Rhodes Scholar Reporting the News Show Discussion

[jjj]

Yes, I just heard him say he knew "something was up" because she was so nervous when she introduced him -- in other words, he "knew" she was going to stop him.   And yes, he surely was meek, but I think it was partly that this was such an odd venue for him, with such a tiny audience, and clearly antagonistic.  I think he was happy to get off that stage.  This incident, and now his re-interpretation of what happened, really brings together Rachel's assiduous work on the issues of Flint and the issues of Trump, so I hope we hear a little more on this tonight.  I don't need whole segments on this, but a sense of awareness about it. 

12 minutes ago, SierraMist said:

And the clip of the pastor asking Trump not to make his speech political, priceless!  I guess he is now saying she was a nervous mess.  Another example of how Trump likes to belittle people (especially after the fact).  At the time he just said oh, ok, and was led off the stage like a meek little lamb.

[Hanahope]

17 hours ago, jjj said:

This about the fact that Trump did not actually release any medical information today, except to Dr. Oz, but the media were so dazzled by his "showmanship" (her term) that they are focusing on the shiny object and not on the lack of content. 

That's the whole thing with Trump.  Most of the media does crap investigation and following up because they are so dazzled by Trump and his performances.  No normal presidential candidate would be allowed to get away with the crap he does, with his lousy business past (bankruptcies, lawsuits, etc.), failure to release tax returns, continual and habitual contradiction in his positions, lies that significantly outweigh the truths he spouts.  Its just amazing that this con man is a serious candidate for running the United States in the 21st century.

[represent]

Quote

I love the Mayor of Flint--she is a force of nature.  

I love her too, she's a psychologist and that's why I died laughing at her expression at the end of her interview with Chris Matthew's last night. She was on with one of the Michigan senators I think, but at the end, her face certainly told me that she thought Matthews needed therapy, something. She looked so puzzled, actually, it was a frustrated look, like what the hell?  I mean she's a psychologist so there is no way she's not into listening and allowing people to speak and be heard, which are things you sure as hell won't get on Hardball.

[represent]

Quote

Most of the media does crap investigation and following up because they are so dazzled by Trump and his performances. 

The journalist who put out the Newsweek article, he said on Chris Hayes I think, that he felt like he was alone, the only one out there doing any investigation. He said that reporters are acting like the information is going to come to them, when they know Trump isn't going to give them anything. They have to get out there and research, find the information. This guy and the other one who focused on investigating his pretty much nonexistent charitable givings, boy are they earning their paychecks. 

 Lazy, I was like, yes, put your fellow journalists on blast, if you can even call them that. 

Edited September 15, 2016 by represent

[alias1]

Oh, Rachel, please restrain your glee in seeing Jimmy Fallon mess up Trump's hair.  It's been done before and I think it's icky every time.  I really didn't need to see it twice.

On the other hand, I did love Rachel showing how Trump fudged his height and the difference it made to his BMI.

[M. Darcy]

Quote

Oh, Rachel, please restrain your glee in seeing Jimmy Fallon mess up Trump's hair.  It's been done before and I think it's icky every time.  I really didn't need to see it twice.

I thought it was disgusting.  Jimmy Fallon isn't part of the media but to not take Trump seriously at this stage is wrong.  Rachel should have been horrified.

[represent]

4 hours ago, M. Darcy said:

I thought it was disgusting.  Jimmy Fallon isn't part of the media but to not take Trump seriously at this stage is wrong.  Rachel should have been horrified.

I did too, I thought it looked unsanitary.

And even for Donald Trump, who I have absolutely no respect for, I thought it was disrespectful. I also don't think if it was Hillary or any female candidate that he would have asked to mess up their hair. So you shouldn't do it to the male candidates even Trump, just  because his hair is apparently a "thing."

Edited September 16, 2016 by represent

[nowandlater]

17 hours ago, SierraMist said:

Oh, Rachel, please restrain your glee in seeing Jimmy Fallon mess up Trump's hair.  It's been done before and I think it's icky every time.  I really didn't need to see it twice.

On the other hand, I did love Rachel showing how Trump fudged his height and the difference it made to his BMI.

 

It was weird. During the primaries, Donald allowed somebody in the audience to touch his hair. What Fallon did didn't seem that unusual, or laugh-worthy.

