MSNBC: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Vaulted)

[Padma]

I'm so tired of MSNBC feeding Trump's accusations that Bill Clinton is "sexist" because of "past indiscretions" or as MSNBC seems to characterize it most of the time, "past misconduct".

 

Why not just say what it is, extra marital affairs (adding, if you must have more, "plus a bunch of unproven allegations that were probably politically motivated, even --as with Paula Jones--where someone was paid by rightwingers to make them")?   "Past  misconduct" sounds a lot worse than anything he actually did (and was hounded for, for years, by Republican hypocrites like Newt Gingrich.)

 

Why doesn't MSNBC (or anyone in the media) question the idea that "sexism" is the same thing as "consenting sexual relations among adults"?

 

I don't see how an extramarital affair between consenting adults is sexist. (And lets not forget Monica was no innocent little 22 year old. She'd already had an affair with the father of the child she baby-sat for, came to Washington specifically to "meet" Clinton, and flashed her thong at him in the Oval Office. Yes, it would have been nice if he could have brought some dignity to the office by treating her in a detached, more fatherly way and telling her that was inappropriate, but it was what it was. I don't see, however, how it was "sexist".  Yet no one even QUESTIONS the premise!!!

 

Also, no one mentions how ludicrous this accusation is coming from Donald Trump, a man who cheated on his first wife and left her (and his children) for Marla Maples!!!!  How is he getting away with continuing to trash Bill Clinton?  Where are the people (if not the Clintons--which I understand--then someone else) pointing out that not only is Trump "sexist" exactly as Hillary claims (note: all the disparaging and insulting comments he makes about women--unlike Bill Clinton) but he is ALSO a philanderer who abandoned HIS wife and children for another woman!  Then left her and THEIR child, too!

 

How is the media continuing to repeat Trump's nasty little smear campaign without ever bringing up ANY of HIS past "misconduct"?  It is aggravating in the extreme.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Padma

[Wax Lion]

Giving a show to Mark "Drudge rules our world" Halperin says pages about the news channel it wants to be.

[NextIteration]

Why doesn't MSNBC (or anyone in the media) question the idea that "sexism" is the same thing as "consenting sexual relations among adults"?

 

I don't see how an extramarital affair between consenting adults is sexist.

 

Since the email server "scandal" has proven to be a nothingburger, Joe Scarborough has now doubled down on his hateful talk about the Clintons, this morning introducing Bill's rumored affairs around the time of the 2008 cycle (he didn't name anybody but I'm sure he's referring to rumors about Gina Gershon and Eleanor Mondale) comparing Bill to John Edwards and throwing the name of Jeffery Epstein out.  Then along came Donnie Deustch with his fratboy bullshit who doubled down on the Epstein talk stating that Trump is salivating to bring that scandal to the forefront.

 

Heilman has long been arguing that any and all of Bill's transgressions have been baked into the cake of Hillary support, but Scarborough is desperately trying to prove otherwise.  He, Mika and Deutsch were all praising Trump's brilliance in going after the Clintons since Hillary remarked about Trumps outrageous sexism.

 

Mika is a traitor to her gender, because she just can't get past her Clinton hatred.

[stormy]

I don't see why MSNBC just doesn't turn the network over to Trump and cover him 24/7.

It's like they wait for every opportunity to have him on live so they chase viewers like me away.

[Padma]

I don't see why MSNBC just doesn't turn the network over to Trump and cover him 24/7.

It's like they wait for every opportunity to have him on live so they chase viewers like me away.

I'd love to see the total number of minutes MSNBC gives to talking about, talking to, and showing Trump each week in a chart compared with everyone else's amount of time. It really seems to be becoming, "All Trump, All the Time".

 

Last night, wasn't at least two hours spent covering (and broadcasting) the Trump rally in Vermont? Yes, it was interesting to learn about the "20,000 tickets handed out for 1400 seats" thing as a way to eliminate Sanders' supporters. And to know that, after people had waited 4 - 6 hours in line, in the cold, they were screened at the door for "Are you a Trump supporter?" and even if they were there as undecided, wanting to hear what he had to say, they were turned away.

 

And it was very telling when he kicked out the pro-Sanders' demonstrators by telling security, "Throw them out and take away their coats. No coats! CONFISCATE THE COATS AND THROW THEM OUT!!!""  Young or old, he wanted them physically punished and thrown out into 18 degree weather without a coat.

