Rhodes Scholar Reporting the News Show Discussion

[stormy]

Ben Jealous is his name.

He's so staunchly a Bernie fan that he seems to let everything else get in his way.

I almost doubt Hillary will go asking him for an endorsement, he told Rachel he hadn't been asked when she asked him if he would endorse Hillary.  His criticism of Hillary has been a bit over the top.

Edited July 23, 2016 by stormy

[kassygreene]

That's the guy who looked like someone was farting just below camera frame?  Some people roll that way.  If he wants to support Drumpf, or the Libertarian, or the Green guy, go for it.  But insisting that your side gets concessions means you are unlikely to tolerate other points of view, so either make the best of it this time and work harder for next time, or pick up your toys and flounce on home.  The whole point of collaborative government is working together to figure out a way to get things done.  Biden has this talent, and so does Kaine.   This guy apparently doesn't.  And he probably wasn't sympathetic to the Clinton Cougars in 2008 (was it Cougars?  the women who were going to give the election to McCain because Obama beat Clinton?).

[Grommet]

Rachel referring to David Duke as the former "grand whoozy whatzy" of the Klan was a much-needed laugh for me.

Edited July 23, 2016 by Grommet
Getting the racist's name right, no s at the end.

[represent]

12 hours ago, stormy said:

Ben Jealous is his name.

He's so staunchly a Bernie fan that he seems to let everything else get in his way.

I almost doubt Hillary will go asking him for an endorsement, he told Rachel he hadn't been asked when she asked him if he would endorse Hillary.  His criticism of Hillary has been a bit over the top.

When I heard him I thought, "boy you must be crazy..."   First of all, you "AIN'T" Bernie. Second, I personally don't recognize you as anyone with any significant power.  Finally and most importantly, you slandered the woman and her husband in the worse way, by implying that they set up the crime bill to purposely destroy black families. As in, they sat down, rubbed their hands together in evil glee, as they thought of how they could be tough on crime in poor communities, and literally gave a directive to lock up every black man the police could find. That's  exactly how he sounded during every one of his annoying appearances on MSNBC, that's what I heard anyway. 

He, Michelle Alexander, and Cornell Freak of a West...

You can't do shit like that and then expect for someone to sit across the table from you.  That's going too far. Yes, criticize that bill for having devastating effects on the black community but you can't frame the narrative that, that is what Hillary wanted, to devastate these communities on purpose. That's what he did, my memory is long too. I don't forget either.

Bye, just bye. 

Edited July 24, 2016 by represent

[M. Darcy]

He always acted as if the Clintons personally did something to him and his family.  He's so very the top about his dislike of HRC.

I only lasted about 20 minutes watching Rachel Friday - everyone was so negative about the Kaine pick that I gave up and went to sleep (I was watching the midnight showing). 

[attica]

I felt that way too, MD. I was immediately cheered up by Al Franken's weighing in with Lawrence, though. I trust Al (whom I'm still hoping will be named to SCOTUS, making it the Frankencourt!...)!

[Grommet]

I know this isn't the DNC thread but I've officially had it with the Bernie or bust contingent. I fear for the future of progressivism.

More on topic, what's the over/under for hours of sleep Rachel will have had these two weeks?

[jjj]

I think this kind of coverage is actually less work than the regular show, as there are not segments to produce.  It is reacting rather than presenting.  And she and Brian are off the air by 11:00 PM to midnight Eastern Time, then back on the air 16 or so hours later.  I did not see Rachel much (at all?) during the days last week. 

Chris Hayes, on the other hand, is on the air until 2:00 AM onward, then back on the air in the afternoon.  And Chris Jansing must be sleeping hanging from the ceiling, because she keeps popping up at all sorts of hours as an anchor. 

[M. Darcy]

Plus, unless I misheard, Rachel was still in NY last night so she gets to go home which helps getting sleep. 

[Grommet]

My concern is mostly that she'll be too wound up to sleep!

My dream team: Rachel, Lawrence, Eugene and Steve Schmidt with guest appearances by Chris Hayes.

[attica]

I was surprised Rachel harrumphed over Bill's speech. Yes, it certainly wasn't a former-potus-hyping-future-potus. It was, however, quite a conventional First Spousal speech. Homey, domestic, affectionate. I thought it was goddamned canny, in a typically Bill Clinton way, shouting out every state like he did. Introducing himself as her helpmeet.

