Rhodes Scholar Reporting the News Show Discussion

[stormy]

ITA and I don't understand why Rachel basically sits there for one hour, on her own, talking into the camera. How about some guests? A roundtable? Anything.

[Grommet]

I agree that McCarthy seems to have some sort of speech disorder. And I also think that there's an affair somewhere, but now neither matters. Yay.

Tonight's opening segment was long and tortuous, but I did love her "pfft" about McCain and Romney's political careers after losing their presidential campaigns.

[attica]

I meant to mention how much I enjoyed Tulsi Gabbard's visit the other day. I was impressed by her positing that we need to get out of the business of toppling secular leaders; that isn't something one hears out of DC often, if ever. She's impressive in general, imo.

[EarlGreyTea]

Couldn't watch Rachel's segment on Lincoln Chafee. He seems like an adorable grandpa type and for some reason I hate seeing him getting ambushed by that Christmas tree "scandal" and Wolf Blitzer straight up asking him when he was going to leave the race. And he looked so HAPPY every time someone let him talk at the debate, lol.

[M. Darcy]

It seemed like someone in Rachel's crew really enjoyed the show last night.  Unless I imagined it, I kept hearing someone laugh in the background.

[jjj]

THE COCKTAIL MOMENT IS BACK!    At least for tonight.  Hurray for "crème de violet" and "please use a real lemon, please."  "It should be the pale, pale blue of the sky at high altitude"  Bon voyage, US Air!  I grew up around you! 

[Grommet]

I've been feeling quite nostalgic this week, so I enjoyed the Allegheny Air reference. Probably the first airline I flew on. The cocktail making was fun.

I'm sure Rachel being the moderator was a factor in the quick sellout of the forum. But no pressure!

[M. Darcy]

Thank you Rachel for what you said about Bush and 9/11!  And, I hate to admit it, thanks to Trump for bringing it up. 

 

It feels like forever since we've had a cocktail moment. 

[M. Darcy]

Rachel got the Hills interview!!!!   Which I'm going to miss because I'll be on a plane :-( 

[alias1]

Thank you Rachel for what you said about Bush and 9/11!  And, I hate to admit it, thanks to Trump for bringing it up. 

 

 

I've never understood why Democrats have let Republicans get away with this for so long.  No, George Bush, you didn't keep us safe.  Your legacy didn't start on 9/12.  How about the Clinton advisers trying to impress upon you where the next threat was coming from and your advisers totally ignoring it (per Richard Clark).  Maybe if you hadn't taken the entire month of August off (cutting brush) you might have taken the "Bin laden determined to attack within the U. S." more seriously. 

[M. Darcy]

The rainbow guy is back!  Heh, for a serious news show, Rachel can always make me laugh - that and the going to prison bit. 

[attica]

I had no idea the hearings were going on all night. I'd popped some corn for Chris and Rachel, eager to see their takes, and got more hearings for my trouble. Still, Hillary v Gowdy is reminding me of this scene in the first Underworld movie (...What?!). Where Gowdy=Nighy.

[Rhetorica]

Clinton certainly seemed presidential and Rachel kept her cool but was giddy and cute while reflecting on the interview.

[NextIteration]

I think this may have been the best interview of Hillary Clinton I've ever seen.  While Rachel staked out her more liberal position, she did a fabulous job teasing out new information from Mrs. Clinton.  Very happy for Rachel, she did an awesome job, even while geeking out and being giddy.

[attica]

What a great interview! I was delighted with how wonky it got, seeing as how most candidate interviews just hit talking points. Well done to both gals!

[Grommet]

I agree that it was a great interview. Two super smart women talking about politics as if it means something more than scoring points against an opponent - good stuff.

But I will complain about the teasers. They're bad enough on a regular show but just seemed so ridiculous in this context. Is MSNBC losing viewers in droves at every commercial break?

[NextIteration]

But I will complain about the teasers. They're bad enough on a regular show but just seemed so ridiculous in this context. Is MSNBC losing viewers in droves at every commercial break?

 

I agree to some extent, but this was a coup for MSNBC beyond the usual Andrea Mitchell access, and if CNN can have countdown clocks and incessant jabber about debates, I think this is one I'll excuse.