[cattykit]

I had to look away both times for the hair-mussing.  I found the very idea gross.  Actually, I thought Rachel was really off her game last night.  I don't know if it's because she had to punt because the beginning of her show was pre-empted by Hillary's speech, although I'm sure she's dealt with that before.  She just kept re-running clips, including speeches we'd just seen, and didn't seem to have a coherent message.  Surprised me because she's usually sharp as a tack.  But maybe it's just me.

[jjj]

2 hours ago, represent said:

And even for Donald Trump, who I have absolutely no respect for, I thought it was disrespectful. I also don't think if it was Hillary or any female candidate that he would have asked to mess up their hair. So you shouldn't do it to the male candidates even Trump, just  because his hair is apparently a "thing."

Very little is said or done on those talk shows that has not been scripted in advance.  My guess is that they had asked about this in advance. 

I think Rachel's show was more impromptu than usual because of the uncertainty of the timing of the Obama and Clinton speeches, and it looked like they were padding a bit by adding Joy -- whom I was *very* glad to see two hours in a row.  I thought the Rachel/Joy discussion of the birther issue (as it existed last night) was very good. 

[chessiegal]

Taking this to the Small Talk thread.

[attica]

While watching Rachel's coverage of the White Supremacist press 'event' I started wondering if Trump's statement about Bam being born in the US will serve to alienate his fringier supporters, or if they'll just seize the rationale that he's lying now for some imaginary greater good reason. Or maybe they don't care about birtherism as anything other than a symbol of their discontent at having a black POTUS. We shall see, I suppose.

I was unfamiliar with Pepe until very recently. I guess I'd prefer to know than to not know, but some knowledge makes you feel filthy.

[shok]

Why wasn't coverage of the white supremacy press conference last Friday on all the networks and news shows all last week? It is far more important news than the 1,253,854th repeat of the video of Hillary's knees buckling. I mean, this stuff is scary and it fucking matters! The first half hour of Rachel's show tonight should be required viewing by everybody who cares about the future of the country.

[jjj]

That whole story about the National Press Club cancelling and the man on the street in a grey suit giving directions was very creepy.  I had no idea where she was going with that story.  The stuff that goes on that 99.9% of us know nothing about is remarkable.  Thanks, Rachel. 

12 minutes ago, shok said:

Why wasn't coverage of the white supremacy press conference last Friday on all the networks and news shows all last week? It is far more important news than the 1,253,854th repeat of the video of Hillary's knees buckling. I mean, this stuff is scary and it fucking matters! The first half hour of Rachel's show tonight should be required viewing by everybody who cares about the future of the country.

[shok]

4 minutes ago, jjj said:

That whole story about the National Press Club cancelling and the man on the street in a grey suit giving directions was very creepy.  I had no idea where she was going with that story.  The stuff that goes on that 99.9% of us know nothing about is remarkable.  Thanks, Rachel. 

If 99.9% of us don't know about that stuff going on, it's a condemnation (or should be) of the media because they aren't reporting it (except for Rachel occasionally). It was a PRESS conference. There was lots of PRESS there. Why did it get no mention in the PRESS?

[M. Darcy]

21 hours ago, attica said:

I was unfamiliar with Pepe until very recently. I guess I'd prefer to know than to not know, but some knowledge makes you feel filthy.

I had seen that picture and couldn't figure out wtf he was.  Sigh, I guess it's important to know. The world is really scary right now. 

[NextIteration]

I'm terrified that tRump is gonna win this thing.  It will be on the media sans Rachel, Chris H and LOD, the gentleman at Newsweek and the fella at WaPo (Eichenwald and Farenthold) following up on the bullshit of tRump's charitable donations

[car54]

I have a daily cycle of fear that Trump will win--gradually through the day of watching the news, I get worked up, and then it gets more and more intense through Hardball, All In and TRMS, and somehow by the end of Lawrence's show he calms me down enough to sleep and the next day I do it all again.

I think a lot of the NYT and WaPo people--Jonathan Capeheart, Eugene Robinson, Robert Costa, Yamiche Alcindor have done a lot of reporting on Trumpmania but the fact is that its like our country is in the Bizarro universe--nothing sticks to Trump that his followers will believe--often they listen and then just make excuses for him, and people still judge Hillary for things she never really did.   I keep waiting for that little kid to point at Trump and say "Mommy, the Emperor has no clothes!" but no luck yet.

It's a sad thing but the NY/NJ bombing coverage  has actually been a break from the insanity of the political campaigns.