[M. Darcy]

I'm glad I was watching CSPAN and not MSNBC when I heard what Rachel said about Bill's speech. I thought it was good and got the job done it needed to do.  It has been lovely watching CSPAN instead of MSNBC all week (especially when I saw they didn't show Cecile Richard's speech).

[attica]

Oh, and yeah, Dahlia Lithwick agrees with me! Woot!

[jjj]

2 hours ago, attica said:

I was surprised Rachel harrumphed over Bill's speech. Yes, it certainly wasn't a former-potus-hyping-future-potus. It was, however, quite a conventional First Spousal speech. Homey, domestic, affectionate. I thought it was goddamned canny, in a typically Bill Clinton way, shouting out every state like he did. Introducing himself as her helpmeet.

Completely agree -- and glad to read that other Rachel fans were surprised like I was!  I said over in the MSNBC thread that he was capturing moments that were true at the time, and apparently continue to be true to them as a family -- and what I was hearing is that even with the troubles that followed, they have a core foundation in which they still find joy, and anchors them when they need it.  Bill did not just need to make the case that Hillary will be a great president -- he also had to make the case that he will be a great First Gentleman!  And his speech did both of those things.

2 hours ago, M. Darcy said:

I'm glad I was watching CSPAN and not MSNBC when I heard what Rachel said about Bill's speech. I thought it was good and got the job done it needed to do. 

Absolutely! 

[alias1]

4 hours ago, attica said:

Oh, and yeah, Dahlia Lithwick agrees with me! Woot!

That was lovely, and spot on.  Thanks for the link!

[represent]

Quote

Completely agree -- and glad to read that other Rachel fans were surprised like I was!  I said over in the MSNBC thread that he was capturing moments that were true at the time, and apparently continue to be true to them as a family -- and what I was hearing is that even with the troubles that followed, they have a core foundation in which they still find joy, and anchors them when they need it. 

Agreed.

 I've always believed that they might have an open marriage and so what, if it works for them, I don't care. The pundits however, would rather believe that there is no love at all because Hillary is "cold." Something about them always made me see them as "flower children" or hippies, that free love stuff, Fleetwood Mac etc.. So if Bill plays around it wasn't a big deal, except when it came to politics and their enemies started to frame it as he's sexual predator and they both are murderers.  

Then they tweet shit like if he loved her why did he cheat on her as if most of the asswipes saying this haven't cheated and/or been cheated on. Bullshit, they just haven't had to suffer the humiliation in front of the nation and the world for that matter. Yeah right, all is just rosy in their marriages, my (....)  loves and honors me all the time, gag, lies. Pot meet kettle, no room to cast stones etc..

Edited July 27, 2016 by represent

[kassygreene]

The journos have Clinton Derangement Syndrome, and always have.  It saddens me that Rachel finds a story from forty-five years ago (boy-shoots-himself-down-twice-before-girl-independently-decides-to-meet-him) that certainly fit the culture of that era to instead be yet another example of boy hits on girl as his personal right.  My mother and I thought it was charming, and funny, and we, for two, learned stuff we hadn't known.

Andrea Mitchell, on the other hand, can not talk about either Clinton but especially Hillary without sneering.  She's married to Alan "Atlas Shrugged" Greenspan for crissakes (and if I remember correctly, she tells a funny story about how she wasn't sure he'd actually proposed when he did propose - Greenspan being notorious for not saying anything in plain language), so she doesn't get to judge anybody's marriage.

I think the pundit class considers themselves to be Washington A-listers (they really aren't), and to that crowd the Clintons have always been (Harvard-educated) rubes from Arkansas.

Edited July 28, 2016 by kassygreene
My grammatical modifiers were apparently mis-matched. Ta, age!

[NextIteration]

On 7/23/2016 at 9:04 PM, represent said:

He, Michelle Alexander, and Cornell Freak of a West...

I wholly agree with 8/10ths of The New Jim Crow but I also understand context.  Bill Clinton actually wanted the stupid mandatory minimums and the powder vs crack ratios reduced, he was overruled by the GOP congress.  And all these assholes forget that Sanders voted for the 1994 Criminal Reform bill.

And I'm still pissed and disappointed by Rachel's remarks about Bill's speech Tuesday night.  This man is foraying into brand new, historical territory.