 

But yes, MSNBC is losing viewers in droves, now that they turned away from there "Lean Forward" progressive point of view.

[bluepiano]

As ridiculous as the Benghazi Committee's obsession with Sidney Blumenthal was, I'm glad that in the Hillary interview Rachel brought up the subject of the Clinton cronies. I believe that when talking to Andrea Mitchell, she referred to them as "creepy." I wish she'd been that direct with Hillary, but I can understand why she wasn't.

 

We know that politics attracts a lot of hangers-on, trying to get favors (often financial) for themselves or people they work for. But it's not a valid excuse to say that all politicians have them. The Clintons have always had way more than their share, and often of a particularly grasping and unsavory nature. Hillary supporters will point to false scandal-mongering by the Republicans, but while that's definitely occurred, the Clintons need to take responsibility for their questionable choices in close associates. That's a real issue for many progressive Democrats. It's part of the reason many turned to Obama in 2008, and are turning to Bernie Sanders now. And next year, if it causes enough Dems to stay home on election day, it could cost her the Presidency.

 

So I think it's something that Hillary needs to address. She needs to reassure people that a second Clinton administration will not mean that the vultures will be circling the White House. And based on what she said in this interview, I don't think she's there yet. Too bad. If she can say she's changed her mind on gay marriage and the TPP, why can't she say that she's telling a lot of old cronies to lose her phone number and email address. (You know, the things that Chris Stevens didn't have but Blumenthal did).

Edited October 26, 2015 by bluepiano

[Wax Lion]

That was an especially apt question to come from Rachel, who had that memorable rant about Mark Penn where she said that evil had Penn's PR firm on speed dial back in 2009.

[NextIteration]

I'm hoping that Mark Penn has been permanently banned from "ClintonWorld".  ::fingers crossed::

 

Now if only Lanny Davis would magically disappear.

Edited October 26, 2015 by NextIteration

[bluepiano]

Unfortunately, because the Clintons have this bunker mentality, where they perceive themselves as being under constant attack, it makes them want to hold on to their "old friends" who have demonstrated their loyalty over the years. The problem is that they don't seem to understand that this "loyalty" comes with a price.

 

I'm kind of giving the Clintons the benefit of a doubt here, because if you judge people by the company they keep, you can see Bill and Hillary as actually being just as venal and corrupt as some of their associates. I know people who feel that way, and if Hillary is the nominee they will not vote for her as a matter of principle, even in the face of having a Republican President (who likely be nominating a couple of Supreme Court Justices) combined with a Republican Congress. They would have voted for Biden. Even if on the issues he isn't much different than Hillary, he is perceived as honest and principled.

 

I wish Rachel had asked Hillary about the question from the Alabama Congresswoman that made her laugh. Were you alone? All night? That was funny. You could even see the people sitting behind Hillary cracking up. Of course that Congresswoman didn't get it. What a piece of work she was. I don't usually notice things like this, but jeez, you know you're going to be on national television so wash your damn hair.

Edited October 26, 2015 by bluepiano

[Maleficent]

I really like Rachel, but she has her head so far up Bernie Sanders ass it's getting harder for me to watch.  She never has a hard question for him.

[bluepiano]

I really like Rachel, but she has her head so far up Bernie Sanders ass it's getting harder for me to watch.  She never has a hard question for him.

 

Funny, because my impression is that she's a Hillary Clinton supporter. As a news person she has to appear impartial, but that's my take. YMMV.

 

In general, I think that MSNBC is on board with the rest of the establishment "liberal media" in pushing the message that Democrats and independent progressives need to get behind Hillary because Bernie Sanders is unelectable. After the debate, with the notable exception of Chris Matthews, the MSNC commentators sounded like they could've been reading from Clinton press releases. Howard Fineman, one of their regular "contributors," in particular sounds like a Hillary staffer. (His columns in Huffington Post are also really partisan).

Edited October 27, 2015 by bluepiano

[Sesquipedalia]

I think she has done a good enough job of appearing impartial that I'm not sure which Democrat she supports. I agree that she asks Sanders softball questions, but she has been fan girling pretty hard over Clinton as well. 