 

Trump's character was on display there--the kind of meanness and vindictiveness that some have experienced with him in business. And, yet, as usual, it didn't seem to translate into genuine outrage, not even among the MSNBC commentators covering it.  I don't know what spell Trump is putting on these people, but it's almost like he exists in a different political reality from everyone else, and the usual rules don't apply to him, including from the media. 

 

From Wax Lion

 

Giving a show to Mark "Drudge rules our world" Halperin says pages about the news channel it wants to be.

Yes. Wayyyy too much Halperin now. Watching him struggle to try to sound neutral toward Hillary the other day was painful. He's obviously hoping that he'll be able to hit all the rightwing talking points if he can just get us watching his show with Heilbrun   (It just rubs salt in the wound that it is Ed Schultz's old time slot.  Where's Ed now, MSNBC? I can't be the only one who misses him, especially in an election year where a fake populist is dominating the airwaves.)

[netlyon2]

(It just rubs salt in the wound that it is Ed Schultz's old time slot.  Where's Ed now, MSNBC? I can't be the only one who misses him, especially in an election year where a fake populist is dominating the airwaves.)

You are definitely not the only one! I bet there's a huge gap in network coverage of labor-related issues now. At this point, it's only Melissa, Rachel, and Chris for me (sometimes Lawrence) and, as much as it pains me, I will turn off Rachel or Chris if they start spending time on Trump coverage. The worst thing is when I turn off the TV after Maddow, only to dive for the remote when I turn it on in the morning and realize that I can't take one second of Morning Joe.

[stormy]

Ed still does his daily podcast that you can watch but I wish he hadn't given up his radio show.  I think he did because it was too much with his MSNBC schedule.

[junemeatcleaver]

The all Trump all the time coverage makes little sense to me because so far he has had nothing to say.  Trump's rallies are a thinly veiled excuse for Trump to go off on his rivals and enemies, stroke his own ego and rile up his supporters.  But if this is getting MSNBC better ratings than their Lean Forward, left leaning schedule, I guess that's a good thing for their shareholders.

[NextIteration]

Someone needs to pull the plug on Steve Schmidt.  Generally, I find him reasonable, but he's being ridiculous tonight.

[tenativelyyours]

Someone needs to pull up the 'old' video of Schmidt and Wallace both as they scurried around trying to wash the McCain-Palin off them like Lady Macbeth and her bloody hands.  Just like Michael Steele did when the Republicans gave him a toss.  There have to be plenty of them at MSNBC.  Right in there with Meghan McCain giggling away how she represents the new republicans who are so loving same sex marriage but have no problem with the platform that specially speaks against it that her father supported and refused to back away from.

 

Both Schmidt and Wallace tried so hard to sell themselves as moderates and reasonable just to get on camera and stay 'branded' when the almost immediate nonsense of Obama is all things evil started and Cheney Bush were still held responsible for the things they did just months prior.  Unlike now, years later, pre-November 2008 is now all Obama's fault in terms of national policy.  Funny how two of the people who tried to sell us McCain as both a continuation of the brilliance that was Cheney Bush and as the new direction the nation needed to go now have no problem conflating everything going on today springing solely from the Obama White House like Athena from Zeus head.  Not at all stemming from two invasions that led to long mired wars that sparked huge civil war type conflicts between factions and religious groups.

[Padma]

I hardly knew what to make of Lawrence O'D's ending last night about Donald Trump. He hyped the "letter I received from him today" all through the hour, saving it for the last segment of the show. There, he showed some excerpts of negative things Trump had said about him in the past ("loser", "dumbest person on television", etc.--the usual substantive stuff).

 

Actually, it was a check from Trump for $10,000 to the K.I.N.D. fund (Lawrence-UNICEF's charity to bring desks and scholarships to Malawi schoolchildren). Lawrence gave him the good publicity for sending it, pointed out it had to be made out differently, pointed out he couldn't accept it until after the election and was returning it. (I still think Trump got at least $10k worth of deductible good publicity from doing this). Instead LOD made out a "replacement" check for his own $10k to K.I.N.D./Unicef, donated in the name of the U.N. representative who helped him get it all started.

 

I wasn't  sure about how LOD handled it. Good he avoided Trump's possible set up for later--or a conflict of interest. But I also felt that a brief acknowledgment and statement and sending it back to Trump with a public reminder of how/where to correctlysend checks would have been less free publicity for Trump--and less possible grandstanding from both Trump and LOD.