Edited July 28, 2016 by NextIteration

[33kaitykaity]

Elizabeth Warren speaks with Rachel Maddow, says, "I wish Donald Trump would just disappear, close down his twitter account, drop out of the race and I’d be the happiest girl on the face of the Earth."  [emphasis mine.]

Rachel didn't appear very pleased with Warren's smack-down of her, Rachel.  I thought it was delicious.  

[attica]

Am I alone that, whenever Obama admonishes a crowd, "Don't Boo, Vote!", I say back to him: "Why not both!"

[represent]

35 minutes ago, attica said:

Am I alone that, whenever Obama admonishes a crowd, "Don't Boo, Vote!", I say back to him: "Why not both!"

LOL, the problem is, he remembers when democrats stupidly stayed home in 2014 after the man was running all over town telling them to vote. Telling them that the midterms mattered because he needed the help in congress to get things passed. But no, they stayed home. And I listen to black radio, and Obama was on there, Michelle was on there, trying to get out the vote. Then the dumb ass  DJ was whining about some of the democrats who were running trying to distance themselves from Obama so why should black folks vote for them, ugh. Then the female DJ who was the only one with sense tried to explain to them that in certain states, you couldn't "stand" too close to Obama if you wanted to win, and told listeners to still go out and vote. But no...cry me a river, Obama isn't getting love so I'm going to stay home. Even though the man told us to get out and vote anyway, that the candidates were doing what they needed to do to get elected.

That's why he says that, because there's a disconnect between hooting and hollering vs. getting off your ass and getting to the polls. People have a habit of not doing both. He's essentially saying you can keep your boos if you're not going to get off your ass and actually vote.

Edited July 28, 2016 by represent

[jjj]

1 hour ago, 33kaitykaity said:

Elizabeth Warren speaks with Rachel Maddow, says, "I wish Donald Trump would just disappear, close down his twitter account, drop out of the race and I’d be the happiest girl on the face of the Earth."  [emphasis mine.]Rachel didn't appear very pleased with Warren's smack-down of her, Rachel.  I thought it was delicious.  

Thanks for this!  I did not see a smack-down; maybe it occurred elsewhere?  (Or was it the "girl" reference?)

[33kaitykaity]

1 minute ago, jjj said:

Thanks for this!  I did not see a smack-down; maybe it occurred elsewhere?  (Or was it the "girl" reference?)

You're welcome.  ;)  

Yeah, Rachel made such a big, hot, hairy, sexist deal about Bill Clinton calling Hillary the "girl," I've seen it called Sen. Warren "throwing delish shade" at Rachel, but I don't like that language just because I heard Andrea Mitchell use the "throwing shade" phrase and I thought WTF, you're an older woman, not some teenager, so I chose smack-down instead.  

[jjj]

Hopefully, Rachel will be on the set this evening to talk about the latest news from Flint.  And another issue Rachel highlighted before many other outlets is the "Voter ID" law -- which today was struck down in a North Carolina appeals court.  It will be appealed, of course, but at least is moving in the direction of being less discriminatory:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/29/487935700/u-s-appeals-court-strikes-down-north-carolinas-voter-id-law

[Sesquipedalia]

Rachel's discussion with Dan Rather tonight was strange. First, she started from the premise that Clinton is heavily favored to win, which is somewhat misleading. Yes, all the major forecasters predict that she'll win the electoral college based on their models, but most of those predictions were made before she started to plunge in the polls a few weeks ago. The most current polling data has her even with Trump or even slightly behind him in some polls. Nate Silver still has her ahead in two of his three models, but in the last few weeks she has plummeted from an 80% chance of winning to a 52% or 61% chance, depending on which version of the forecast you look at. His "now cast," which predicts what would happen if the election were held today, has Trump winning. So Rachel's take-away is worrying that Clinton might get complacent in the face of those numbers? I would think being in a dead heat with Trump in the current polls would have the opposite effect.

Then she asks Dan Rather whether being a woman is an advantage or disadvantage in the election, and he talks about how Clinton's speech wasn't "soaring" but also wasn't "warm"? He answered the question alright, but not in the way he intended. Rachel at least called him on that, but the whole exchange made no sense to me.

[stormy]

Yuck. Can we never see Dan Rather on your show again, Rachel?

I found the Ukraine-Trump connection, and the wording in the republican platform funny.  Did no one in that party stop and say, WTF?

It's been so obvious for so long.  Have fun with it Paul Ryan.

