Rhodes Scholar Reporting the News Show Discussion

[M. Darcy]

Thank you Rachel!  I was starting to get annoyed when the news all made it seem that Cruz et al were shocked at what Trump said and would never think of punishing women.  Its all bull puckey (as Rachel would say). Because what do they think will happen when abortion is illegal?  Because throughout history, women will have abortions no matter what the law is.  And, I'm pretty sure that desperate women in areas like Texas are already trying to self abort themselves.

 

I missed the very end because she went over 10 pm and I didn't want to miss Archer but heard the beginning.  Seriously, Donald, just stop.

[NextIteration]

And, I'm pretty sure that desperate women in areas like Texas are already trying to self abort themselves.

 

They are.

 

Also going to jail for self-induced abortion or "feticide".

[attica]

The piece that Rachel did on what it would mean if we had a pro-life anti-abortion government should be required watching for every U.S. citizen.

 

I was just talking about this to friends, so I was glad to see it echoed. I myself could be charged with being an Accessory for driving a friend to her abortion! 

[ktwo]

Rachel will be happy to know that this afternoon CNN finally got around to the Alabama governor story.

It's really incredible to see how much the presidential election in general and Trump in particular is sucking all the oxygen out of the room. A married sitting governor has a sex tape with someone on the government payroll and it doesn't lead all of the news? I guess he really would have to be found with a dead girl or a live boy.

[M. Darcy]

Today is Rachel's birthday!  I wonder if she will work or take the day off.

 

When she did the story of the AL governor touring the jail, all I kept thinking was that he must have listened to Rachel too many times on a Friday when she said Its Time for Jail!  (which we won't get tonight - there's a special report on at 10 on Isis and Computers (or something)).

[attica]

I kind of loved that interview with Ben Ginsburg. He seems like a (very lawyerly) hoot!

[alias1]

The Dead Man's Switch?  Honestly, I couldn't love Rachel any more than I already do!

Edited April 2, 2016 by SierraMist

[jjj]

The Dean Man's Switch?  Honestly, I couldn't love Rachel any more than I already do!

You say that, but we always find reasons to love Rachel more than we already do!

 

So, the attorney and the DC Madam's information and his Dead Man's Switch -- hasn't that attorney just put a big target on his back for an unscrupulous news outfit?  They put him up in a resort without phone or Wifi for a long weekend, and wait for the documents to surface! 

[stormy]

The corporate sponsors and the republican convention?  It's the funniest damn story Rachel's covered recently.

I was thinking two things.

First, they get one corporate sponsor, like college football bowl games.  And so perfect.  The Trump Republican Convention.

Or, they could have a fundraiser.  They could sell T shirts.  "I'm With Stupid".

Edited April 2, 2016 by stormy

[alias1]

 

So, the attorney and the DC Madam's information and his Dead Man's Switch -- hasn't that attorney just put a big target on his back for an unscrupulous news outfit?  They put him up in a resort without phone or Wifi for a long weekend, and wait for the documents to surface! 

Maybe that's what he's hoping for, lol, so he won't be totally to blame.  I can't see the Supreme Court rushing to hear this argument.  And If they do, the answer will probably be to uphold the gag order.   I wonder if he's bluffing, anyway.

[M. Darcy]

The other interesting thing about the DC Madam scandal and the dead man switch is something that Rachel hasn't mentioned.  Most likely because she is a professional and there is no proof but one theory in DC is that the DC Madam did not commit suicide but was murdered.

[jjj]

I was just listening to the OnDemand recording of last Thursday's show, which opened with the investigation of a suspicious package at the Peoria airport.  But Rachel pronounced it "pee-oh-REE-ah", and I have never heard that -- I even looked it up, but they all provide what I have always said:  "pee-OH-ree-ah".  Was this some kind of in-joke? 

[alias1]

I was just listening to the OnDemand recording of last Thursday's show, which opened with the investigation of a suspicious package at the Peoria airport.  But Rachel pronounced it "pee-oh-REE-ah", and I have never heard that -- I even looked it up, but they all provide what I have always said:  "pee-OH-ree-ah".  Was this some kind of in-joke? 

I heard that, too. I think she did it twice, but several times later she pronounced it correctly.  I wonder if someone on her staff corrected her.  But it seems strange she wouldn't know how to pronounce Peoria. 

