Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Rhodes Scholar Reporting the News Show Discussion

maraleia

By maraleia
in The Rachel Maddow Show

  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

alias1

alias1

What is wrong with the people in Kentucky?  Do they really want to get rid of the medicaid expansion in their state.  Are they so in love with coal they can't see reality for the smoke? 

 

I don't know if it was Brokaw not feeling well last night, but his analysis seemed very weak.  And, despite the fact that he seems to try to be neutral, I've always thought he trended Republican.

  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

jjj
jjj

What she actually said was "*thirty-five-year-old* real estate developer", and while age is not a criterion for wisdom (just look at the 70-year-old menace in the news), part of her point was that he

nowandlater

nowandlater

What is wrong with the people in Kentucky?  Do they really want to get rid of the medicaid expansion in their state.  Are they so in love with coal they can't see reality for the smoke? 

 

I don't know if it was Brokaw not feeling well last night, but his analysis seemed very weak.  And, despite the fact that he seems to try to be neutral, I've always thought he trended Republican.

 

 

When I saw Brokaw's interview, while watching with a 30-minute delay, I quickly went on Twitter to search "Brokaw" to gauge reaction to his voiice.

 

And everybody seemed to be upset with his pro-Republican/lazy analysis, especially since he had health problems recently.

 

I mean, Dan Rather, though probably liberal-leaning, is always seemingly neutral on Maddow's show.

 

But then I remembered that Brokaw was close to the Reagans since the '60s. So maybe he is a Republican?

  • Love 1
Wax Lion

Wax Lion

Tom Brokaw does these weird radio ads where he comments on current events and he constantly sounds like he's looking for a cloud to yell at. They're freaking awful. He just did one on the CNBC debate that was basicalyl a lecture on how the kids in journalism these days suck at being neutral. He's awful.

  • Love 1
jjj

jjj

No regular shows on Friday night at all, just two broadcasts of the forum.

Thanks, that explains the lack of podcast for Friday.  I must have caught the second of three (?) showings of the forum, as I caught a forum that started at 7:00 Pacific Time.  She must have started in the Chris Hayes time slot?  It felt different than a show interview, and was so thoughtful compared to the Republican shows.  I thought the one-at-a-time format would be like three interviews, but it felt connected.  Not impressed with the former Maryland Governor, who was too ready to get out his sound bites.  I felt the other two trusted Rachel more to lead them in a conversation. 

alias1

alias1

I really like Martin O'Malley but he was trying a little too hard.  I'm sure it's because he has such meager support.  He's young enough that he might be someone to look to in the future.  I actually think he'd be a great vice president, but if Hillary is the nominee, picking someone else from the northeast to run with her is not a good idea.  She would be better off picking someone like Julian Castro. (Yes, I'm getting ahead of myself.)

  • Love 3
attica

attica

I thought Rachel did a good job with her selection of questions. It did annoy me, though, that the only one quizzed about a spouse was the woman. Yes, I know that because Bill was president that's more relevant than it would be with a non-political spouse, but still. Couldn't we just once let a woman stand for herself alone? Just once?

 

(And good on Hill for putting a button on having to talk about her hair. She joked goodnaturedly about it, which was the right tone, but it was a good idea to remind the audience that fun aside, that's some bullshit.)

  • Love 4
jjj

jjj

I thought Rachel did a good job with her selection of questions. It did annoy me, though, that the only one quizzed about a spouse was the woman. Yes, I know that because Bill was president that's more relevant than it would be with a non-political spouse, but still. Couldn't we just once let a woman stand for herself alone? Just once?

 

(And good on Hill for putting a button on having to talk about her hair. She joked goodnaturedly about it, which was the right tone, but it was a good idea to remind the audience that fun aside, that's some bullshit.)

Wasn't Hillary the one who brought up her hair, in the context of the wedding picture?  (Permanents, ackkk!  <never had one>)  I agree I would have preferred a picture from Wellesley or the Watergate hearings as Hillary's historic picture; the two men were shown in historic pictures of their political activism in their 20s.  She had that: her graduation speech is a great example, much more prominent than the two men's moments in time.

  • Love 1
Sesquipedalia

Sesquipedalia

Even before the conversation devolved into hair talk, I couldn't believe Maddow showed the men pictures of their early activism and then showed Clinton her wedding picture. WTF was she thinking? Clinton handled it well by pointing out she was already a lawyer and children's advocate at the time, but I couldn't believe that Rachel Maddow of all people would approach the question so differently for the male and female candidates.

  • Love 3
bluepiano

bluepiano

(edited)

Even before the conversation devolved into hair talk, I couldn't believe Maddow showed the men pictures of their early activism and then showed Clinton her wedding picture. WTF was she thinking? Clinton handled it well by pointing out she was already a lawyer and children's advocate at the time, but I couldn't believe that Rachel Maddow of all people would approach the question so differently for the male and female candidates.

