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

  • 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

Medicine Crow

Medicine Crow

51 minutes ago, car54 said:

WTF?

Rachel Maddow MSNBC ‏@maddow  2m2 minutes ago

Comey...

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8247abe8493fae24405546e9a1aa/Article_2016-11-07-US--Campaign 2016-FBI Director/id-85cf9aefb35c4547bde6c9ee3a610c20

0 replies106 retweets99 likes

Reply

That's appalling!!!

  • Love 2
jjj

jjj

(edited)

I absolutely LOVED Rachel's retroview of past election eve television shows.  Eisenhower and Nixon "at home" in a living room with their wives in hats.  Nixon and the fake telephone gals in 1968.  I had never seen any of these, and I was alive for some of them!  "The Nixonaires in jockey costumes are airline stewardesses taking your calls," said Mr. Nixon proudly. 

Every time they show Trump with the cap and the long shadow covering his face, I think he looks more and more like Darth Vadar.  And not the "I am your father" version of Darth Vadar. 

Edited by jjj
  • Love 5
ruby24

ruby24

When people look back on this in history, no one will ever be able to explain how this happened. An enormously popular president with a hugely successful two terms, the chance to make history again with his successor and a positive, inclusive campaign versus, well...we know.

It's such a tragedy. And that fact that Hillary won the majority of the vote (by more than JFK and Nixon when the WON!!) makes it even more traumatic. The majority was disenfranchised.

  • Love 17
BabyVegas

BabyVegas

Did anyone else think that Rachel looked a little worn out last night? Her eyes were red and she sounded stuffed up. This election has been exhausting for us all and I hope she is taking care of herself.

I couldn't watch the show for a few days because I was so damn upset and had to avoid all news whatsoever, but I'm slowly easing back into my routine but only with Rachel's show. I'm glad to hear her take on what's going on.

  • Love 6
jjj

jjj

I agree that Rachel looked a little worn Friday night, and I am sure she and all the anchors have scheduled some time off.  It is going to be hard to watch the news for a while, because listening to the commentators say how bad things are, and once the cabinet and staff appointments start to come out -- well, hearing the commentary just is not helpful.  I don't need stories about kittens and rainbows, and the stories need to be reported, but it is just too much after such an intense contrast of campaigns and candidates.  

  • Love 6
backformore

backformore

On ‎11‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 9:49 PM, BabyVegas said:

Did anyone else think that Rachel looked a little worn out last night? Her eyes were red and she sounded stuffed up. This election has been exhausting for us all and I hope she is taking care of herself.

I couldn't watch the show for a few days because I was so damn upset and had to avoid all news whatsoever, but I'm slowly easing back into my routine but only with Rachel's show. I'm glad to hear her take on what's going on.

Yes -  more wrinkly around the eyes, and a catch in her voice - she's been crying. 

I see it in the mirror as well.

  • Love 6
33kaitykaity

33kaitykaity

Not to be too harsh about it, but Rachel bears some of the responsibility for sticking the Democrats with the single most despised candidate in recent history other than the candidate who won.  During the Democratic primary, Rachel's pro-Hillary bias was obnoxious bordering on the crassly obscene.  Every time there was a negative story about Bernie, Rachel reported on it with cheerful glee.  It got so bad I couldn't watch her without getting stabby.  After Comey made it clear that the Indictment Fairy wasn't coming, Bernie dropped out of the race and ceded the nomination to HRC, I switched my support to her as well.  At the same time I could watch an entire episode of TRMS without wanting to scratch Rachel's eyes out.  

Now that the election is all over and it didn't go Hillary/Rachel's way, the fact that Rachel is either in tears or near tears on-air makes me perversely happy.  Serves her right for not doing her damn job during the primary and acting like an unpaid Hillary spokeswoman when the left's change election candidate really was a white-haired old Jew.  Change candidate vs. change candidate the left would have won.  

  • Popular Post
Sharpie66

Sharpie66

  • Popular Post
(edited)

Do you really think that those who voted for Trump would have voted for a Socialist Jew instead? Seriously?

Anyway, I thought that Rachel was remarkably favorable to Bernie during the primaries and thought she was definitely tilting towards him. I guess it's all in your perspective.

Edited by Sharpie66
  • Love 27
nowandlater

nowandlater

1 hour ago, Sharpie66 said:

Do you really think that those who voted for Trump would have voted for a Socialist Jew instead? Seriously?

