Rhodes Scholar Reporting the News Show Discussion

[alias1]

This thing with Bernie asking Trump to debate him is disgusting.  And of course, Trump will do anything to keep himself on television.  And giving the proceeds to a woman's group is just so much pandering.  Who will they give it to, Planned Parenthood?  First of all, I don't think it's going to happen.  Trump just likes the idea of promoting it.  And I wish the Clinton surrogates would start pushing the line that Trump must be really afraid of debating Hillary so he needs a practice session with Bernie.

I love that Rachel pounced on the fact that Trump will never, never, never choose a woman or a minority for a running mate.  Yeah, between him and Bernie, it looks like no gurls allowed!

One thing I did like hearing about Bernie is that he is starting to ask his followers to support other democrats, like my favorite ex-senator Russ Feingold of WI (my home state)).  He was sadly voted out with all the money the Koch brothers spent on his tea party opponent.  I really hope the people of WI have come to their senses and vote him back in.

Edited May 27, 2016 by SierraMist

[represent]

Quote

What's the thinking - we're excluding the female candidate from the debate, but we're giving money to other women so no one will complain!

That's how I see, two old bastards showing up for a dick measuring contest. Make no mistake, Trump will be there to get Bernie to go along with a Hillary bashing fest. He'll try to pivot to come on Bernie we have more in common so let's bury the bitch as often as he can. 

But Hillary did back out of the last debate with "Bernard" and this is his tantrum. He needs to get as much exposure as he can in Cali before June 7th because he doesn't have the money or resources to cover as much ground. He's like, if you won't debate me and give me more exposure, I'm going over your head. The debate would have benefits for him and Hillary wasn't trying to give him any help. I don't blame her at this point, the time for formal debates is so very over IMO. Hit the ground and get it done or not, but standing up at the podium bitching will be reserved at this point for the general.

But it is good as someone pointed out that he's telling his supporters who follow suit, to back these progressive candidates who we need if anything is going to get done should we win the White House.

Edited May 27, 2016 by represent

[jjj]

So, it appears that there will not be a Trump Sanders debate, and the announcement is in time for Rachel's show, if she wants to cover it:

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/27/479772862/no-sanders-vs-trump-debate-sad

Someone on Trump's team actually might have realized that it would not look presidential; Sanders has nothing to lose at this point. 

[NextIteration]

19 hours ago, represent said:

But Hillary did back out of the last debate with "Bernard" and this is his tantrum. He needs to get as much exposure as he can in Cali before June 7th because he doesn't have the money or resources to cover as much ground. He's like, if you won't debate me and give me more exposure, I'm going over your head.

That's exactly what he did, his campaign (which is now all him mostly, anyone with any common sense which doesn't count the odious Weaver, has shut their mouths at this point according to the NYT).  Sanders planted the question with Kimmel figuring that tRump would be game, since all media is good media for him. I'm pretty sure that's something that I learned with Rachel's well researched coverage on the topic.  Of course, tRump did a head fake, just using it to stomp out all other chance at coverage of the trail of others for another news cycle.  Worked out okay for Clinton though - it buried the IG report a little bit.

[nowandlater]

You may recall that 2 years ago, Rachel devoted a segment to saying goodbye to her longtime executive producer, Bill Wolff, who created her MSNBC show.

Wolff was hired as the new boss of The View, but he ended up having a disastrous year and was forced to resign last year.

Soon after, it was announced that he'd become the executive producer of Chelsea Handler's Netflix show.

Well, yesterday, three weeks after launching the Chelsea show, Wolff is out of a job again.

[jjj]

4 hours ago, nowandlater said:

You may recall that 2 years ago, Rachel devoted a segment to saying goodbye to her longtime executive producer, Bill Wolff, who created her MSNBC show.

Wolff was hired as the new boss of The View, but he ended up having a disastrous year and was forced to resign last year.

Soon after, it was announced that he'd become the executive producer of Chelsea Handler's Netflix show.

Well, yesterday, three weeks after launching the Chelsea show, Wolff is out of a job again.