[attica]

Well, the Icelandic PM (he with the eggy windows) has resigned, after saying yesterday he would not. I was hoping Rachel would show this clip in yesterday's show, but perhaps she'll do so tonight. It's a good clip; it's rare to see a dude see the oncoming train and try to leap out of the way -- in a tunnel. 

[Rhetorica]

I was just listening to the OnDemand recording of last Thursday's show, which opened with the investigation of a suspicious package at the Peoria airport. But Rachel pronounced it "pee-oh-REE-ah", and I have never heard that -- I even looked it up, but they all provide what I have always said: "pee-OH-ree-ah". Was this some kind of in-joke?

I thought she was mimicking the song, "Marching to Pretoria" about taking the capital of the South African capital during the Boer War. That's what came to my mind...

[M. Darcy]

 

perhaps she'll do so tonight.

Its going to be all Wisconsin all night :-(   The polls don't close until 9 pm EST so that first hour tonight will just be them all killing time.  Heh, and the next hour will probably be too early call or too close to call on both .   Its too bad we don't get a show - the Alabama Legislature has started the impeaching process against the Governor.

[attica]

Argh, you're right, I forgot. Argh.

[M. Darcy]

Its a quandary - while I do miss watching Chris and Rachel, is it also nice to get an evening off from the news since I only last about two minutes of listening to Brian Williams and then I switch to Bob's Burgers. 

[NextIteration]

Darn darn darn.  

 

Speaking of the DC Madam info...

 

Who cares about primary coverage?  I'm not sure Rachel would touch this anyways.

Edited April 5, 2016 by NextIteration

[alias1]

Rachel had an entire category on today's Jeopardy show (The Best New Thing In The World)!!!

[Grommet]

This is my absolutely crazy time of year at work so I've not been watching every minute of Rachel but I did hear her say "easy peasy" last night which I loved because I've started saying that recently. A co-worker gently mocks me for it so now I feel vindicated - especially since he loves Rachel as much as I do.

 

The "how we ended up with Ted Cruz" story was fascinating.

[alias1]

The "how we ended up with Ted Cruz" story was fascinating.

I love how she gets into the backstory of things.  No one else does a story this way and I find her type of coverage fascinating, too.  She must have a terrific team of researchers behind her. 

 

I was kind of surprised that she held up that tabloid paper that alluded to Ted Cruz being in the DC Madam's phone records.  She kept stressing they had no proof of anything, but still.

[shok]

What a disappointing interview with Jane Sanders. Good grief, she was awed by the opportunity of interviewing Barack Obama back when but still managed to ask him some relevant and pointed questions and yet she became a giddy fangirl over Jane and let her blather on with a bunch of nonsense with no blowback whatsoever. I've always been impressed with Rachel's interviewing skills in the past but she sure flubbed it tonight.

[alias1]

I think Rachel asked some very good questions but Jane Sanders is pretty good at deflecting the conversation to just where she wants it.  A couple of times Rachel tried to do a followup to the question of why Bernie is saying Hillary is not qualified to be president when he is basing his comments on sources other than Hillary herself.  Hillary has said repeatedly she would rather see Bernie president than any clown from the other side.  I was not happy with Jane's continued responses about how Hillary has "implied" that Bernie is not qualified. 

 

I've always liked Martin O'Malley.  Maybe he will run again in the future. This was not his year 

Edited April 8, 2016 by SierraMist

[represent]

 

Hillary has said repeatedly she would rather see Bernie president than any clown from the other side.  I was not happy with Jane's continued responses about how Hillary has "implied" that Bernie is not qualified.

Yeah, I don't think I've ever turned the channel on this show. I even sat through Rick Santorum, but turned the channel on Jane Sanders and ended up skipping the rest of the show. 

 

The media keeps talking about offended Bernie supporters and they better start talk more about we, offended Clinton supporters.

 

I find them utterly dismissive of Clinton supporters.

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

Jane Sanders says they want to focus on the issue, okay fine. Rachel should have reminded her that Bernie's disgraceful interviews on his core issues is what set this into motion. They are want to scapegoat Hilary so remove her from the conversation and let's talk about the issues.

 

Expect I don't think they really want to talk about the issues. 

[alias1]

I was really pleased that Rachel mentioned how Hillary has tried to raise money for other democratic candidates, and when Bernie is asked about it all he says is "we'll see."  I didn't understand these letter that Jane Sanders was talking about.  How do these letters help other candidates? 

