background for a SCOTUS appointment (I know, you don't have to be a judge, but most have a scholarly or practical background that makes them qualified). 

 

All this speculation, indeed, comes to nothing once there are actual nominees -- but with all these channels and commentators and advertising dollars in the mix, they have to talk about *something*!  Sometimes I think Rachel spends more time that we like on Bernie because she knows it will be all Hillary, all the time, after a certain point in the near future. 

[represent]

You can disagree with Obama all you want in the eyes of this black voter. I just take issue with those representatives who  question his citizenship or patriotism, and discount the straight up bigotry and disrespect he has encountered for seven years from this congress when  politicians start their shit about him "not" bringing folks in the congress together. That's what pisses me off.

 

Otherwise Bernie, your criticisms of his presidency which are somewhat valid on trade at least IMO, work for me.  He shouldn't be exempt unlike every president, from criticism.

 

That being said, I'm still with Hillary, she's just comes across as more stately IMO and I'm a moderate Democrat so, she speaks my language.  I don't believe in "free"  and I have mixed feelings when it comes to the death penalty so that's not progressive enough and so be it. All I know is that if my nine year old daughter was kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered, I'd probably want that penalty to be on the table.  That being said, I have no doubt that governors like Snyder in Flint would use it to exterminate as many black men as he could since he thinks nothing of poisoning black children. At the very least, he wouldn't give a shit about dotting his I's and crossing his T's before putting these men to death. So they definitely need to put this on the Supreme Court table again to at least limit the power that states have to enforce it. But other than that, I'm for all other social policies that the Democrats support.

Edited February 20, 2016 by represent

[Padma]

I'm for Hillary too--think Bernie's great as a Senate gadfly/voice of conscience but would be completely swift-boated (so easily) in the General, and if--by a miracle--he got elected would be unable to govern since he's such an outsider (and seems genuinely disinterested in most issues other than his "core" ones of income inequality and Wall Street corruption. (Valuable critiques--but imo he'll be better in the Senate with HRC in the WH).

 

However, I do have sort of a fantasy where Hillary starts winning big, goes to the convention with a gazillion delegates, then something comes up about the server and ... Joe Biden to the rescue! I think he'd be a much stronger candidate than either HRC or Bernie--no matter who he's running against in Nov. The interview with Rachel just confirmed it. And, remembering how when HE was running for Pres. back in the day, he could often come across as an arrogant, pompous windbag, I really enjoy the softer, humble loyal team player that he's become with Obama---probably additionally softened by the loss of Beau. He's a lovely man, but more liberal than Obama or Hillary and can still fight the good fight.

 

I don't think he belongs on the SC, but I'd love to see him back in the White House.

[jjj]

Well, no more Jeb Bush special noises on Rachel's show anymore.  Too bad, compared to the GOP front-runners in the primary.

[represent]

I'm for Hillary too--think Bernie's great as a Senate gadfly/voice of conscience but would be completely swift-boated (so easily) in the General, and if--by a miracle--he got elected would be unable to govern since he's such an outsider (and seems genuinely disinterested in most issues other than his "core" ones of income inequality and Wall Street corruption. (Valuable critiques--but imo he'll be better in the Senate with HRC in the WH).

 

However, I do have sort of a fantasy where Hillary starts winning big, goes to the convention with a gazillion delegates, then something comes up about the server and ... Joe Biden to the rescue! I think he'd be a much stronger candidate than either HRC or Bernie--no matter who he's running against in Nov. The interview with Rachel just confirmed it. And, remembering how when HE was running for Pres. back in the day, he could often come across as an arrogant, pompous windbag, I really enjoy the softer, humble loyal team player that he's become with Obama---probably additionally softened by the loss of Beau. He's a lovely man, but more liberal than Obama or Hillary and can still fight the good fight.

 

I don't think he belongs on the SC, but I'd love to see him back in the White House.

Yeah, that interview with Biden was great.

 

That being said, IF Hillary wins this nomination and has to go up against Trump in debates, she is going to have to shorten her responses. Get the point and make fast, like a punch. Trump appeals to voters even across the aisle, who are not like me, who can listen to long winded details. He keeps his responses short, he just jabs through the entire debate.