Thanks for the updates, and the reminder of her farewell to Bill Wolff.  I pay no attention to those other shows, but it is interesting to see where people end up after a stretch of doing high-level work like TRMS.  I think the show maintained its level of quality and style following his departure, although I was concerned at the time.  I think it has always been clear that what Rachel want, happens (in a good way), and that little segment on a Sunday show a few weeks ago made it clear that she has no trouble saying that her opinions count the most regarding production.  In that segment, she did refer to producers that did not last long if there was a difference of opinion; I have no idea if there were several executive producers after Wolff left. 

[jjj]

"Rachel will be back tomorrow."  That is all. 

[Rhetorica]

Steve Kornacki sat in for Rachel. He compared this Democratic primary to the  2008 primary and mentioned Clinton's concession speech. I was fortunate at that time to be teaching a class on Political Discourse and had them study the speech. Here it is in case you're too young to remember. Great rhetorical device.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jun/07/hillaryclinton.uselections20081
Spyglass 

[represent]

Quote

1 hour ago, Rhetorica said:

Steve Kornacki sat in for Rachel. He compared this Democratic primary to the  2008 primary and mentioned Clinton's concession speech. I was fortunate at that time to be teaching a class on Political Discourse and had them study the speech. Here it is in case you're too young to remember. Great rhetorical device.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jun/07/hillaryclinton.uselections20081
Spyglass 

 

Yeah, I remember her speech, she's such a team player.

It was interesting to me when the former president of Mexico said she was a team player. My ears perked up when he said that, I think he said she's a team builder to be exact, I just found it unique for him to say that, which I agree to be true. But it wasn't the regular talking, points/compliments that these politicians usually give to one another and here was a foreign leader giving her this compliment.  

Edited June 1, 2016 by represent

[Lexx]

I can't believe nearly half of the show tonight was devoted to those pranksters who crash political rallies.  I can't imagine why she thought that was newsworthy.

[numbersix]

Quote

I can't believe nearly half of the show tonight was devoted to those pranksters who crash political rallies.  I can't imagine why she thought that was newsworthy.

Seriously! What a poorly conceived and executed....whatever that was. The only thing worse than explaining a joke is repeatedly explaining the joke time after time. We've got a major party nominee that constitutes a serious existential threat to the nation and Maddow wastes more than 20 minutes of airtime with low-quality, unedited campaign footage, all to end with the insight that it's "weird?" And she's one of the few bright spots in today's media environment! We're doomed.

[brgjoe]

Agreed on all of that.  I kept thinking, "Ok, let's get to the point...get to the huge finale here.....get to the really cool finish where this all ties into something really big...."  And that was it!?  That was the most newsworthy thing you could spend all that time talking about today!?  Yikes.

I could see a mention or two at the end of a broadcast.  But to spend all that time on something so innocuous as that just didn't make a lot of sense to me.

[attica]

On the other hand, I would have loved to hear more about the Swiss tunnel, which sounds like 1) super cool engineering; 2) infrastructure improvements worth emulating here stateside!

[Sharpie66]

I thought that the prankster story (which I had been sucked into believing was real in the late afternoon when I saw the video of them cracking up Hillary) was mostly done as a slam on Hillary's gullibility, which was (1) uncalled for, (2) a stretch to say the least, and (3) just a plainly weird news story to spend nearly half of the show's length on.

[Ohwell]

Rachel always takes seemingly forever to get to the point, so this segment didn't surprise me at all.  She definitely likes to hear herself talk.

[Sesquipedalia]

I don't usually mind when it takes forever to get to the point, but the prank story didn't seem to have much of a point. She did sort of spin it as a dig against the Hillary team, but you could also see it as Clinton cleverly hijacking the prank. I had seen that ad earlier and had no idea those guys were not pro-Hillary. 

[alias1]

I am really in the minority here, but I liked the prankster story and that no one else has ever mentioned it.  (I guess all of you thought it wasn't worth mentioning).  My only beef with the coverage was that Rachel seemed to relish the fact that it made Hillary look foolish.  And you know what, I thought it showed her having a great sense of humor.  Either she knew they were pranksters and played along and took their picture (which I thought was sort of stealing their thunder).  Or she didn't know they were pranksters and she engaged with them (something Ted Cruz tried to do unsuccessfully) and took a picture with them.    

Trump wanted them ejected.  I love that they told him he was boring.  That's about the worst thing you can do to Trump.  Cruz didn't know what to make of them.  I thought Hillary had fun with it and it didn't make her look bad at all.  I was surprised Rachel thought so.