 

The impression I get is that she's just happy to have such a strong (though small) field of Democratic candidates. Clinton has more baggage than Louis Vitton, but she has swung way to the left and is killing it lately. Sanders seems like a long shot, but how can any progressive not have a soft spot for him? There's zero chance I will vote for him in the primary, but I went to one of his rallies because . . . Bernie Sanders!

 

I think Rachel is smart to play it close to the vest so she won't have to backtrack once the primary is over and the general campaign begins.

 

I wish Rachel had asked Hillary about the question from the Alabama Congresswoman that made her laugh.

That would have been a better "warm-up" question than the one about Biden. That was a weird question, because what was Clinton going to say? She's not going to whine about how hard running for president is like Rand Paul et al. because that's just not how she rolls, and she certainly can't say she's jealous of someone who just, um, lost his son. So yeah, some other lighthearted question would have been a better icebreaker. 

Edited October 27, 2015 by Sesquipedalia

[NextIteration]

Meh, I remember how horribly Fineman eviscerated Clinton in 2008 (along with the rest of the media).

 

I think that the Democratic Establishment has traded philosophies with the GOP Establishment and have gotten completely behind Hillary, because it's her turn AND it's high time we had a woman as POTUS - so it's time to fall in line instead of falling in love.  Fangirling about getting the Clinton interview (outside of Mitchell) for MSNBC makes sense to me because it was a "Big Fucking Deal" to quote Biden.  But I don't think for one minute that Rachel supports Clinton over Sanders, it would go against her belief system.

 

What I do think though, speaking of Rachel and all the other "liberals" in the media, is that they believe that there is only an outside chance that Bernie's "revolution" will take hold, and they don't want Hillary beaten and bloodied like she was in 2008.  They want her to be a strong candidate going into the general to beat the shit out of the Republican nominee, because in this era of exceedingly polarized politics Democrats cannot lose the White House or all bets are off.

[bluepiano]

Nextiteration, I think you've accurately described the dilemma that many people find themselves in, myself included. I'm a Bernie supporter, but I was still glad that Hillary did so well in from of the Benghazi committee, because I don't want the Republicans to have extra ammunition against her if she's the Democratic nominee. Even though had she stumbled in the hearing, it might've helped Bernie get the nomination. So much of what happens between now and when the nomination is decided is going to produce mixed emotions for me.

 

At the same time, I don't like having my intelligence insulted with trumped up accusations of sexism against Bernie Sanders. If that's the kind of campaign HRC plans to run, then she's shooing herself in the foot by alienating more left-leaning Democrats (and independents) who she'll need to turn out and vote in the general election. So while her supporters may not want her to be "bloodied" during the campaign, there is also an issue of self-inflicted damage if she cannot resist the Clinton impulse to get down and dirty.

Edited October 27, 2015 by bluepiano

[Quilt Fairy]

I went to Sanders' web page a few weeks ago, and I found that I agree strongly with almost everything he says. But it really is pie in the sky, Because what he doesn't say is how he can implement his policies if Congress stays Republican. However, If Sanders pushes Hillary more to the left, he's doing an important job. Without that impetus she's really an Establishment, Big Business candidate. (And make no mistake, I voted for her in the '08 Illinois primary and I'll vote for her again.)

 

To keep this on Rachel, I like her Clinton interview with the exception of the friends question. Not because she asked it, but because she apologized for asking it and said she didn't want to appear mean. I just think that was 1) unprofessional and 2) beneath her.

[bluepiano]

To keep this on Rachel, I like her Clinton interview with the exception of the friends question. Not because she asked it, but because she apologized for asking it and said she didn't want to appear mean. I just think that was 1) unprofessional and 2) beneath her.

 

Good point. There was nothing rude or aggressive about that question. Her "I'm so sorry for asking" is where Rachel veers from being a serious journalist to being a fan. And she's not the liberal or Democratic woman who is a little bit (or a lot) in awe of Hillary. I don't think these friends are doing her any favors by tip toeing around her, because the Republicans certainly won't.

[NextIteration]

At the same time, I don't like having my intelligence insulted with trumped up accusations of sexism against Bernie Sanders. If that's the kind of campaign HRC plans to run, then she's shooing herself in the foot by alienating more left-leaning Democrats (and independents) who she'll need to turn out and vote in the general election. So while her supporters may not want her to be "bloodied" during the campaign, there is also an issue of self-inflicted damage if she cannot resist the Clinton impulse to get down and dirty.