[Sesquipedalia]

I'm catching up on last week, and I didn't understand the letter comment either. It sounds like something maybe all senators do to help other candidates, not really comparable to all the fund-raising Clinton does.

 

But overall I thought Jane Sanders did well in her interview. Her job was to smooth over her husband's terrible choice of words, and she was effective at it. I agree with her that I wish reporters would ask about the issues instead of focusing on the horse race and trying to pick fights between the candidates. 

[shok]

I agree with her that I wish reporters would ask about the issues instead of focusing on the horse race and trying to pick fights between the candidates. 

 

Yes, that would be good but their prodding at contentious details does often reveal a candidate's character and personality and suitability for the job they're running for. It's certainly confirmed what I thought Bernie was like as a person.  I find it surprising that the pundits haven't made any noise about the fact that only a couple of people that Bernie has worked with in congress for the past 30 years are supporting him now and if you dig a little bit there are articles about how cantankerous and hard to get along with he is. He's really gotten a free ride from the press so far and I guess that's what bugged me so much about the puff interview Rachel did with his wife.

[Sesquipedalia]

I didn't mind Rachel's puff interview with Sanders's wife, since she is not a candidate, but Bernie himself has hardly been vetted at all. Clinton has handled him with kid gloves, and the media is just happy to have a challenger to make the Democratic race more interesting.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Sesquipedalia

[shok]

I didn't mind Rachel's puff interview with Sanders's wife, since she is not a candidate, but Bernie himself has hardly been vetted at all. Clinton has handled him with kid gloves, and the media is just happy to have a challenger to make the Democratic race more interesting.

 

She may not be a candidate but she is his closest advisor and is extremely involved in his campaign. I'm sure Rachel would have dealt with his other campaign operatives like Weaver or Devine very differently and she certainly wouldn't have handled Bill Clinton like she did Sander's wife. It would be a stretch to call Rachel sexist but really, it is kind of sexist and insulting to treat Jane as "just his wife" instead of giving her credit for being as important to the campaign as she is.

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

But overall I thought Jane Sanders did well in her interview. Her job was to smooth over her husband's terrible choice of words, and she was effective at it. I agree with her that I wish reporters would ask about the issues instead of focusing on the horse race and trying to pick fights between the candidates.

 

 

The irony in this request is that HC's response to her husband's abysmal discussion of his core issues is what set her husband off. Setting this whole thing into motion. 

 

His initial stance that he lashed out because he felt attacked didn't help. It is such a Republican thing to do. 

[attica]

Here's a new Rachel interview, in which she confesses she has no dvr. And defends Trump coverage on the grounds he's unpredictable. Which, okay, it's an argument, but not a persuasive one to me.

[nowandlater]

Here's a new Rachel interview, in which she confesses she has no dvr. And defends Trump coverage on the grounds he's unpredictable. Which, okay, it's an argument, but not a persuasive one to me.

 

I was wondering how she could not have a DVR. She must have a TV!

 

Then I remember that I just spent 2 weeks at my parents' home in Hollywood. And they don't have a DVR or a VCR.

 

I didn't watch much of the Rachel Maddow show during those 2 weeks. The MSNBC website is way too clunky, watching full episodes is a hassle, and when I want to watch clips of individual segments, it's not made clear what is the first segment of the hour.

[Queena]

I don't have a DVR. I watch all TV shows live or catch the rebroadcast. I was a Bernie fan. Watching him not being able to answer questions on the how's was disturbing. I agree, the media is treating him with kid gloves. I believe it's because they don't believe that he will get the nomination.

[Sharpie66]

I spent a week at my dad's recently, and got my Maddow fix via the audio podcast of the full show.

[Egg]

It would be a stretch to call Rachel sexist but really, it is kind of sexist and insulting to treat Jane as "just his wife" instead of giving her credit for being as important to the campaign as she is.

I agree. It seemed like a disconnect for Rachel to introduce Jane O'Meara Sanders with her personal credentials, which showed that she was a woman of her own merits, and then proceed to treat her with kid gloves. This isn't Laura Bush. This is someone who would presume to be a sort of HRC/Eleanor Roosevelet first lady, and who has played a substantial role in her husband's career. She deserved, and we deserved, to see her face serious questioning and pushback when she said things that we know to be untrue.

[Sesquipedalia]

This isn't Laura Bush.

 

No, because Laura Bush is voting for Hillary!