[represent]

Quote

I am really in the minority here, but I liked the prankster story and that no one else has ever mentioned it.  (I guess all of you thought it wasn't worth mentioning).  My only beef with the coverage was that Rachel seemed to relish the fact that it made Hillary look foolish.  And you know what, I thought it showed her having a great sense of humor.  Either she knew they were pranksters and played along and took their picture (which I thought was sort of stealing their thunder).  Or she didn't know they were pranksters and she engaged with them (something Ted Cruz tried to do unsuccessfully) and took a picture with them.    

Trump wanted them ejected.  I love that they told him he was boring.  That's about the worst thing you can do to Trump.  Cruz didn't know what to make of them.  I thought Hillary had fun with it and it didn't make her look bad at all.  I was surprised Rachel thought so.

This is how I saw it as well. I also felt like Hillary wasn't that oblivious to the fact that in all her campaigning, she knows darn well that  Hillary supporters do NOT take their clothes off. They wear her shirts and hold up her signs, that's it. I don't  think I've seen them face paint and/or adorn tattoos which I've seen with supporters in the other two camps. So no way she didn't know something was up, no way.  But after they tried to make asses out of themselves, she let them stay shirtless and that was enough to shut them up so she could go on with her speech. Then using it in an ad. to promote her ability to be a quick decision maker was quite funny.  So maybe they will "settle" for Hillary afterall, LOL. Afterall, a vote is a vote.  

Please, I'd be surprised if those two dipshits were even registered to vote.

I found the segment funny though.

Edited June 3, 2016 by represent

[Egg]

I found the idea funny, but like, 2-minutes funny. It was not important enough to be the leading story or take up half the show. 

[represent]

7 hours ago, Egg said:

I found the idea funny, but like, 2-minutes funny. It was not important enough to be the leading story or take up half the show. 

I agree, the segment wasn't that important and was way too long.

And good for you Bernie, that's what I wanted to hear. Whether it makes a difference who knows, but I like Bernie saying he does NOT want supporters who behave violently.  Nobody should want them. You hold up signs, have sit-ins, you can even shout, but you keep your fucking hands and your raw eggs to yourself.  I was pissed seeing people trying to walk to their cars and getting chased down, meanwhile I was like where the hell are the cops to protect these people? They were not prepared, like in other areas in Cali..

Note: I'm not even ruling out that some of those people were NOT even Bernie supporters, some of them probably don't even vote. Actually, that's what one MSNBC reporter said, they definitely weren't Hillary supporters, but some also weren't for Bernie either. They were just there cause they're dumb, I saw them giggling, loving the chaos. Some of them weren't serious about any cause.

And yeah, you can blame Trump, he is NO leader, but these people make their own damn decisions. He's a disgrace, but you have to already be that unstable with your anger to put your damn hands on anyone. They are just using Trump's hateful speech to justify their violent, hateful responses. It's unacceptable.  I literally saw some of those Trump supporters just trying to walk away.

I was really pissed when I saw that egg all over that woman's face and hair. 

Great, way to make me feel sorry for a Trump supporter. 

Edited June 4, 2016 by represent

[jjj]

I really loved the Monday show when Hillary Clinton was projected to have enough delegates to win the nomination.  Rachel interviewed spokesperson Michael Briggs from the Sanders campaign, and he clearly was unwilling to give an inch regarding making the case that Sanders could still win the nomination, and the increase in registered voters are because of Sanders (I could have told him they were not ALL for Sanders!).  He said their game plan is still to turn the superdelegates to Sanders.  As the interview ended, Rachel said, "THAT was interesting."  And then the interview with Hillary Clinton, where she (Clinton) came across as so reserved -- but because she can see and smell that she is going to be able to claim the nomination, and did not want to breathe on it for fear it might evaporate.  Not really, but she was swallowing air a couple of times.  She was terrific -- serious, not overstepping the decision-making process, and finally willing to smile with Rachel at the very end.  Rachel was quite overwhelmed at the historical significance of this moment -- and I am glad Rachel had this moment on her own show, not with the panel she will be joining tomorrow. 