 

I figured out a long time ago that a wall street speculation tax is most definitely going to affect me more so than the fat cats on Wall Street via my 401K plan.  There's no way it doesn't. Yeah, "free" doesn't mean much to me, I'm investigating "free. I'm the small percentage of voters who actually thinks about who is more electable.  How Bernie could win if he didn't get enough of the black vote etc... I actually think about that, but based on the experts most voters don't. They aren't going to her website to read through and try and figure out the numbers she's rattling off so...

She has got to be able to balance short to the point facts of what she's offering, with some chuckling one liners.  In addition, she better figure out what she's going to say when Trump starts pointing out her husbands indiscretions. Do not let it hang, own it  in some way or another because we all know it happened.  She just lets some things hang. I don't know how many times I have to hear Bernie say that she was the one who ran against Obama while she has no come back. Come on Hillary, say something "Yeah, I wanted the job and I still do, which is why I'm running again...." This response would be true and it would give me a chuckle. Then she can add to that and say that when she didn't get the job, she got on board with Obama and in 2012 continued to be on board with him instead of looking for other candidates to challenge him.

 

But nothing, she just lets it hang in the air.  Even Bernie was better in the last debate moderated by Rachel and Chuck with his one liners. One liners come off like punches, and she's a fighter who needs to add a couple of new combination punches to her game. 

 

By the way, how much you wanna bet that some shit about their foundation comes down the pike before this coming week is out? She won Nevada, OK, time for the next wave of accusations. How much you want to bet that there's some new wave of women about to come out pointing fingers at Bill. It's coming, but I sure wish they'd find something new, or adjust the timing, because damn, if my intelligence is insulted.

Edited February 21, 2016 by represent

[Grommet]

When does Rachel sleep??

[represent]

She said this past week to Lawrence O'Donnell something about sleeping in March. Actually I think she said February, but we're already in Feb.. Maybe she meant Feb. of next year, LOL.

[jjj]

Really, it was a shock to see Rachel live on the screen on a Saturday!  Followed by scenes by Lawrence O'Donnell! 

[represent]

I think Brian Williams pissed off O'Donnell. I think to O'Donnell, Brian's response seemed dismissive. He was trying to be funny, and while his humor may have gotten some chuckles through the night, O'Donnell was not amused. 

 

I definitely got a WTF? You fraud...you have the nerve to.... vibe from O'Donnell, LOL.

[Quilt Fairy]

.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Quilt Fairy

[alias1]

I think Brian Williams pissed off O'Donnell. I think to O'Donnell, Brian's response seemed dismissive. He was trying to be funny, and while his humor may have gotten some chuckles through the night, O'Donnell was not amused. 

 

I definitely got a WTF? You fraud...you have the nerve to.... vibe from O'Donnell, LOL.

Yeah, I saw that too.  And Lawrence was so right in everything he said (as he usually is).  Even Chris Matthews agreed with him.  I don't mind Brian Williams when he's just being snarky, but trying to be smarter than Lawrence O'Donnell is just stupid.

[represent]

 

Yeah, I saw that too.  And Lawrence was so right in everything he said (as he usually is).  Even Chris Matthews agreed with him.  I don't mind Brian Williams when he's just being snarky, but trying to be smarter than Lawrence O'Donnell is just stupid.

 

I get what O'Donnell was saying that if you look at the numbers Trump really isn't carrying the majority of the Republican electorate if you add up all the other voters supporting Kasich, Cruz, Carson, Bush and Rubio.  The problem is, getting every last one of these supporters to consolidate and making sure none of them are lost to Trump once the race is down to just two, Trump and .... and I'm not sure I see that happening.  

 

I mean Trump is a problem because I agree with Matthews, he is viewed as a Bully, but these voters want a bully. They feel they are under attack and he's the bully you want on your side if you feel you're under attack. So when they hear that he's in NYC conducting business with known mobsters, they don't care. They figure, oh, he came out of that alive and isn't buried under cement or floating in the East River, that equals serious strength to them.  Strength is ALL they are looking for that even though some cringe at what he says, they are desperate for that kind of "strength."

Edited February 21, 2016 by represent

[Padma]

But nothing, she just lets it hang in the air.  Even Bernie was better in the last debate moderated by Rachel and Chuck with his one liners. One liners come off like punches, and she's a fighter who needs to add a couple of new combination punches to her game. 

 

By the way, how much you wanna bet that some shit about their foundation comes down the pike before this coming week is out? She won Nevada, OK, time for the next wave of accusations. How much you want to bet that there's some new wave of women about to come out pointing fingers at Bill. It's coming, but I sure wish they'd find something new, or adjust the timing, because damn, if my intelligence is insulted.