 

That's because even though in terms of her politics she may be closer to Bernie Sanders, it's clear to me that Rachel is kind of a Hillary groupie, and tends to approach her as a celebrity, pop-culture phenomena, in addition to being a political figure. That's how I felt when she did that interview after the Benghazi hearings, and it was really clear in the forum.

 

She let Hillary go on and on about her emotions in regard to recent killings in the black community, while with the men she kept them on point about the issues.  And Hillary made some statements that cried out for follow-up questions that never came. Such as when she claimed she told Wall St. to "cut it out." But did she take any substantive action? And her answer about the hundreds of thousands in speaker fees from investment firms, "if you know me, you know I can't be influenced," would not have gone unchallenged if spoken by any other candidate.

 

In the post mortem, Rachel told Chris Matthews that Hillary is so skillful that she's able to take an interview wherever she wants it to go. But that's a cop out. Also, Rachel's preliminary comments to the audience, asking them not to dislike her for asking hard questions, were silly and unnecessary. It's the "cutesy Rachel" that I know turns some people off, and keeps others from seeing her a serious journalist. (if that's her goal).

Edited by bluepiano
jjj

jjj

 Also, Rachel's preliminary comments to the audience, asking them not to dislike her for asking hard questions, were silly and unnecessary. It's the "cutesy Rachel" that I know turns some people off, and keeps others from seeing her a serious journalist. (if that's her goal).

This kind of couching "don't hate me for being direct" is an approach too many women have had to adopt to be heard and not alienate an audience, but I agree, Rachel is way above needing to do this.  (No one should have to do this.)  See this recent "ouch" column on the topic in the Washington Post:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2015/10/13/jennifer-lawrence-has-a-point-famous-quotes-the-way-a-woman-would-have-to-say-them-during-a-meeting/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_na

  • Love 1
bluepiano

bluepiano

(edited)

I don't know. I understand the societal double standard whereby a man is admiringly called "tough" for the same kind of attitude that gets a woman called a bitch. But there have been plenty of female journalists who take a back seat to no one when it comes to being direct and uncompromising. And they have been successful and well-respected.

 

in Rachel's case, I think it has more to do with her personality. I think she genuinely does want people to like her.  And that maybe she's not sure of where her media career is headed, and wants to leave her options open. I could see her "graduating" to a major network, maybe hosting an afternoon talk show. And so she's mindful of not burning any bridges.

Edited by bluepiano
Padma

Padma

(edited)

Even before the conversation devolved into hair talk, I couldn't believe Maddow showed the men pictures of their early activism and then showed Clinton her wedding picture. WTF was she thinking? Clinton handled it well by pointing out she was already a lawyer and children's advocate at the time, but I couldn't believe that Rachel Maddow of all people would approach the question so differently for the male and female candidates.

I couldn't believe that either! Not just that Rachel didn't notice the (incredible) sexism of showing both men in roles of leadership/social activism and showing Hillary (who ALSO was active in her early years, and a lawyer) at her wedding!!! "What was the young you thinking in this picture?" just added to the annoyance I felt about it.

 

What really shocked me wasn't just that Rachel didn't see anything wrong with it, but can you imagine how many staffers gave it a "pass" as well--including the person who had to come up with the photos? How did none of them not stop and say, "Wait! We need a comparable photo of Hillary!" (One at the Watergate hearings would have been a good choice.)  Also, "Let's have wedding pics for everyone!"  Rachel, of all people, then going on and on about her hair made it so much worse.

 

While I'm being critical, I really dislike the ad for her show. She's walking around and tells us "Americans are complicated....It's why our national anthem is a question. No, really. 'Can you see...?  ... all these different people, etc."  Uh, no. That's not what our national anthem is about. Why would you say that?   She then goes on to say, "Americans are loud. ..." Well, no again!  Some are, some aren't'. Why the stereotyping? (And an unflattering one at that, like tehe old "ugly American" image of the loud, vulgar American tourist.)  I know so many people who love her, love her show. She's...okay...but I'm really not a big fan. I don't understand why her show is so much more popular than anyone else's.

Edited by Padma
  • Love 1
NextIteration

NextIteration

I was recording a late night repeat of a show on MSBNC and caught the last 10 seconds of Meet the Press and I noticed Rachel on the panel. Was this a one time thing because of the forum she hosted or is she a regular on that show?

 

It happened a bit more frequently in the past, but not lately; I'm sure this particular appearance was due to her role as the forum moderator.

cheatincheetos

cheatincheetos

That Kevin Swanson guy. Woah. At first I was laughing...then, oh man...

 

But really, that guy seemed like an SNL parody of an anti-gay preacher.

In the clip Rachel played, it looked like one of the guys from "Revenge of the Nerds" had a baby with the elderly cult leader from Poltergeist II and then the son grew up only to contract rabies from an amorous possum.