 

Then again, kids still got $10,000 worth of more desks and scholarships so...the outcome was positive. But...still... it seemed strange to play into the "Trump is generous and caring" scenario that DT may have been hoping for.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Padma

[NextIteration]

Why in all that is holy, is Matthews having ex-congresscritter Bachmann on his show?

 

This makes angels cry.

[NextIteration]

I feel the need to swim into the shallow end on this big Obama-Kerry legacy making day of diplomacy - my love for Richard Engel might have to take a small backseat to my new found crush Ali Arouzi, the man is yummy.

[NewDigs]

I am confused.

Why was I just now able to barely hear "Sympathy for the Devil" behind With All Due Respect?

Does this show usually have background noise?

Oh no!!! It's from the Palin-endorses-Trump live feed!

Wonder if the Stones know. And what a weird selection!

And what a boring show. Zzzzzz...

[NextIteration]

There are sound issues on the show "With all Due Respect" lots of buzz depending on what location they are shooting from.  I wonder it has all the same issues if you watch it on Bloomberg?

[NewDigs]

There are sound issues on the show "With all Due Respect" lots of buzz depending on what location they are shooting from.  I wonder it has all the same issues if you watch it on Bloomberg?

It was one of those split-screen things with the round table in half and the Palin rally the other half. The issue could have been easily resolved by muting the audio from the Palin side. It was just low enough that I had to strain to figure out what it was.

And really, Sympathy for the Devil? Really???

That was throwing me. I thought it might be bleed-through from another channel or something. But nope. Palin.

[NextIteration]

I guess I meant to say, there are always sound issues on the show, especially if Heilman and Halperin are in different locations.  Sounds like it was much worse for that particular episode.

[DownTheShore]

LMAO at Lawrence O'Donnell callling Trump a political ignoramus - multiple times.

[HyeChaps]

Love seeing Savannah with Chuck doing caucus coverage, just like the old days!  Gives her a chance to shake off the Today dumb cells.

[stormy]

Caught Chris Matthews over the weekend but could only tolerate him for about 30 seconds.

He praised Trump's campaign slogan as brilliant.

I feel sorry for Chris that he thinks America is so awful and his having worked for Jimmy Carter and Tip O'Neill I expected better from him or at least to be neutral.

[NextIteration]

Insufferable Todd is only bearable with Savannah.

 

"Make America Great Again" is a pretty ingenious slogan for the right wing folks that want to take us back to the 1950s.  If Trump is nothing else, he's a master at marketing a brand.  It seems to me that Matthews is once again swept up and excitable - and it's the two insurgent campaigns that get him going, he's calling them focused and full of joy as opposed to their opponents.

 

At least he isn't talking about his leg tingling and remains respectful of Hillary Clinton and hasn't gone all misogynist like he did in 2008.

[NextIteration]

Dog bless 'em, predictably Halperin and Heilman (and of course Todd) are trotting out the meme that the party establishment is nervous again about Hillary.  It never gets old for them does it?  I thought the showing in IA would shut them up for a week - but no dice.

[slensam]

Dog bless 'em, predictably Halperin and Heilman (and of course Todd) are trotting out the meme that the party establishment is nervous again about Hillary.  It never gets old for them does it?  I thought the showing in IA would shut them up for a week - but no dice.

What Democrat doesn't make them nervous?

[Constantinople]

I'd like to thank Brian Williams for pointing out before tonight's debate that the University of New Hampshire is located in the state of New Hampshire.

[NextIteration]

Despite Williams and his puffed up arrogance, MSNBC managed to pull off the best debate to date this cycle.  Maddow and Todd did an excellent job.

Edited February 5, 2016 by NextIteration

[tenativelyyours]

I just cannot with Brian Williams.  While i think their situations are totally different in most ways, the professional fallout was a bit similar. Yet Dan Rather who I think was a victim came out of his situation's fallout with what I see as a sense of grace -- he seemed to decide that what he did and how he was defined past that point was up to him.  Williams seems so entitled.  When he came on MSNBC the first time I saw him he seemed to have this expectation that everyone was supposed to tell him how much he was missed.  And now with the election coverage he is back to acting like his voice is the final one and often only one that matters.  It reminds me how he stood on the roof in Cairo with Richard Engel and every time Engel would relate a breaking event and define it through his living there in a way that would relate to viewers Williams would have to add, in long rambling (even more than my posts) moments his own take based on when he had been there a year prior.  For a week.

 

Granted the whole news anchor gets up and leaves and has to insert himself (or herself) into the breaking story has been going on for longer than he had the job.  But he (and Anderson Cooper on CNN) simply have to jump all the way in and push anyone else aside (Cooper doesn't have to push aside unless he and Sanjay Cooper are trying to vie for best time in a gym via Calvin Klein dress tees, but he does have to make himself part of the story in often needless and attention grabbing ways).