[MulletorHater]

What concerns me is that when Secretary Clinton wins, there will be an "impeachment watch" with scandal du jour coverage by the mainstream media virtually everyday of her presidency.  GOP leaders all but admitted that they had such a plan in the works for President Obama and Eric Holder (hmmmm...I wonder what these two men have in common?).  I have no doubt that they are salivating at the opportunity to go at her the moment she takes the oath of office.

She will be blamed for everything from El Nino to Andrea Mitchell's bad skin.  And, the media will be there to cover it all, no matter how nonsensical because there's money to be made.  Not to mention their propensity to add the word "gate" to every damn thing, whether it's an actual scandal or not.

On another note, given that Rachel and Steve Kornacki were all over the "Bridgegate" story (an actual scandal!) in New Jersey as it occurred, I wonder if she will give us a blow by blow of what's going on there today.  Evidently, prosecutors have boldly stated that Governor Christie knew about the bridge lane closures as they happened.  Rachel will definitely appreciate the karma of Christie being tried in absentia as he did with Secretary Clinton at the GOP Convention.  The only thing missing will be spectators shouting, "Lock him UP!"  

[NextIteration]

4 minutes ago, MulletorHater said:

She will be blamed for everything from El Nino to Andrea Mitchell's bad skin.

Dayum, you went there, Brava!  (I think, please correct me if I have that wrong.)

[represent]

Bwaah, Rachel said she wanted to call in sick today so she could go to the Bridgegate trial, LOL.

[MulletorHater]

3 hours ago, NextIteration said:

Dayum, you went there, Brava!  (I think, please correct me if I have that wrong.)

Yeah, I went there.  I'm "that bitch" today.  It's as if she doesn't care what comes out of her mouth and she can barely hide her disdain for Secretary Clinton.  We've already endured an administration that raised the terrorist threat level to gain political advantage, and it's appalling that a media figure with Andrea's credentials would engage in that kind of foolery.

[car54]

I am really troubled by Rachel's piece on the bombs in NY and NJ--it seems so odd that this one guy, with no known formal background in bomb making would make such a diverse range of weapons using so many different components by himself.   The authorities seem to want to put this all on this one guy, but it seems so odd to me.    I was relieved when they caught him, but it seems like there is a lot more to this story.

[M. Darcy]

Quote

I was relieved when they caught him, but it seems like there is a lot more to this story.

And, that's the thing that people like Trump don't seem to care about.  He is alive and he got medical care (which Trump was against) which means he can talk.  Well, also, innocent until proven guilty.  But now, they can talk to him and figure out what exactly is going on.

Ah, bridgegate.  The world owes me since McDonnell got off - I want Christie in jail. 

[attica]

I got more out of Rukmini Callimachi's appearance on the bomb sitch than I got all freaking weekend. Well done, TRMS!

[Sharpie66]

When I first heard about the NYC/NJ bombs, my brain went to a really dark, conspiratorial place that it usually doesn't go (I usually immediately go with Occam's razor to explain anything). The first thing I thought was, "Well, this will play well with Trump's 'trust me with national security' tirades, won't it? Maybe he or least one if his supporters is behind it." I hated myself for thinking that, but the relative incompetence of the bomber(s) and the range of techniques used does imply something a bit...off, as Rachel pointed out.

[jjj]

2 hours ago, attica said:

I got more out of Rukmini Callimachi's appearance on the bomb sitch than I got all freaking weekend. Well done, TRMS!

Yes, I was unfamiliar with her, and so impressed that I was looking her up as she was speaking. And someone who was there to *report*, rather than to spin politics or theories!

I am sure that a much more nuanced investigation is going on within the FBI than even Rachel is aware.  I suspect they are looking for a bomb-making workroom/house and even more important, others who are working there.  But it is extremely likely that whatever this place is, the others left in a hurry with whatever they could take, and are now in a new location.  But if they left in a hurry, they would have left all sorts of evidence (fingerprints, DNA, etc.) that the FBI will find useful. 

It has always been a lurking fear among Democrats that either the email "scandal" or a terrorist attack would make HRC a less desirable candidate.  And while I think the email aspect will not sink her (I was not sure back in January), a series of terrorist incidents will be very problematic.  And yesterday, Trump got the endorsement of the National Fraternal Order of Police, which is significant to voters beyond police officers. 

[Hanahope]

So Trump is actually going to show up for the debate?  I thought he'd be watching football.