[Sharpie66]

What I really liked from the Briggs interview was at the end, when Rachel pulled out the info that Sanders had supported/endorsed Obama in '08 at this precise moment, after he got the necessary tally of delegates but before the final primary or the convention. Briggs was left stammering out a rather weak "But this is different than '08! We have a revolution here!" Yeah, right. His tone of voice just screamed out that her question came from left field. 

Good work, Rachel!

Edited June 7, 2016 by Sharpie66

[represent]

6 hours ago, Sharpie66 said:

What I really liked from the Briggs interview was at the end, when Rachel pulled out the info that Sanders had supported/endorsed Obama in '08 at this precise moment, after he got the necessary tally of delegates but before the final primary or the convention. Briggs was left stammering out a rather weak "But this is different than '08! We have a revolution here!" Yeah, right. His tone of voice just screamed out that her question came from left field. 

Good work, Rachel!

LOL, the only thing that would have topped that response was if he had yelled out, "She might go to jail!" which they all are clearly hoping for.

Yeah, and if she does we really will lose, because the party will step right over Bernie's revolution and hand that nomination to Biden. And if we thought they were rioting in the streets now... But it's their party, they can right the damn rules however they want. They do not see a president in an elderly looking, socialist and that's the bottom line.

He votes with them a lot of the time but they still don't see him as a team player, and he doesn't have that "stately" looking factor going on for him. So he's not getting it, that's the honesty of it all IMO.

Edited June 7, 2016 by represent

[Grommet]

The only thing that makes Nichole Wallace palatable is the way Rachel eviscerates her. 

NW: Trump didn't need to create any more excitement tonight.

RM: Well, he didn't. (Laughing.) I flove her.

[Quilt Fairy]

16 hours ago, Sharpie66 said:

when Rachel pulled out the info that Sanders had supported/endorsed Obama in '08 at this precise moment,

Don't you mean Clinton endorsed Obama?

[jjj]

41 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

Don't you mean Clinton endorsed Obama?

That would make so much more sense!  Unless it was Sanders!  (No time to check the history!)

As they just went to break (12:30 AM/ET), and Rachel kept leaning over and poking Nicolle in the arm, repeatedly.  No idea what that was about.

[represent]

1 hour ago, Quilt Fairy said:

Don't you mean Clinton endorsed Obama?

Unless she was speaking about Sanders endorsing Obama immediately after he had earned more of the delegates but WAY before the convention where the super delegates officially voted. 

In other words, if he endorsed  Obama as the presumptive nominee before the super delegates had voted at the convention back in 08' because he had the majority of pledged delegates, then shouldn't he do the same this time around?

What's changed?

The answer: He's now a candidate with this movement.

Edited June 8, 2016 by represent

[Quilt Fairy]

I don't know the correct answer to this. The original poster could be right. I only know that she's made the point numerous times over the last month or so that once Obama got enough delegates Clinton fell in line and endorsed him, so the comparison with Sanders is apt. Sanders endorsing Obama in '08 doesn't really compare.

[shok]

50 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

I don't know the correct answer to this. The original poster could be right. I only know that she's made the point numerous times over the last month or so that once Obama got enough delegates Clinton fell in line and endorsed him, so the comparison with Sanders is apt. Sanders endorsing Obama in '08 doesn't really compare.

It does compare. Sanders was a superdelegate in 08 and he didn't wait until the convention to endorse. That's why he's being so hypocritical now in claiming the superdelegates should wait with their endorsements.

One thing that Chuck Todd brought up tonight, and it's been bugging me that none of the pundits brought it up in the past to refute Bernie and all his various desperate schemes, is that no, the superdelegates haven't voted yet. Neither have the pledged delegates! None of the delegates have - super or pledged - and none of them will until the convention! The media has coddled and babied Bernie like never before in a presidential primary. Thank goodness he's done and gone.

[nowandlater]

3 hours ago, shok said:

It does compare. Sanders was a superdelegate in 08 and he didn't wait until the convention to endorse. That's why he's being so hypocritical now in claiming the superdelegates should wait with their endorsements.

One thing that Chuck Todd brought up tonight, and it's been bugging me that none of the pundits brought it up in the past to refute Bernie and all his various desperate schemes, is that no, the superdelegates haven't voted yet. Neither have the pledged delegates! None of the delegates have - super or pledged - and none of them will until the convention! The media has coddled and babied Bernie like never before in a presidential primary. Thank goodness he's done and gone.