I agree with all of your post but particularly wanted to "second" the idea that Hillary needs to sharpen it up. Trump speaks in short sentence, but no one can do standup "insult" humor like he does, so I hope she hires someone who can find a good "voice" for her--and also, as you say, not let accusations hang there. I'm SURE the GOP hit squad already has someone on salary to come forward like a Paula Jones, with well timed accusations just before the election. But Hillary needs to deal with all that earlier--hopefully it really IS all very OLD news.

 

What I think she needs is very respected surrogates--women, maybe someone like McCaskill (definitely not Steinem or Albright at this point)--who point out the obvious--that Hillary is the candidate, that that was a difficult marital situation for HER and that they already worked through it PRIVATELY and were able to go forward as many couples hope to be able to do after the pain of infidelity. Played right, it could make her more human. Also could remind people that TRUMP actually not only cheated on his wife but left her (and their three children) for the much younger "other woman". Doesn't make him look too good, does it?

 

As for the Foundation, I have no doubt that's a shady organization. I'm very afraid that something will come out about it. Just hope it's pre-convention so Biden can come in, if needed. I'm still very angry with Bill for doing all that--and the server thing--when he KNEW HRC was running in 2016 (and how much Obama wanted absolute scrupulous integrity from the Cabinet). Also angry about HRC taking $625000 from Goldman Sachs when SHE knew she was planning to run, too. These people are ambitious AND greedy--but sometimes you can only have one of them.

[AmandaPanda]

As a reminder, this forum is to discuss The Rachel Maddow Show and not politics in general. I recognize that it is incredibly tough to differentiate between the two when her show is essentially news about politics. However, the discussion needs to stay about Rachel's show and how she covers the stories. There are many other places on the Internet where you can discuss the ins and outs of the presidential race. I commend everyone for staying so civil with each other up to this point, but let's get back to discussing the actual show and not what candidates should or should not be doing.

 

Thanks everyone!

[M. Darcy]

 

Well, no more Jeb Bush special noises on Rachel's show anymore.

But now we'll get the poof that's he's dropped out.

[jjj]

Now the "poofing" is getting to be like the Twelve Days of Christmas (the song) as you head into the final verses -- I am ready NOT to hear the name of every single candidate as their past "poof" happens again.

 

But the montage of Jeb! sounds was a fitting farewell.

 

And hey, Rachel, it ain't over yet -- maybe there will be a Bush on the final ticket -- there are *two* places there, after all.  (I know, ain't gonna happen, as Poppy Bush would say, or maybe that was Dana Carvey doing his Poppy impression.) 

Edited February 24, 2016 by jjj

[attica]

(I know, ain't gonna happen, as Poppy Bush would say, or maybe that was Dana Carver doing his Poppy impression.)

 

I hate to be That Person (Wouldn't be prudent!), but as somebody who has incorporated Carvey's Poppy into my own repertoire, it was "Not Gonna Do It", or more often "NaGaDa." 

 

I know Rachel's LV set must have been quite some distance from all that traffic, but I winced every time the light changed and all those cars whizzed by in the background. Chris's seemed much more out of the way of cars.

[jjj]

I hate to be That Person (Wouldn't be prudent!), but as somebody who has incorporated Carvey's Poppy into my own repertoire, it was "Not Gonna Do It", or more often "NaGaDa." 

 

I know Rachel's LV set must have been quite some distance from all that traffic, but I winced every time the light changed and all those cars whizzed by in the background. Chris's seemed much more out of the way of cars.

Thanks, Attica!  Of course, you got it right!  And I wondered if Rachel's set was actually on or near the Strip, or if that was a projection behind her.  I only got to see part of the show, and will have to watch from the start to hear about the backdrop.

[alias1]

I hated all the people waving (or whatever they were doing) in the background.  I wish they would set it up so you either can't see the people or they are very far away.  I found it distracting. 

[EarlGreyTea]

Trump was just interviewed at a Nevada caucus site saying he loved Rachel and loved the graphics she used to show polls. Because he likes it that she puts his head (and the other candidates) on top. Hilarious and actually seemed to be genuine.

[nowandlater]

[NextIteration]

The man must not sleep at all (Trump) he knows every single thing that airs about him, from all networks by anyone.