[cattykit]

20 hours ago, car54 said:

I think a lot of the NYT and WaPo people--Jonathan Capeheart, Eugene Robinson, Robert Costa, Yamiche Alcindor have done a lot of reporting on Trumpmania but the fact is that its like our country is in the Bizarro universe--nothing sticks to Trump that his followers will believe--often they listen and then just make excuses for him, and people still judge Hillary for things she never really did.   I keep waiting for that little kid to point at Trump and say "Mommy, the Emperor has no clothes!" but no luck yet.

Deplorables don't read NYT or WaPo, and they don't watch Rachel or anyone on MSNBC.  They watch Faux News in between Duck Dynasty and Honey Boo-Boo.  Even Faux News came out and said Drumpf was lying about HRC starting the birther campaign, yet the right wingnuts I know (who are college educated white female professionals and should know better) are still pushing the Hillary started it lie.

1 hour ago, jjj said:

It has always been a lurking fear among Democrats that either the email "scandal" or a terrorist attack would make HRC a less desirable candidate.  And while I think the email aspect will not sink her (I was not sure back in January), a series of terrorist incidents will be very problematic. 

All I could think yesterday was Wag the Dog.  While I don't think even a cretin like Drumpf would dream up these attacks to make the Democrats look bad, I wouldn't put it past any of his supporters to go there. 

Rachel was really fixated on the bomber possibly having accomplices.  That narrative, unfortunately, plays into Drumpf's theme of rampant nascent Islamic terrorism.

[NextIteration]

6 hours ago, attica said:

I got more out of Rukmini Callimachi's appearance on the bomb sitch than I got all freaking weekend. Well done, TRMS!

She is awesome.  I have been reading her religiously since Rachel had her on to discuss Rukmini's interview of the returned home German Daesh fighter.

[MulletorHater]

5 hours ago, Sharpie66 said:

When I first heard about the NYC/NJ bombs, my brain went to a really dark, conspiratorial place that it usually doesn't go (I usually immediately go with Occam's razor to explain anything). The first thing I thought was, "Well, this will play well with Trump's 'trust me with national security' tirades, won't it? Maybe he or least one if his supporters is behind it." I hated myself for thinking that, but the relative incompetence of the bomber(s) and the range of techniques used does imply something a bit...off, as Rachel pointed out.

I'm so ashamed because I have to admit that I've been waiting for an "October surprise."  It sure doesn't help that Governor Pence is on record for stating that Darth Vader Cheney is his role model.  Shudders!

3 hours ago, Hanahope said:

So Trump is actually going to show up for the debate?  I thought he'd be watching football.

Wait a minute...didn't he once claim that the NFL sent him a letter expressing its displeasure that the debates would be scheduled on nights when more people were inclined to tune in to football games?  And, didn't that turn out to be yet another lie from the Orange One's lips?

Speaking of which, I hope that Rachel will keep up the drumbeat regarding that scam Trump Foundation.  It's only fair since the media kept up a daily drip, drip, drip regarding the Clinton Foundation.  I also understand that Trump is standing by Governor Christie in spite of his legal troubles.  Grifters of a feather!

[stormy]

Rachel's interview with Senator Warren was so good I now feel ashamed to be a Wells Fargo customer.

I may end up on anti-depressants at the end of all of this now that Rachel showed the NYT and WAPO polls declaring republicans will hold the senate.  I was banking on the dems taking the senate if nothing else :(

[attica]

"....And then they made out!" I spit stuff at the teevee, I laughed so hard. Rachel seldom quips that way, and it was awesome.

[car54]

I believe a % of the funding that Hillary has been raising goes to down ballot races, and I know some of her surrogates, like Warren and Sanders, are also campaigning for Democratic Senate candidates so I am hoping more of them benefit and all is not lost yet for a Senate change.   

[MulletorHater]

3 hours ago, stormy said:

Rachel's interview with Senator Warren was so good I now feel ashamed to be a Wells Fargo customer.

I may end up on anti-depressants at the end of all of this now that Rachel showed the NYT and WAPO polls declaring republicans will hold the senate.  I was banking on the dems taking the senate if nothing else :(

Senator Warren was simply AWESOME!  Initially, I was feeling a certain way when she was not selected as Secretary Clinton's running mate.  But, after last night I am more convinced than ever that we need her in the Senate.  I'm also a Wells Fargo customer and now I have to wonder.  The clip of her epic read of Wells Fargo's CEO explains why she is desperately needed there.  Give 'em hell, Liz!