 

I completely understand this, but my daughter would disagree all day everyday with you.  She was outraged by the "shouting" thing the night of the debate.  But she's a college student that sees micro-aggressions everywhere.  She texted me 10 times about it and I was sort of clued out what pissed her off so much - went flying right by me at the time.  It's helpful if you go back and listen to it again to understand, I think.

 

Apologies for veering off Rachel to answer - but it would be really interesting if Rachel would take this subject on.  In any number of ways, from "what the hell is the HRC campaign thinking, please let's not repeat past mistakes" or, that there really are people out there that saw the debate and were outraged about the remark (it could have been taking either way) from a feminist perspective.

[Sesquipedalia]

I thought the "shouting" comments--both Sanders' and Clinton's--were pretty innocuous and are getting blown way out of proportion, including by Martin O'Malley tonight on the show. By criticizing the other candidates for bickering, he was also bickering! But otherwise, his interview was pretty impressive.

[holly4755]

I enjoyed Rachael's additional information about the GWB military years. I have to admit I have been obsessed by this for years. When I was young, my wedding was delayed because my future husband got drafted into the marines on the same day that Georgy boy got into the national guard to train on an obsolete aircraft. It was pre-internet, so I followed the story in real time, just hating that man for his silver spoon and entitlement back them. A lot of his career was covered in the Newark papers back then and I read it all,. had I known what was going to happen I would have kept copies of the paper, ha ha. 

Sad follow up. My husband got seduced by conservative friends, and we parted ways, but he voted for GWB - I was shocked, but had no influence on him by that time, people make choices that show their own ignorance of their past. He never was a great reader and had a lousy memory. 

[Grommet]

I haaaaaate Nicole Wallace but I enjoyed Rachel's sparring with her, especially her line about the conservatives being mad about something (sorry, bad memory) since the 70s.

[attica]

"Fight Chewbacca!"

[Padma]

I feel a little bad for Rachel, now that the Republicans are punishing NBC by cutting relations. That seems like such a setup for the Democratic debate, conducted by MSNBC's female host, and Republicans to say, "See! We told you the media has a bias toward Democrats! They've got the ultra liberal MSNBC host asking all kinds of softball questions!"

 

Rachel's style IS "softball" to begin with, though within it she has latitude to have a good debate anyway. But I just see it as added pressure because the Reps are aiming for maximum negative publicity for the media (specifically NBC) for doing this.

 

Frankly, I hope it prompts the network reporters to push back HARD, either having debates conducted for them by print journalists (could be my dream come true as they ask so much better questions usually) OR by getting even tougher in their questions--and being ready to source each and every fact in them if challenged.

 

This won't be an issue for Rachel and the Dems, but going forward, I hope the Republicans strong-arm tactics backfire big time.

[jjj]

So glad to have Rachel cover the weird, weird scandal (love, sex, faked gay cover story to deflect attention from the real adulterous hetero affair) in the Michigan Legislature -- I don't think she covered it while it was happening and the Republican legislators in question were actually slated for removal from the (Republican, very Republican) Legislature.  One resigned on the floor an hour before he was ousted, and the other stayed in her seat until the Legislature voted to expel her and she was taken from the floor under guard.  Rachel summarized it very well before noting they are on the ballot for their own vacated seats tomorrow! 

[Grommet]

Such a bizarre story! I thought Rachel had mentioned it briefly once before. I'm really looking forward to the results, since my local elections seem pretty dull. But the former head of the state legislature is currently on trial for some financial shenanigans, so that's fun.

[jjj]

Rachel may well have mentioned the Michigan story back in September and I missed her coverage -- it had the potential of being one of those ongoing stories of "you won't believe what they did/said TODAY", because it was a stream of denial-evidence-denial-evidence for quite a while, before the final literal walk of shame escort out of the Legislature.  I kept thinking it was tailor-made for TRMS.

 

Have a great time with your local politics, Grommet -- you never know where the next local political story will come from on TRMS! 