 

Wait -- I thought Bernie didn't become a Democrat until last year. Do the Democrats allow independents to become superdelegates?

[Sharpie66]

10 hours ago, represent said:

Unless she was speaking about Sanders endorsing Obama immediately after he had earned more of the delegates but WAY before the convention where the super delegates officially voted. 

In other words, if he endorsed  Obama as the presumptive nominee before the super delegates had voted at the convention back in 08' because he had the majority of pledged delegates, then shouldn't he do the same this time around?

What's changed?

The answer: He's now a candidate with this movement.

Yes, this is what I was talking about in my original post. Rachel asked the Sanders spokesperson why Sanders wasn't supporting/endorsing Hillary now that she's gotten the majority of the combined pledges/superdelegates when he was totally willing to do so for Obama in 2008 at the same point (after he got the requisite number of combined delegates, but before the convention).

[jjj]

Alert for tonight's show:  last night during the primary coverage, Rachel said that they were probably going to show footage of the presidential nomination of Senator Margaret Chase Smith (in 1964, I think), and the raucous laughter that greeted her attempt.

I'm hoping for a great show tonight -- I think they have been preparing for this one in anticipation of the nomination of Secretary Clinton.  And now we have Sanders continuing the theater of his campaign, and Trump promising a National Enquirer tell-all speech about the Clintons (because apparently they are both on the ticket) next week. 

[represent]

Because when you are president of the United States, you are the leader of the free world.

You become the most powerful person in the world unlike the leaders of other countries. 

Angela Merkel is the most powerful woman in Germany, Hillary Clinton hopefully will be the most powerful person in the world as the leader of the United States. 

And no way do men like Donald Trump and sadly, many of our fellow women want to see a woman be the most powerful person in the world.

That's why we trail those other nations in electing a woman president.

It doesn't have shit to do with "corrupt" Hillary, they can sell that as the day is long, there are no buyers here.

[jjj]

Oops....

(That was pretty funny! Especially what Rachel said about facial hair like this being outlawed in 1964.)

Edited June 9, 2016 by jjj

[Gemma Violet]

LOL.  When they showed that photo, I thought I was losing it for a minute.  Whoever dug up the photo (some 19-year old intern perhaps) apparently didn't know that 1964 photos don't look like that and 1964 guys don't dress or style like that.  

[Grommet]

I too was confused. I'm glad Rachel was amused because sometimes she seems pissed at mistakes like that. I think she might be a tough boss (but fair! And I would totally work for her. In any capacity.)

[M. Darcy]

I wonder who figured out it - my guess is someone on twitter knew immediately. 

I have now lost all the respect I ever had for Nina Turner.  First of all, Presidential elections are not popularity contests - its not homecoming queen/king. And, second of all - doesn't getting the most votes make you the most popular.  Bernie did not get the most votes so you really can't say he's the most popular Democratic Candidate.

[attica]

But M. Darcy! You have to count the people that don't vote! Plus factor in all the negative approval ratings for the opponents! Math is rigged!

5 hours ago, Grommet said:

I think she might be a tough boss (but fair! And I would totally work for her. In any capacity.)

I can totally picture her holding a half-hour training session for a task that needs only one or two directions, though...

[jjj]

9 minutes ago, M. Darcy said:

 I have now lost all the respect I ever had for Nina Turner.  First of all, Presidential elections are not popularity contests - its not homecoming queen/king. And, second of all - doesn't getting the most votes make you the most popular.  Bernie did not get the most votes so you really can't say he's the most popular Democratic Candidate.

I listened to all she said on the Tuesday primary coverage, but after a couple of minutes last night, had to mute her comments -- she was not saying anything new, and was moving too far into revisionist math.  I see an awful lot of smart young people in my caucus (Bernie!) state of Washington who are completely buying into conspiracy theories.  Time to get ready to move along -- but they are digging bunkers. 

[Sesquipedalia]

According to an MSNBC Breaking News banner that popped up while I was on their web site, Elizabeth Warren is going to endorse Clinton on TRMS tonight. 

[represent]

Quote

Bernie did not get the most votes so you really can't say he's the most popular Democratic Candidate.

You can if you think someone stole the election from him and for some of them, that's the theory they're sticking to.