 

I thought Maddow did an excellent job.  Todd did okay but I just don't like him.  So he could read that cancer is cured on the air and I would still be ever so slightly annoyed. 

[potatoradio]

I thank my liberal, tree-huggin', pinko commie stars every day for you,  MSNBC, but...

 

1. Please fire your intro music composer. Did you hire that character from the movie 'Broadcast News' who composed relentlessly OTT, cheeseball fluff? Because I cringed every time your Paris attack coverage came on and now I wince every time your political coverage intro starts. It's really distracting. Stop it.

 

2. Thank you already for putting together another Democratic debate. Kudos. You were right. You did a good job. Now stop with the self-congratulations every single time you bring it up. I don't need Chris Matthews starting coverage by going on and on and on about how great Todd and Maddow were. Unless there was a spectacular gaffe or incidence of "not being nice," I trust that professional commentators or journalists can ask questions and let the candidates know that they have 30 seconds to answer.

[NextIteration]

What's the deal with Thomas Roberts?  He's gone from his regular two hours at mid-day, and they've pulled Chris Jansing from White House duties.

 

They need to stop with the "election" music every damn day as well.

[shok]

2. Thank you already for putting together another Democratic debate. Kudos. You were right. You did a good job. Now stop with the self-congratulations every single time you bring it up. I don't need Chris Matthews starting coverage by going on and on and on about how great Todd and Maddow were. Unless there was a spectacular gaffe or incidence of "not being nice," I trust that professional commentators or journalists can ask questions and let the candidates know that they have 30 seconds to answer.

 

After that Republican gong show on Saturday night, I think Rachel and Todd deserve every bit of praise they're getting.

[Padma]

So... three days before the hotly contested South Carolina primary, MSNBC (the originators of the fawning hour-long "Citizen Trump" shown on the weekend before both Iowa and NH primaries) is now giving a one-hour interview to Trump, followed by an hour long, one-person townhall in SC with him!!!!!  Moderated by Scarborough and Mika, who have acknowledged being "friends" of his (and whom he thanked last week for their "support"). 

 

Yes, MSNBC said they've offered townhalls to "everyone". But (1) I'm skeptical they'd do one-to-one primetime townhalls for ... Kasick... and (2) obviously NO ONE else will have the advantage of doing it NOW, when a good showing for one of the others against Trump could mean so much!

 

 WTH, MSNBC, WTH???? 

 

[[Tx for the headsup. I hate MJ and never thought about checking a thread of its own. Probably one where others who hate it go, too. lol]]

Edited February 16, 2016 by Padma

[NextIteration]

I don't get it either, the RNC said no MSNBC (for debates anyways).  I'm mystified.  We are talking about this in the Morning Joe thread.  

[fireice13]

I normally love MSNBC election coverage but Brian Williams is seriously grating on me. First, why is he the one taking charge? I feel that Rachel has more than earned the right to be the one directing the coverage. Second, he doesn't seem to have any insights like the rest of the group who cover politics for a living do. It's making me really frustrated because I want to watch the primary results come in, but I just can't handle him.

[Sharpie66]

ITA, fireice13! Rachel should be taking primary lead on the anchor desk.

I will say that BriWi did just crack me up with his snarking on Steve Kornacki's casual wear, though.

[jjj]

Just ugh, Brian Williams.  I saw the end of the funeral Mass for Justice Scalia (disagree with all of his positions, but I am fascinated by the ceremonial events like funerals), and switched to MSNBC because they had a priest and other commentators who could speak to the nature of the ceremony.  But while the camera was still on the view of mourners leaving the funeral, suddenly Brian started asking about the 4/4 court and "what does it mean".  This was such a wrong moment to go there, especially when surrounded by people chosen for their ability to talk about the focus on religion in the ceremony. 

[alias1]

I really don't mind Brian Williams.  I do like some of his snark.  And I don't really think Rachel minds.   It's Nicole Wallace, I can't stand.  I don't know what it is about her, but I always want to punch her face in.  I could listen to Lawrence all night.  I love his logic. 

[NextIteration]

I normally love MSNBC election coverage but Brian Williams is seriously grating on me. First, why is he the one taking charge? I feel that Rachel has more than earned the right to be the one directing the coverage. Second, he doesn't seem to have any insights like the rest of the group who cover politics for a living do. It's making me really frustrated because I want to watch the primary results come in, but I just can't handle him.