Unfortunately, Rachel also highlighted the problem I've had with the DNC for years.  I get Lord knows how many panicked emails from them on any given begging for donations.  Meanwhile, they are woefully inept about supporting candidates in down ballot races.  It reminds me of how they threw virtually no resources behind Governor Christie's opponent.  I heard she was a terrible candidate, but still...and all of this ineptitude happened under Debbie Wasserman Schultz' watch.

[Quilt Fairy]

15 hours ago, stormy said:

I may end up on anti-depressants at the end of all of this now that Rachel showed the NYT and WAPO polls declaring republicans will hold the senate.  I was banking on the dems taking the senate if nothing else :(

Yeah, that is depressing news.  Hillary in the White House with a full Republican congress means 4 more years of constipation in DC.  I hope they can turn things around before November.

[Sesquipedalia]

14 hours ago, attica said:

"....And then they made out!" I spit stuff at the teevee, I laughed so hard. Rachel seldom quips that way, and it was awesome.

And then after Hillary's statement: "What, no kiss?" That was funny. It's also a perfect encapsulation of the differences between the candidates when it comes to foreign policy. Trump likes to talk big, but of the two of them Clinton is the only one with the balls to stand up to world leaders.

I was so happy to see Elizabeth Warren back on the show! She's so awesome. I'm glad Rachel let her talk about the banking stuff most of the time and waited until the end to ask about politics. But I still wish Clinton had picked her for vp. Arguably, the lack of enthusiasm on the Democratic side is one of the main reasons Clinton is on the verge of losing. Tim Kaine seems to be helping her keep a lock on Virginia, so there's a big strategic advantage there, but otherwise, he doesn't seem to bring much to the table. Warren potentially could have really energized the ticket.  I know I had multiple nerdgasms watching her tell off that Wells Fargo guy yesterday.

[Hanahope]

What was disgusting was the look on that CEO's face that spoke volumes that Senator Warren can say whatever and still nothing would happen to him or other senior executives who no doubt put huge pressure and threats on those $12.00/hour employees who are now without a job.  Damn I wish I had known this 6 months ago before I refinanced my mortgage, I would have chosen a different bank. At least all Wells Fargo has from me is the one account.

[attica]

1 hour ago, Hanahope said:

What was disgusting was the look on that CEO's face that spoke volumes

This, for sure. He wasn't even trying to hide his contempt.

[M. Darcy]

I knew the museum has taken a long time (especially due to bigots in Congress holding up funding) but not that long. Yesh. Since President Coolidge.  

I have tickets for November - I never occurred to me until Rachel said it that I would be attending while President Obama is still President. I'm glad I didn't wait til next year. 

[jjj]

13 hours ago, Hanahope said:

At least all Wells Fargo has from me is the one account.

As far as you know...

The segments with Elizabeth Warren really were fiery.  She had been off the screen for what seemed like a month, so the interrogation of Wells Fargo and being on Rachel's show are the first I have seen of her for a while.  The campaign needs her to fire up the voters. 

[tenativelyyours]

On 9/20/2016 at 11:57 AM, Sharpie66 said:

When I first heard about the NYC/NJ bombs, my brain went to a really dark, conspiratorial place that it usually doesn't go (I usually immediately go with Occam's razor to explain anything). The first thing I thought was, "Well, this will play well with Trump's 'trust me with national security' tirades, won't it? Maybe he or least one if his supporters is behind it." I hated myself for thinking that, but the relative incompetence of the bomber(s) and the range of techniques used does imply something a bit...off, as Rachel pointed out.

Well you weren't alone.  Especially his rhetoric about being "right" every time there is any kind of violence let alone when it happens in the US.  Add in how Putin came to power and the clear consensus that Putin wants the Angry Yam to win and it makes for a bedtime story to give you nightmares if nothing else.  As Rachel pointed out last week, there is something to be said when it seems possible the most extreme elements that are Anti-US, including Putin-held Russia (which as Rachel pointed out too many forget Putin does not like the United States, particularly under President Obama) fervently want the Angry Yam to win.  Yet no one is saying it, let alone why that advocacy for the Yam exists. 

There really is such a disconnect watching Rachel and Chris ( I can't with O'Donnell since he goes all weird with no warning in his over the top personal hatred of the Yam -- I feel it gets in the way of the facts as to why everyone else should hate him!) and then watching even their own network and parent network -- Rachel and Chris treating the charity scandal like the scandal it is while NBC leads most of its other news by either not mentioning it at all or with a shrug and a "no one really knows" bullshit when the facts are pretty clear so far.