Anyway, I thought that Rachel was remarkably favorable to Bernie during the primaries and thought she was definitely tilting towards him. I guess it's all in your perspective.

Yeah, look at all the made-up stuff that came out about Hillary. Now imagine it with an older guy like Sanders. I can imagine the Alzheimers rumors starting.

The reason Sanders is popular is that he really didn't face much negative campaigning. Hillary barely went after him. The GOP wanted him to win. Once you enter the political arena and a hard-fought campaign, your negatives go up. I could imagine Michelle Obama's sterling numbers plummeting if she ran for president.

As for Rachel, I saw it as she was middle of the road on Bernie and Hillary.

  • Love 13
alias1

alias1

I certainly never saw any bias towards either Hillary or Bernie.  I thought Rachel covered them both equally and would have backed either candidate as the nominee.  She seemed thrilled to get interviews with both of them, or with Jane.  Bernie drew big crowds.  Maybe he would have stayed with his progressive base and not wasted campaign stops in Utah and Arizona.  Why did no one ever go to WI.  I think Bernie would have carried WI (he won the primary there) and taken Russ Feingold with him (for senate).  Rachel would have been happy with either Bernie or Hillary, but once Hillary was the nominee she went all out for her. 

  • Love 9
Calvada

Calvada

I too feel Rachel treated both Sanders and Clinton equally.  SierraMist, those of us in Wisconsin are wondering why Clinton never campaigned here.  I think they saw the early October numbers and thought Wisconsin was in the bank. 

I hope Rachel covers the Republication reaction to the appointment of Steve Bannon as one of Trump's chief advisors.  That reaction being of course <<crickets>>. 

I would have thought there might be one with some sort of decency, some sort of commitment to the bedrock principles of America, who would express doubts about a purveyor of vile, vile anti-Semitism and racism being in that position.  But of course that is not happening. 

I also hope that Rachel covers how quickly it is becoming apparent that Trump and his team are unprepared to govern.  When they are shocked to learn that the vast majority of the White House staff leaves with the current President, when Trump is stunned to realize the depth and breadth of issues the President must face on a daily basis - is it any wonder half of America is terrified for our future? 

  • Love 5
car54

car54

While I think Rachel was pretty clear that Hillary was so far ahead in the primaries, she did fly to Vermont to do a one on one interview with Bernie and she had him, Jeff, Todd and Jane Sanders on a lot during that time.  Probably a lot more than she had people from Hillary's team on, because Bernie's people were more available it seemed like.

Rachel announced on Friday that someone would be on Monday to announce their candidacy for the head of the DNC, but Keith Ellison is going to be on Chris Hayes show so I wonder who is going to be on Rachel's?

  • Love 3
alias1

alias1

I liked the guy who was the SC DNC chair.  I can only remember his first name, Jaime.  I think he had more enthusiasm than I saw from Keith Ellison, and I tend to agree with Howard Dean that being the national DNC chair is a full time job.  Plus I think the fact that the guy is from a southern state and has DC experience is a real plus.  My vote goes to him.

  • Love 2
Keepitmoving

Keepitmoving

(edited)

You know as a person of color, I've about had it with the narrative that white people, white women are to blame for the klansman we just elected, fuck that. No, not buying that narrative unless you specify it by saying progressives are responsible for this shit, yeah, the ones to the far left of my ass, those ones and they "ain't"  all white people. They can keep selling this story if they want to, I'm not buying, never will. The numbers that Hillary got from brown and black folks were not the numbers that Obama got, sorry they weren't, and had she gotten his numbers in that fucking rust belt it could have pushed her over the top. They sat on their asses, came out and voted third party, or voted for Trump because their so called progressive selves actually justified that Hillary was worse, like that fucker Jimmy Dore over on Youtube. I'm tired of Rachel and pundits pointing fingers at white people especially white republicans, I don't give a shit who they voted for, I do care as a liberal that phony "progressives" didn't vote for the democrat because she was too close to Wall Street, they wanted to punish her for "stealing" the primary, and OMG they weren't inspired etc. .. so that made her equivalent to a klansman.

Edited by Keepitmoving
  • Love 18
Padma

Padma

Rachel told the Kushner - Christie - Kushner story very well. The only thing I didn't like (and I'm no Christie fan) was how she kept emphasizing that Christie dragged up all the dirt he could in public, as if that was a bad thing and somehow excused Jerod's revenge on him now.