 

It sucks.  It absolutely sucks having Brian Williams there for MSNBC coverage.  His "witticisms" belong on network television, not punditry driven cable and Rachel and Matthews made a really good team I thought.  It was really awful towards the end when Williams was making fun of Matthews at the "Nevada Bureau" the look on Matthews' face said it all, it looked like he wanted to punch Williams.

[shok]

MSNBC is becoming unwatchable with their blatant Bernie cheerleading. Their coverage of the Nevada caucus results was embarrassing. Hillary won but she didn't win because she didn't win big enough???? Bernie won because he did better than his poll results from a month ago??? WTF??? And Hillary only won because Harry Reid rigged it for her with the Las Vegas unions????

 

I always knew Chris Hayes was a far leftie - he grew up in a family of protesters and activists so it doesn't surprise me that he's all in for Bernie but Rachel...my girlfriend Rachel...I'm sooooo disappointed in her. It's pretty bad when Chuck Todd has to be the reasonable one.

[NextIteration]

I always knew Chris Hayes was a far leftie - he grew up in a family of protesters and activists so it doesn't surprise me that he's all in for Bernie but Rachel...my girlfriend Rachel...I'm sooooo disappointed in her. It's pretty bad when Chuck Todd has to be the reasonable one.

 

I feel like of all the lefties (Harris Perry, O'Donnell, Maddow and Hayes), Hayes has been the most fair.  I've seen him challenge Tad Davine and Jeff Weaver (honestly, Tad Davine is just skeevy).  He seems to honestly be having a head and heart conundrum despite The Nation endorsing Bernie, I'm pretty sure that Hayes wrote the endorsement from The Nation for Obama in 2008.

 

Chuck Todd being the reasonable one is reminiscent of Halperin defending Clinton awhile back on Morning Joe.  It makes my head hurt.

[Egg]

I follow Chris Hayes on Twitter and he is plenty willing to call out Sanders' mistakes during debates, and to parse and criticize problematic things his surrogates say. I'm sure Chris personally wants Bernie to win, but he has (at least on Twitter) been much more even-handed than I expected.

[Jaded]

It sucks.  It absolutely sucks having Brian Williams there for MSNBC coverage.  His "witticisms" belong on network television, not punditry driven cable and Rachel and Matthews made a really good team I thought.  It was really awful towards the end when Williams was making fun of Matthews at the "Nevada Bureau" the look on Matthews' face said it all, it looked like he wanted to punch Williams.

I think his "witticisms" belong at home while he's sitting on his couch or in his chair watching everyone else who didn't get in trouble like he did. He still acts so full of himself.

[Padma]

I can't believe I used to like Williams when he anchored the news and would occasionally be a snarky guest with Jon Stewart. He is so completely obnoxious and arrogant--he is constantly making passive-aggressive put-downs, sorry "jokes", toward others at MSNBC. I hope he never makes it back to the "A" team as he believes he's destined to do. Beyond that, I hope NBC will fire him and make it permanent. He's not smart. He's not insightful. He's not funny. And it's astonishing that he's so convinced he's all three.

 

I feel bad for Rachel always being paired with him. Even 2000 mile physical separation couldn't stop Williams from trying to absurdly goad Chris Matthews. However, I loved Chris' facial expression at the end. You could read EVERYTHING he was thinking about Williams on his face (and I agreed with every bit of it--except for wanting to knock his block off the next time I saw him.)  What an ass he is. He makes the MSNBC coverage unwatchable. I think Chris and Rachel would have been far superior without Brian Williams. Will he ever go away for good?

[arejay]

Someone on the staff of Andrea Mitchell's show thought it would be cute to have a live stand-up from inside a live firing range.  Yeah, it was not.  

 

[Andyourlittledog2]

Someone on the staff of Andrea Mitchell's show thought it would be cute to have a live stand-up from inside a live firing range.  Yeah, it was not.

 

I was reading with it on in the background and I looked up and saw it split screen with a Trump entrance to a rally. At first it seemed like the gunshots were inside the Trump rally and I thought someone was shooting at him (although he didn't react).  Then I saw that the MSNBC reporter was speaking from a different location, about ten feet from a line of men shooting at a gun range. It was very loud and distracting and you could barely hear anything the reporter said. I have no idea who thought that would work.

 

This network, I swear. 

[xaxat]

The caucus system is so stupid.