I was unsure exactly where Rachel was going with her response to Fallon.  It was clear that the Yam campaign had pre-planned it as a humanizing attempt as well as a weird way to dispel rumors it isn't his.  There is some pretty good glue out there and who knows what kind of implants he has had over the years.  I do know when it lifted during his Apprentice years when he got off the helicopter there was a lot less of the combover attached to his skull.  Wayyy too much pink was showing than there is now.  But Rachel seemed to find it funny and yet kind of side-show-y at the same time.  So I think she was kind of jeering that this is what a candidate does to show his "common man side"?  Not sure.  I didn't find it disrespectful because quite frankly I think the Yam has dragged us all down to his level.  Not vice versa.  And I think that is part of the tone Rachel might have been going for.  But this was a moment when that awkward persona comes through with odd laughs and odd reactions to crudity etc. 

[Sesquipedalia]

Richard Engel talking to Rachel tonight was my favorite commentary on the debate. He has so much credibility because of his extensive knowledge of world affairs, and typically he is a reporter and not a pundit, so his reaction to Trump's statements about foreign policy really brought home to me just how dangerous they are.

[33kaitykaity]

5 minutes ago, Sesquipedalia said:

Richard Engel talking to Rachel tonight was my favorite commentary on the debate. He has so much credibility because of his extensive knowledge of world affairs, and typically he is a reporter and not a pundit, so his reaction to Trump's statements about foreign policy really brought home to me just how dangerous they are.

I missed that.  Thank you for alerting on it.  (Richard Engel is in my so-smart/so sexy/can't-miss short list.)  I'm watching a replay of Rachel/BriWi after now, but will try to stay awake for RE.  

Edited September 27, 2016 by 33kaitykaity

[Hanahope]

On 9/25/2016 at 11:30 PM, tenativelyyours said:

Add in how Putin came to power and the clear consensus that Putin wants the Angry Yam to win and it makes for a bedtime story to give you nightmares if nothing else.  As Rachel pointed out last week, there is something to be said when it seems possible the most extreme elements that are Anti-US, including Putin-held Russia (which as Rachel pointed out too many forget Putin does not like the United States, particularly under President Obama) fervently want the Angry Yam to win.  Yet no one is saying it, let alone why that advocacy for the Yam exists. 

Putin wants Trump to win because then this country will be in such chaos governing itself that we won't have time to worry about what Putin is doing and Putin will be able to do whatever he wants.

[Grommet]

I had to stop the DVR and write this down:

"...the insecure ping ponging around every sentence, like every comma offers a new alternative and a new option for a different direction to go in, because this sentence was going nowhere from the top..."

So.much.this.

Also, "clip and save moment" - hee!

[stormy]

I liked Rachel showing all the voting deadlines.  And her take a picture of the tv screen, print it and tape it on your fridge.  :)

Since we have early voting, I've already voted.  It made me a bit sick when I actually saw trump's name on the ballot.

[NextIteration]

I'm pretty amped to vote as well, I think I'll do so early in the next day or so.  My daughter got her absentee ballot at school yesterday - it's already sent back, she called and was all "Mom, Mom, do you realize that my first two votes were for the first Black president and then the first female president, how cool is that?"

[Grommet]

I'm having hip replacement surgery the Thursday before the election so was going to do an absentee ballot, but then I decided - no, I want to actually go and vote for the 1st woman president. Even if it is just checking a box and putting a sheet in a scanner (I miss the old voting booths and pulling the levers!). So my Republican friend who will be helping me after surgery will just have to drive me over there. Ha!

[ruby24]

4 hours ago, NextIteration said:

I'm pretty amped to vote as well, I think I'll do so early in the next day or so.  My daughter got her absentee ballot at school yesterday - it's already sent back, she called and was all "Mom, Mom, do you realize that my first two votes were for the first Black president and then the first female president, how cool is that?"

This is the case for me too! I'm so proud of that, although I guess it's my first three votes, because I got to go for Obama twice :)

I'm not one of those younger people who doesn't see the significance in electing our first female president, I think it's amazing. It's sad that it's kinda getting brushed aside (except for during the convention I guess), because Trump sucks all the attention away from everything else. I mean, when she stepped on that debate stage, THAT was a historic moment that probably nobody watching even noticed. Only men have ever debated each other for the presidency, so that in itself was big.

I'm glad that Rachel's bringing up the voting deadlines too.