But to me, it seemed like a good thing because Jerod's father sounds like a low life creep (albeit a real estate billionaire). And Christie's job was to prosecute him and get an actual sentence (which he did for 6 or 7 years, in one of those minimum security places, but still. Justice served somewhat for a very wealthy crook. I think that's a good thing.)

Donald seems confused and unsure who to rely on. One day its Rudy or Reince. Then its Bannon. And now he seems to be still-dependent on Jerod (who, disappointingly, gets along with Pence and Bannon). 

The overall impression from this floundering is that this man is in so completely over his head. No wonder he wants the security of Trump Tower rather than life in D.C. He's president of the United States and has absolutely no idea what he's doing. (And, for a change, "salesman" and "conman" skills aren't going to be enough.)  One thing for certain is--overwhelmed or not--he's not trying to learn anything important about the job ahead. 

A quick question. I think Rachel was the one who said the SS had NY issue a temporary ban on planes flying over the city during the transition to help with this nightmare job of protecting the Tower.  But they can't keep doing that for four years, right?  Accommodating Trump being there every weekend would be ridiculously inconvenient for all the people who live and work there.  (And I'll bet he goes to the PRESIDENT"S designated vacation home, Camp David, once and never goes back.  His SS detail's never going to get a break.)

  • Love 4
Sesquipedalia

Sesquipedalia

(edited)
20 hours ago, Padma said:

Rachel told the Kushner - Christie - Kushner story very well. The only thing I didn't like (and I'm no Christie fan) was how she kept emphasizing that Christie dragged up all the dirt he could in public, as if that was a bad thing and somehow excused Jerod's revenge on him now.

But to me, it seemed like a good thing because Jerod's father sounds like a low life creep (albeit a real estate billionaire). And Christie's job was to prosecute him and get an actual sentence (which he did for 6 or 7 years, in one of those minimum security places, but still. Justice served somewhat for a very wealthy crook. I think that's a good thing.)

I think she was emphasizing that to show why Trump's son-in-law has a vendetta against Christie. This is the reason I semi-respect Christie. He's a pos politician, but he's smart and was a good prosecutor. 

What bugged me was how gleeful Rachel is in her coverage of the chaotic transition. Cheer up, liberals! This is zany stuff! It reminds me of an article I read earlier this week describing this election as the apotheosis of Neil Postman's theory from Amusing Ourselves to Death. Basically, a demagogue was able to take power over our country because he's so entertaining. So, media, stop making Trump entertaining! It's not interesting or amusing that Trump's transition isn't going smoothly. We all already knew that he has no fucking clue what he's doing! It's horrible, sad, and embarrassing for our country, but it's NOT amusing. I know Rachel's viewers are not Trump voters, but she gave him as much free air time as anyone. And now she has to cover him because he's president elect (just threw up a little as I typed that), but she doesn't need to have so much fun doing it. 

Edited by Sesquipedalia
  • Love 10
Decoda

Decoda

Trump's vacation spot will be Mar A Lago, so he can use taxpayer money to renovate, run, upkeep it and still have customers paying money into it to the profit of the "blind trust" run by his greasy chinless spawn. As will his apartment and office at Trump tower, likely the whole building, as his presidential "office". Guarantee all expenses on the building will be paid for on the taxpayer's dime, while he he getting lease and rent money and condo fees. Again, all going to the "blind trust", aka his own bank account when he is out of the WH, whether that be via impeachment or in 4 years.

  • Love 9
Hanahope

Hanahope

(edited)

For all of Trump's and the GoP's claims that Clinton's Wall Street speeches and Foundation were corrupt, this shows they have no idea what that word means.  "Corrupt" doesn't mean receiving money from some unsavory people to help poor and/or sick people, it means taking taxpayer money from millions of honest people that's supposed to run our government, and instead lining your own family's pockets.

 

I didn't realize the connection between Trump's son in law and Christie.  I just thought he was dumping Christie because of Bridgegate.  Interesting that there was this more personal, and likely completely true, reason.