[Padma]

Okay, I have to say MSNBC is hopelessly in the tank for Trump. Just hopelessly so. For two days I've been hearing about Mika's upcoming "exclusive" interview with Melania. (Mika, that hard-hitting journalist who asked, "What was your mother like?" and made me wonder if she'd been given a list of questions that Melania WANTED to ask. It would not surprise me one bit.)

 

First there was the promotion for the interview. Then today, throughout the day, they're showing extended excerpts of the "news" it generated--insightful stuff like, "He's so smart" and "He's a great husband and father and businessman". Even if you could have missed MJ you could not miss this public relations stunt.... sorry, this "interview".

 

Are MSNBC going to give the same amount of time and attention to the spouses of ALL the candidates? And do it NOW, when it matters not when/if they get around to it in a month or two?  I suppose the equal time rule doesn't apply to spouses, but does it even apply to candidates any more? Donald Trump is on MSNBC as much as some of their regular commentators.

 

And he had a whole "puff" interview with Hannity earlier this week for an hour. Why don't ALL candidates get to have this free media? No wonder he's (largely) self-funding with millions of dollars in media attention on various networks, every. single. day.  (CNN is no better). I am very disappointed in MSNBC when it comes to their coverage of Donald Trump. Even when someone makes an occasional good point, it is swallowed up by all the fawning and public relations pieces. (Surely, before Super Tuesday, we'll get another viewing of "Citizen Trump" which I swear Trump's campaign must have done themselves and just paid Matthews to narrate.)  Maddening!

[NextIteration]

I feel like Griffen and Lackey are making a big mistake going so blatantly for ratings (from Trump coverage) in the short term, that they are destroying anything good that is left on MSNBC.

 

That said, Joe and Mika are interviewing Clinton today for the show tomorrow, Clinton will be on MTP Daily today and Sanders is doing Hardball on Matthews College Tour show tonight at University of Chicago.

[33kaitykaity]

Chris Matthews has a town hall at Univ of Chicago with Bernie Sanders.  Instead of listening to Bernie, Chris keeps asking the same inside-the-beltway questions over and over and over and over again despite Bernie basically giving him the same answer.  Then there was the interrupting and the not listening and the spitting.  

 

Part 1

 

Part 2

 

STFU, Chris.  STFU.  

[shok]

 

Instead of listening to Bernie, Chris keeps asking the same inside-the-beltway questions over and over and over and over again despite Bernie basically giving him the same answer.

 

I thought Chris did a good job of the interview (in his own inimitable Chris way). It might have been the same inside-the-beltway questions but guess what, congress IS inside-the-beltway and congress is where Bernie is going to have to get all these pie-in-the-sky things done that he's promising. I was glad to see Bernie pushed and as usual, he had no answer. Yes, he's got the ideology but it's all just so unrealistic. Bernie's been in congress himself for thirty years and knows damn well that he's selling a lot of bunkum. In an ideal world, it would be lovely to have all the things he wants but Washington and the USA are far from ideal right now.

 

I'm not against Bernie and I think it's good his message is being heard by large numbers of people but what bothers me, and frightens me a little bit, is how angry so many of his supporters are when everyone doesn't jump onto his bandwagon right away.

[33kaitykaity]

I thought Chris did a good job of the interview (in his own inimitable Chris way). It might have been the same inside-the-beltway questions but guess what, congress IS inside-the-beltway and congress is where Bernie is going to have to get all these pie-in-the-sky things done that he's promising. I was glad to see Bernie pushed and as usual, he had no answer. Yes, he's got the ideology but it's all just so unrealistic. Bernie's been in congress himself for thirty years and knows damn well that he's selling a lot of bunkum. In an ideal world, it would be lovely to have all the things he wants but Washington and the USA are far from ideal right now.

 

I'm not against Bernie and I think it's good his message is being heard by large numbers of people but what bothers me, and frightens me a little bit, is how angry so many of his supporters are when everyone doesn't jump onto his bandwagon right away.

A good job?  Really?  Chris is a corporate media/Beltway insider who let his bias hang out there for the whole nation to see.  Bernie answered Chris's questions, just didn't give the answers Chris wanted to hear.  

 

As far as the characterizations of Bernie supporters as angry or Bernie's policies as bunkum, those things are outside of the answers I'm allowed to give here.  

[NextIteration]

I haven't watched it all yet, but I hardly see Chris biases against Sanders, Sanders is the candidate that Matthews characterized as joyful and focused.

 

What did Chris do?  Push back in search of detailed answers from the candidate?   How biased.