It's so creepy to see the footage of Ronald Regan in Philadelphia, MS from when Rachel originally showed it some time ago, to now with Trump Jr. down there.  I actually don't get why the people there would even be interested in talking to him.  Hell, I think they'd be better suited for Bill Clinton to schmooze with.

[NextIteration]

13 hours ago, Sesquipedalia said:

So Rachel's take-away is worrying that Clinton might get complacent in the face of those numbers? I would think being in a dead heat with Trump in the current polls would have the opposite effect.

Clinton has always been a better candidate when she's fighting the tide as opposed to way ahead in the polls.

[Sesquipedalia]

But she's not ahead in the polls anymore.

[Quilt Fairy]

2 hours ago, Sesquipedalia said:

But she's not ahead in the polls anymore.

Then they must be polling idiots.

[M. Darcy]

Quote

But she's not ahead in the polls anymore.

She is.  The post convention polls have come in.  And, she's ahead in the Electoral College which is the more important thing.

Quote

Yuck. Can we never see Dan Rather on your show again, Rachel?

But we are still waiting to hear who he thinks will win the 2012 election! 

[attica]

What a nice change of pace to have Garry Trudeau on! (Even though they talked about the orange menace, and even though he's sort of an NBC in-law). I do wish Rachel had talked a bit about Alpha House, his Amazon comedy show. It also predicted the future by having a fictional congressperson (played by TWW alum Janel Maloney) set up a Permanent Benghazi Committee, because "Our children and grandchildren should have the right to investigate Benghazi!!" Which, okay, hasn't happened, but Trey Gowdy seemed awful eager to start again with the server investigation.

[M. Darcy]

Rachel just confused me by calling Bush I, Vice President Bush.   That's just another weird mistake the show has made lately.

GARRY TRUDEAU!   I worship Garry Trudeau.  All the history I know from the 60s and 70s is from reading old Doonesbury strips. 

Quote

though he's sort of an NBC in-law.

Jane Pauley is now at CBS so I guess he's now an ex in-law... 

[jjj]

6 hours ago, attica said:

What a nice change of pace to have Garry Trudeau on! (Even though they talked about the orange menace, and even though he's sort of an NBC in-law). I do wish Rachel had talked a bit about Alpha House, his Amazon comedy show. It also predicted the future by having a fictional congressperson (played by TWW alum Janel Maloney) set up a Permanent Benghazi Committee, because "Our children and grandchildren should have the right to investigate Benghazi!!" Which, okay, hasn't happened, but Trey Gowdy seemed awful eager to start again with the server investigation.

I loved that segment, which was a surprise to me regarding Trudeau's past strips about Trump.  I had no idea he (Trudeau) was so prescient!  I may have to buy the book just to get the "tributes" from Trump on the back cover. 

[Grommet]

I too loved the Trudeau interview. I still have all my Doonesbury anthologies.

I really hate Rachel referring to Bush 1 as Poppy Bush. It's too familiar or something.

[attica]

57 minutes ago, Grommet said:

I really hate Rachel referring to Bush 1 as Poppy Bush. It's too familiar or something.

Hmm! I honestly never notice that, but I suspect that I always refer to him that way too, so it just goes under my radar.

 

6 hours ago, M. Darcy said:

Pauley is now at CBS so I guess he's now an ex in-law... 

Well, as I always say, spouses come and go, but in-laws are FOREVER. ;)

[M. Darcy]

Really great guests last night - Paul R and John Lewis and his coauthors of the March series.

I honestly never knew that the night before he was sworn in, President Obama attended an event honoring McCain. 

[jjj]

3 hours ago, M. Darcy said:

Really great guests last night - Paul R and John Lewis and his coauthors of the March series.

I honestly never knew that the night before he was sworn in, President Obama attended an event honoring McCain. 

Agree about the guests!  And I was watching that opening segment on the McCain tribute the night before the first Obama inauguration, and was thinking, "did we know about this?"  I have no recollection of it at all, and I remember the Obamas' inauguration week was covered quite extensively -- I remember beautiful personal/family pictures (taken by a professional photographer) from inside the hotel suite where they were staying and getting ready to the inauguration ceremony.  But nothing about the McCain event. 

[attica]

If you're at all like me, you spent several hours last night and more this morning wondering why they're calling March a graphic novel, when it's a true story! We need a new term!

[represent]

5 hours ago, M. Darcy said:

Really great guests last night - Paul R and John Lewis and his coauthors of the March series.