Edited by Hanahope
  • Love 7
jjj

jjj

12 hours ago, Sesquipedalia said:

What bugged me was how gleeful Rachel is in her coverage of the chaotic transition. Cheer up, liberals! This is zany stuff! It reminds me of an article I read earlier this week describing this election as the apotheosis of Neil Postman's theory from Amusing Ourselves to Death. Basically, a demagogue was able to take power over our country because he's so entertaining. So, media, stop making Trump entertaining! It's not interesting or amusing that Trump's transition isn't going smoothly. We all already knew that he has no fucking clue what he's doing! It's horrible, sad, and embarrassing for our country, but it's NOT amusing. I know Rachel's viewers are not Trump voters, but she gave him as much free air time as anyone. And now she has to cover him because he's president elect (just threw up a little as I typed that), but she doesn't need to have so much fun doing it. 

I think Rachel is over-correcting somewhat this week, when her instinct, like many of ours, would be to show up on the air and say "this is freakin' terrifying".  She is almost manic/cheerful in pointing out how crazy the conflicts of interest are on so many fronts, and I think this is her way of not screaming the irony and corruption of all this to the world.  At least she is getting great interviews -- the president of the ACLU (who made some great points about dragnets) and the Mayor of NYC, who gave us some insight into his own conversation with DJT. 

I have not really heard her or anyone say that if Trump had won the popular vote and HRC the electoral college, he would not yet have conceded, and the protests would likely have been much more vigorous.  He would have dragged this out for a very, very long time. 

And Trump talking about the "finalists" for his winners circle -- I mean, Cabinet?  I wonder if he walks in some mornings and asks what the ratings were for yesterday's show -- I mean, news?

  • Love 9
Keepitmoving

Keepitmoving

(edited)

OK, wait a minute, I think I like this Tim Ryan guy from Ohio. I love Pelosi, she's tough, she and Reid IMO. But I like this guy, he's got Rust Belt and working class coming out of his pores, he's believable and that's what we need. I want somebody who's talking like he's talking, like he's heart beat away from uttering fuck you, but doesn't quite get there. Like Anythony Weiner, without the inappropriate use of his "weiner." Anthony Weiner use go off on that senate floor, damn shame he's such a sicko, damn shame. We need some folks who don't come off polished.

Edited by Keepitmoving
  • Love 3
Sesquipedalia

Sesquipedalia

(edited)

I haven't listened to Rachel yet tonight, but I thought y'all might appreciate this. I was at a fundraiser in New Orleans for Foster Campbell, the Democrat running for the Louisiana Senate seat she had on tonight, and the organizers kept coming on stage saying he was on his way as soon as he was done with the Rachel Maddow show. Then when he finally arrived, he mentioned he had just done the RM show and the crowd went wild!

Edited by Sesquipedalia
  • Love 6
Padma

Padma

4 hours ago, Sesquipedalia said:

I haven't listened to Rachel yet tonight, but I thought y'all might appreciate this. I was at a fundraiser in New Orleans for Foster Campbell, the Democrat running for the Louisiana Senate seat she had on tonight, and the organizers kept coming on stage saying he was on his way as soon as he was done with the Rachel Maddow show. Then when he finally arrived, he mentioned he had just done the RM show and the crowd went wild!

So glad to know that--I really appreciated hearing about him from Rachel and seeing the interview. It would be fantastic if he would win and make it 49:51. That extra vote would SO help.

  • Love 4
Calvada

Calvada

On ‎11‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 2:52 AM, Padma said:

Rachel told the Kushner - Christie - Kushner story very well. The only thing I didn't like (and I'm no Christie fan) was how she kept emphasizing that Christie dragged up all the dirt he could in public, as if that was a bad thing and somehow excused Jerod's revenge on him now

 

On ‎11‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 2:52 AM, Padma said:

quick question. I think Rachel was the one who said the SS had NY issue a temporary ban on planes flying over the city during the transition to help with this nightmare job of protecting the Tower.  But they can't keep doing that for four years, right?  Accommodating Trump being there every weekend would be ridiculously inconvenient for all the people who live and work there.  (And I'll bet he goes to the PRESIDENT"S designated vacation home, Camp David, once and never goes back.  His SS detail's never going to get a break.)

Re the first point - the reason Rachel emphasized Christie's behavior is because it's not how a prosecutor should act.  You don't spike the ball when you get a conviction.  Even the worst pedophile - a good prosecutor would speak in measured terms about justice for the victims, preventing further children from being victimized, etc.  Christie was playing to the tabloid press, as he often did, and it was unprofessional IMO. 