Remember the system is "rigged."

They don't think millions of people actually voted for Hillary and they do believe that had all the primaries been open to independents, they would have won. The latter part is definitely what they consider a rigged voting system.

[Grommet]

I also muted Nina Turner after a couple of minutes.  These arguments make Sanders supporters seem like idiots and diminish his great accomplishments during the primaries. (And here's a pro tip: if you want to vote in a party primary, register for that party, ffs.)

I saw Elizabeth Warren's speech tonight. Woo hoo! She and Rachel should be fun to watch.

[represent]

What the hell is Ed Rendell talking about when he says that Warren wouldn't be ready to take over the presidency if she were VP and something happened to the president?

Is he nuts?  Or can he handle only one woman at a time?

Or are he and Maddow working together to piss off Warren just enough to not even have to think twice about being Clinton's VP should she come calling?

Is this some kind of reverse psychology at work here?  Because Warren looked a little pissed, I know I was.

That McConnell impersonation was the best I've seen, I cracked up.

Edited June 10, 2016 by represent

[attica]

If she starts doing a Cecil Turtle, I will die. Of Happiness.

Seriously, you guys, this hour and Chris's show together, what with the Joe and Liz and all? I need a cigarette. And a handsome masseur to work out the kinks in my squee muscles.

[Sesquipedalia]

Warren's answer to the question about whether she's ready to be president gave me chills.

[shok]

I love Elizabeth Warren, and I love Rachel Maddow, but jeebuz I'm getting tired of hearing about nothing but Bernie Sanders and his platform. He lost, dammit! Hillary has more supporters, has more voters, has more endorsers (by a mile), has more experience, has more smarts, has more everything. How about for a change you guys start giving her some praise and talking about her platform and her policies and her initiatives and her loyalty to the Democratic Party instead of this constant coddling of Bernie and his feefees. It's not just Rachel either, it's all of the other pundits on MSNBC who will not stop going on about what Hillary has to do to suck up to Bernie and his supporters - the majority of whom did not even go out to vote for him! Hillary got more of the youth vote in most states! Bernie doesn't OWN progressive policies. The Democratic Party and Hillary have been fighting for equal pay and equal rights long before buffoon Bernie blustered his way onto the scene. Gah!!! Makes me so angry.

[M. Darcy]

Quote

Warren's answer to the question about whether she's ready to be president gave me chills.

Total mic drop.

Edited June 10, 2016 by M. Darcy

[nowandlater]

I love Maddow's show. It's one of the shows I look forward to the most each night.

But the past month, I've been away from my TV, in a place where I only have access (and broadcast TV only.)

So I've had to rely on the Internet to watch the show.

First off, MSNBC's web site is harrible. It's sluggish. The videos don't always load.

The website, though, gets clips of the Maddow show first, leaving you to figure out in what order they aired.

I like to watch the whole show in order, so I try to rely on the app. But the odd thing is MSNBC uploads every night's show, including Lawrence O'Donnell, long before they upload Maddow's show.

As I type, it's nearly 12 hours since Maddow's show ended, and it's not availaable on the app.

What gives? Why does it take so long?

Welp, at least I get Maddow on The Last Word.

 

Edited to add: It's now up, 30 minutes after this post.

Edited June 10, 2016 by nowandlater

[attica]

10 hours ago, Sesquipedalia said:

 

Warren's answer to the question about whether she's ready to be president gave me chills.

 

1 hour ago, M. Darcy said:

Total mic drop.

The thing about it that was so thrilling is how women are socialized to not assert our qualifications that baldly. And she did it, without a single fuck to give. Go get 'em E Dubs!

[Padma]

So, I guess I'm the only progressive in America who likes EW a lot, but feels she might unnecessarily turn off many undecideds and possible GOP crossovers with the personal insults at Trump and, imo, a sometimes too aggressive way of speaking?  I felt that way about her speech yesterday. Good though it was in many ways I would have taken out ALL t he personal insults--we don't have to get in the mud with the pig. Again last night on RM, I felt much the same. I mean, she's so knowledgeable and forthright--and plays well to the choir-but I don't see her attracting -some- of the demographic HRC needs. 

Personally, I'm hoping it will be Sherrod Brown as VP, even with the senate loss.