  • Love 3
cheatincheetos

cheatincheetos

Is David Vitter the one whose wife stood by him in the skin tight leopard print dress? I loved that. But he needs to go away forever. So he'll probably win.

  The big diaper makers like Kimberly Clark and Procter Gamble are probably "Pampering" him with big last-minute contributions to absorb Bell's attacks for a come-from-behind win.

  • Love 1
M. Darcy

M. Darcy

Ooo, political gossip that I didn't know.   I didn't know the Bush I hated Rumsfeld and that Dole and Bush I didn't get along.  I always thought that Barbara Bush was the one with grudges in the family. 

 

I am so looking forward to Vitter losing.  He totally got away with breaking the law because he used prostitutes while serving in the House so the Senate couldn't do anything and he was in the Senate when people found out so the House couldn't do anything.

  • Love 1
Padma

Padma

Ooo, political gossip that I didn't know.   I didn't know the Bush I hated Rumsfeld and that Dole and Bush I didn't get along.  I always thought that Barbara Bush was the one with grudges in the family. 

I really wondered about all that. These people in politics seem to have "enemies" one day (like Bush and Reagan) and then can't say enough nice things later on. I think political opportunism helps spin the past and the present in whatever self-serving way works at the time. But, yes, I knew every other Bush held grudges just like Mom--didn't know Bush 41 did, too.

 

GWB was listening to his father at the time, even as to choosing Dick Cheney as VP (!) when so many others were available. It's hard to imagine that if Bush 41 -really- hated Rumsfeld, he still would have been tapped as the son's SOD.  Cheney (Bush 41's SOD) was pretty close to GWBs father at the time so I'm ... skeptical... that this is a narrative that Rachel said of  "poor weak George led astray by evil Rumsfeld and Cheney."  (And if they were going to pair GWB with an old Bush crony, too bad it wasn't James Baker instead of Cheney.  I don't agree with his politics, but Baker at least is smart, much more measured and very competent--all things that GWB needed and which Cheney and Rumsfeld didn't bring.) 

 

I think Bush 43 was in perfect accord with Cheney AND Rumsfeld about Iraq--and didn't get cautioned otherwise by his father at the time.  I'm surprised Rachel just followed the spin that's out there now, accompanying Meacham's book.

  • Love 2
nowandlater

nowandlater

GWB was listening to his father at the time, even as to choosing Dick Cheney as VP (!) when so many others were available. It's hard to imagine that if Bush 41 -really- hated Rumsfeld, he still would have been tapped as the son's SOD. 

 

 

Maureen Dowd, who's known and covered the elder Bush since the '80s, had a great columns a few days ago on the disagreements between Sr. and Jr.

 

Basically, after you read this article it'll make perfect sense as to why W. picked Rumsfeld.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/opinion/sunday/poppy-bush-finally-gives-junior-a-spanking.html

cheatincheetos

cheatincheetos

(edited)

Actually, I saw on MSNBC last night that, since the primary, Edwards has raised over $1 million, while Vitter has only raised about $145,000.

There's always that sneaky post-Citizens-United dark money, of course.

Ooo, political gossip that I didn't know.   I didn't know the Bush I hated Rumsfeld and that Dole and Bush I didn't get along.  I always thought that Barbara Bush was the one with grudges in the family.

The Dole-Bush feud got some press at the time, but it's been a long time since then. I can't seem to find the old SNL skit where (Dan Akroyd's?) Dole threatens to impale Bush with a pencil and Dana Carvey's sniveling Bush Sr. whines 'Yeah, I'd like to see you try' but I remember it.

 

Also, Dole found someone new to dislike.

 

http://gawker.com/watch-bob-dole-giggle-over-how-much-he-hates-ted-cruz-1742182248

Edited by cheatincheetos
jjj

jjj

Even though often CNN's coverage of these types of events is often superior, I can't turn it on because of the "crisis" music - it's honest to goodness triggering for me.  I know that sounds silly, but it's true.

It's not a bit silly.  Movies play with your emotions all the time with musical scores, and that's fine.  But news does not need that background music. 

  • Love 4
nowandlater

nowandlater

Man, I hate that there's so much news, and there was no Maddow show.

 

I hate MSNBC's new "news" shift.

 

If I wanted news, I'd watch CNN. (I don't mind it, of course, when there was breaking news like on Friday.)

 

But I turn to MSNBC for analysis. And I sorely missed Rachel for that on Tuesday.

  • Love 8
jjj

jjj

Richard Engel said "Rachel has the night off and she will be back tomorrow" -- I wonder if that would have happened in any case? 

 

I agree that I go to MSNBC, and especially Rachel, for analysis. 


Man, I hate that there's so much news, and there was no Maddow show.  If I wanted news, I'd watch CNN. (I don't mind it, of course, when there was breaking news like on Friday.)

 

But I turn to MSNBC for analysis. And I sorely missed Rachel for that on Tuesday.

  • Love 2
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...