Question on where Trump will live - where does his kid go to school?  Is he in a private school in NYC?  At some boarding school?  Home-schooled?  There's been no talk about them looking at schools in the Washington DC area.  So will Melania and the kid stay in NYC?  And thus will Trump be there the majority of the time?

jjj

jjj

1 hour ago, Calvada said:

Question on where Trump will live - where does his kid go to school?  Is he in a private school in NYC?  At some boarding school?  Home-schooled?  There's been no talk about them looking at schools in the Washington DC area.  So will Melania and the kid stay in NYC?  And thus will Trump be there the majority of the time?

I can't remember is this was said on Rachel's show or elsewhere, but the talk between the current and future First Ladies included a discussion of schools.  There were indications that they would be moving to DC in January, with an implication that he would start school there -- like the Obama daughters did at mid-year.  It would not surprise me if they decide to let him finish his current year at his current school, but no one has said this publicly, so that is just my own speculation.  I said a few days ago that they are going to be astonished at the attention paid to their every move -- because they already felt that way in NYC.  But being POTUS is so much more living in a fishbowl than they can imagine.  I think Trump Tower will be looking like a great refuge in use for many weekends, and it will be hard to get used to the porous nature of the residence in the White House.  Plus, you know, the lack of gilded surfaces...

I remember that the Obamas were so sure they would be spending a lot of time back in their Chicago home when they made the move -- but once they were in the White House, they made it home very quickly.  I don't think the same will be true with the Trumps, because of the level of services available at Trump Tower -- unlike the Obama home in Chicago. 

  • Love 2
jjj

jjj

And, like I suggested two days ago, the Trump wife and son will be remaining in NYC.   For now.  They say. 

http://nypost.com/2016/11/20/melania-and-barron-trump-wont-be-moving-to-the-white-house/ 

I saw that Chris Hayes took Friday off, and I am sure Rachel will be taking some days off soon, which she certainly has earned.  But her show and Chris Hayes' are the only two I can stand to watch anymore, and I say that having been glued to MSNBC for the past two months, at work, home, and gym. 

  • Love 3
Keepitmoving

Keepitmoving

(edited)

I didn't watch on Friday when I saw Kornacki, I'll only watch Ari and Joy if they are the subs.. Because I don't want to see any of the rest of their faces, they had their chance to inform me and they fucking failed miserably, they gave all that airtime to the newly elected Klansman and his rallies. Fuck them all minus Reid, Maddow, Hayes, and O'Donnell. I don't watch CNN at all because they never had any journalists that stood out for me. And I can't tell you how Anderson Cooper was doing because that fucking shitty panel he continued to have on I could only put up with in very limited doses.

Edited by Keepitmoving
  • Love 11
kassygreene

kassygreene

I'll be watching again by the end of the year, I think (Hayes, Maddow, O'donnell, and sometimes (!!) Williams), but for now I've discovered that MSNBC does indeed provide transcripts!  Since the full episodes expire online after two days, and since I have not yet negotiated a DVR for this household, this let me keep up without spending time sob-watching.  

  • Love 3
Grommet

Grommet

32 minutes ago, kassygreene said:

I'll be watching again by the end of the year, I think (Hayes, Maddow, O'donnell, and sometimes (!!) Williams), but for now I've discovered that MSNBC does indeed provide transcripts!  Since the full episodes expire online after two days, and since I have not yet negotiated a DVR for this household, this let me keep up without spending time sob-watching.  

I'm totally stealing "sob-watching."

  • Love 3
jjj

jjj

46 minutes ago, kassygreene said:

I'll be watching again by the end of the year, I think (Hayes, Maddow, O'donnell, and sometimes (!!) Williams), but for now I've discovered that MSNBC does indeed provide transcripts!  Since the full episodes expire online after two days, and since I have not yet negotiated a DVR for this household, this let me keep up without spending time sob-watching.  

Cool, especially the first sentences on the first Rachel Maddow show:  "Hi, Keith.  Thanks for helping me out here on night one.  And congratulations on your interview with Senator Obama tonight."

Is that several eternities ago, or what?  http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rachel-maddow-show/2008-09-08 

14 minutes ago, Grommet said:

I'm totally stealing "sob-watching."

Me, also. 

  • Love 4
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...