Edited November 3, 2015 by jjj

[M. Darcy]

Sigh.  Again, I think Rachel is the only one talking about the lack of Congress voting on the 9/11 First Responders bill.   Hopefully she'll bring it up on Friday to get some more national coverage - even though it doesn't really have anything to do with the Democratic Primary.  And, what asses trying to make it a 5 year bill - all you do is make a group of very sick/dying people have to continually fight this battle.  

 

And really?  It took this long to get the Hastert portrait taken down?  I guess innocent until pleading guilty in court so people don't find out exactly what you did.

[Grommet]

Things like the First Responders bill always make me think of Jon saying "these fucking guys!" in abject frustration (said in another context, but it fits so many situations - unfortunately). And I just watched a 9/11 show that I taped on the anniversary and was reminded me of how many first responders there were amid all that chaos.

 

I wasn't paying attention 100% to the story about the Hastert portrait. Did Rachel explain what the process was to get it taken down? I'm thinking a zillion people had to get involved.

 

Another former head of the state legislature here (yay, NYS!) got convicted of paying off some crony and yet we still have a local stadium named after him.

[Sharpie66]

I think all it took for Denny Hastert's portrait to be removed was the Speaker's say-so, which Ryan gave on his first day in office. And I'm guessing it probably wouldn't have come down at all if it wasn't for the fact that the conviction was, ultimately, due to alleged sexual molestation of at least one minor.

[SFoster21]

I haaaaaate Nicole Wallace but I enjoyed Rachel's sparring with her, especially her line about the conservatives being mad about something (sorry, bad memory) since the 70s.

Nixon.

[BennyB]

 

That seems like such a setup for the Democratic debate, conducted by MSNBC's female host, and Republicans to say, "See! We told you the media has a bias toward Democrats! They've got the ultra liberal MSNBC host asking all kinds of softball questions!"

 

Is this a formal debate?  I thought Rachel said it was more of a 'town hall' meeting.  Could have heard it wrong though (which wouldn't be surprising)

[Pepper Mostly]

I just came by to say how much I love Rachel's glee at Jeb's weird little noises. Last week she likened his "whoo!" to the noise of a "happy little owl" which made me laugh heartily and for many minutes.

[Quilt Fairy]

Is this a formal debate?  I thought Rachel said it was more of a 'town hall' meeting.  Could have heard it wrong though (which wouldn't be surprising)

It's not a debate, it's a "forum" and therefore does not count against the 6 (?) debates planned by the Democrats. I think each candidate will be on stage separately, but Rachel said she can ask any questions she wants.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Quilt Fairy

[EarlGreyTea]

Rachel's prim "Well." after describing that fake e-mail scandal made me HOWL. My mom and I rewound it at least five times. Hilarious.

[jjj]

I'm so glad there is a real show tonight -- I thought it would be all sorts of minor election results.  They have done one or two updates of race outcomes, and I thank MSNBC for deciding that this election did not need wall-to-wall coverage in the earlier part of the evening. 

[nowandlater]

Brokaw sounded really unwell in that interview. I knew he had battled cancer, but boy he sounded terrible.

 

(Also, I wasn't thrilled with his analysis.)

[Grommet]

I thought the same thing about Brokaw. His voice sounded rough.

I wish Chris Christie would stop doing things that make me think he's not all bad. I know it's a trap!

[BennyB]

 

So glad to have Rachel cover the weird, weird scandal (love, sex, faked gay cover story to deflect attention from the real adulterous hetero affair) in the Michigan Legislature -- I don't think she covered it while it was happening and the Republican legislators in question were actually slated for removal from the (Republican, very Republican) Legislature.  One resigned on the floor an hour before he was ousted, and the other stayed in her seat until the Legislature voted to expel her and she was taken from the floor under guard.  Rachel summarized it very well before noting they are on the ballot for their own vacated seats tomorrow!

 

 

Looks like it didn't work out too well for either of them........

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/todd-courser-cindy-gamrat-lose_56392252e4b0307f2cab0c8f?utm_hp_ref=politics

[jjj]

Yes, in those Michigan races, the party put major resources into the Republican candidates who had been the former opponents of those two lawmakers!  It was a ridiculous long shot, and now they can move on with their lives, preferably out of the headlines.