 

Rachel did admit that she had no idea how to interview a spouse, so I guess that's why I'm willing to cut her some slack.

[shok]

Here's a new Rachel interview, in which she confesses she has no dvr. And defends Trump coverage on the grounds he's unpredictable. Which, okay, it's an argument, but not a persuasive one to me.

 

"Not persuasive" is being kind. It's absolutely b.s.  She says "Other candidates are reasonably frustrated by it, but they should also take it as a challenge to up their own media game so that reporters think it’s worth having a camera there every time they talk too." WTF??? So in order to get airtime the other candidates have to get up on stage and say outrageous, racist, stupid stuff??? How about we reward intelligence and reason and depth and knowledge. Sheesh.

[NextIteration]

Blech, Kornacki.  

[attica]

Watching Steve do his smart-board delegate math is like watching boys play Dungeons & Dragons. I'm sure it's fun for them, but it really isn't for me.

[Wax Lion]

I was wondering how she could not have a DVR. She must have a TV!

 

As I recall, ages ago she talked about keeping up with Jon Stewart by watching him online. Considering her early adopter history, she probably streams a lot of what she watches. Not sure if she still watches Ice T and Coco, now that most cable channels require a cable subscription to watch.

 

I found the interview with Jane Sanders interesting, allowing for some interesting insights into an unconventional campaign. I get that some people just want her to just reflect their opinions but she's been very even handed with Democratic candidates. Chris Hayes is the one who has been asking challenging questions to both Sanders and Clinton campaigns.

[jjj]

Watching Steve do his smart-board delegate math is like watching boys play Dungeons & Dragons. I'm sure it's fun for them, but it really isn't for me.

Did he say if Rachel would be back tonight?  I couldn't stand more than a few minutes of the show last night.  Heaven knows, Rachel has earned a break!

[alias1]

I turned the channel as soon as I saw it was Steve Kornacki.

[Egg]

Yes, Steve said Rachel would return tonight.

When he started saying a list of states and numbers, I left the room. I get that Trump may not win the necessary number of delegates. I don't need to hear you spend five minutes describing the minutiae of one particular delegate scenario.

I also noticed that, until Reverand Al pointed out otherwise, Steve seemed content to imply that Clinton, alone, was responsible for the '94 crime bill. In fact, Bernie voted for it. Hillary Clinton, as First Lady, did not get to vote on it or sign it.

[nowandlater]

Yes, Steve said Rachel would return tonight.

When he started saying a list of states and numbers, I left the room. I get that Trump may not win the necessary number of delegates. I don't need to hear you spend five minutes describing the minutiae of one particular delegate scenario.

 

I love Steve. I listened to his podcast, his Salon political articles (which I greatly miss) got me through the last election, I even tuned in to his weekend show every so often.

 

But the wonky stuff is boring as hell. And he's become way too wonky.

[represent]

Damn, evil lives and reigns forever in that old bat, Phyllis Schlafly.

 

That old ass woman is still alive, in her 90's...90 plus years of evil from one person. 

 

Bitch can't even walk without assistance, can't hold the damn microphone, yet can still get out of bed just to emit that kind of EVIL.

 

Come on man, come on.

[Rhetorica]

I was lucky to see Phyllis Schlafly and Nadine Strossen debate in the late 90s at the college where I taught. Schlafly was introduced first. She strode into the room wearing a tailored suit, hair helmet, and sensible shoes  carrying an attache' case. She sat at the table straight backed with both feet on the floor her knees tight together. Strossen sauntered into the room wearing a black flowing skirt and black blouse. Her hair was loose and tousled, and her satchel had papers brimming out of it. She literally flopped into the chair and took her own sweet time organizing her papers on the table. Phylis's was not pleased. Best debate ever. I, of course, thought Nadine won. I admit, however, I don't remember all that was said.

[M. Darcy]

Wow, that was a roundabout way of getting to that evil bitch....opps, Phyllis Schlafly.  But its always fun getting history lessons.

 

I don't know if life would be better for woman today if the ERA had passed but I doubt it would be worse so...man, I just hate Schlafly.  It is fun watching her empire just fall apart.

[Rhetorica]

Sometimes I hate Rachel Maddow for telling us what we need to hear. The story about Reagan was horrible enough but that was history. Then the story about Trump. That's the present. Have we learned nothing? Grown not at all? Have we no compassion? I'm going to hug my kids and pet my dog and cat to calm down.