I honestly never knew that the night before he was sworn in, President Obama attended an event honoring McCain. 

They didn't want you to know, it would have screwed with the false narrative they framed of an aloof President Obama not willing to reach across the aisle and work fellow republicans.  Never mind Obama having a come together theme in quite a few speeches and commentary with regard to both sides the aisle that I've heard over the years.  It was one of the things that stood out in his last SOTUA, he said something to the effect that our democracy/government will be in jeopardy if representatives from both sides of the aisle are afraid to even be seen together. If you're afraid that your  constituents don't want to find out that you are just meeting with someone from the other side of the aisle to compromise then we're in trouble.

[Medicine Crow]

I loved it that Rachel pointed out that Trump was negatively impacting the chances for down-ticket Senators (John McCain, et al) to get elected.  Gee, what a shame ... there might be a change in the Senate & Congress.  Just sayin'.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Medicine Crow
Bad grammar.

[jjj]

8 minutes ago, Medicine Crow said:

I loved it that Rachel pointed out that Trump was negatively impacting that chances for down-ticket Senators (John McCain, et al) to get elected.  Gee, what a shame ... there might be a change in the Senate & Congress.  Just sayin'.

I hope some other group of Senators can be moved back into the private sector rather than John McCain, who has an valuable old-school sense of what the Senate can and should be doing.  Plus, if Trump is against him, I'm for him -- aside from Trump pique, mainly because of McCain's decent response about Obama's religion to that wacky woman in the 2008 election.  That said, a shift to a Democratic majority would be terrific.  The larger revelation (I did not hear if Rachel said this, will watch the rerun later) is that Trump is so fixated on his personal vendettas that he does not care about the Republican Party losing the majority if Donald Trump manages to get revenge on a few people.  It is such a scary scenario that someone of such limited vision can be in line for this powerful position. 

Edited August 5, 2016 by jjj

[alias1]

I did think it was a little odd that Rachel ended her show with the ridiculous campaign to make Melania the first lady.  She seemed really gleeful about it.  Did she say it was adorable? 

[jjj]

41 minutes ago, SierraMist said:

I did think it was a little odd that Rachel ended her show with the ridiculous campaign to make Melania the first lady.  She seemed really gleeful about it.  Did she say it was adorable? 

I think she really like the "GREAT VISUALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" of the announcement.  No, it was not that many exclamation points, it was more that you see here. (They showed it on an inset image.)  And the "GREAT VISUALS!!!etc." was the guy in a golf cap with a hand-held home-made sign.    That was the part that seemed to tickle her as much as the campaign for the Fashionable First Lady. 

[Quilt Fairy]

2 hours ago, jjj said:

The larger revelation (I did not hear if Rachel said this, will watch the rerun later) is that Trump is so fixated on his personal vendettas that he does not care about the Republican Party losing the majority if Donald Trump manages to get revenge on a few people. 

I don't think he cares about down-ballot races because he doesn't seem to realize that he needs a Congress, as opposed to just governing by fiat. 

[M. Darcy]

Quote

I don't think he cares about down-ballot races because he doesn't seem to realize that he needs a Congress, as opposed to just governing by fiat. 

Plus, all he cares about is himself. 

[Grommet]

11 hours ago, jjj said:

{snip} mainly because of McCain's decent response about Obama's religion to that wacky woman in the 2008 election.  

I was just saying to a friend yesterday that that was the last ethical thing John McCain ever did.

Rachel did seem a bit giddy last night. If the polls hold up, I may get giddy too!

[attica]

1 hour ago, Grommet said:

If the polls hold up, I may get giddy too!

I was especially pleased that she dived into the swing state numbers, because the national polls are just not useful. Pleased with the coverage, and pleased as punch with the numbers themselves!

[jjj]

"Rachel has the night off."  Y'all let me know if Steve Kornacki offers anything we should know.  jjj also will take the night off.

[stormy]

Larry Sabato was on talking about the house and senate.

Very good discussion.  I'm hoping that the dems can regain the senate no matter what.  It will make the republican's lives hell.  

[M. Darcy]

Quote

I'm hoping that the dems can regain the senate no matter what.

Even without the Trump factor, they probably would have.  The Republicans just have too many seats to defend.  Then next time, that will be the Dems problem.

I wonder if Rachel took the night off because they figured no one would be watching because of the Opening Ceremonies.