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

[Ohwell]

Will somebody please, please put a fucking muzzle on that goddamn Steve Kornacki?  Anyone?  I cannot stand him at that board where he's talking about poll numbers and shit  I know right now I'll be watching CNN on election night. 

[Sharpie66]

When I said that Luke R was a legacy admission, I was talking about MSNBC, not college. And he might have put in seven years so far, but I don't think he would have had that long to acquire his reporting chops if his last name wasn't Russert.

[shok]

Well, hallelujah. Ari Melber sitting in for Lawrence OD tonight had a pundit on to talk about the Bernie situation. It was so refreshing to hear someone talking rationally about it rather than having to listen to Nina or Bernie himself going on and on about how the Democratic Party must bow down to him and include all his demands in their policy platform. The pundit (didn't catch her name) talked about how any influence Bernie might think he has is diminishing by the day as he continues with his spoiled brattery charade while the rest of the election campaign between Hillary and Trump is carrying on without him. 

[Ohwell]

I thought she was a pain in the ass and went out of her way to discredit Bernie Sanders.  She reminded me of Sarah Silverman.

[Moose135]

15 hours ago, Padma said:

I'm another who resents how Luke leap-frogged over other more qualified reporters into the MSNBC gig because of his father and related connections. That said, when he said yesterday he'd been covering Congress for 7 years, I did have to begrudgingly acknowledge his work ethic. I mean, it's not the most glamorous assignment and he's stayed committed to it rather than using it as a springboard to something more fun.

But how many young reporters would kill to have their first job be covering Congress for a major cable news network, rather than the hog reports on the 5am news update in Podunk, Iowa?

[shok]

1 hour ago, Ohwell said:

I thought she was a pain in the ass and went out of her way to discredit Bernie Sanders.  She reminded me of Sarah Silverman.

I don't think she discredited him. She spoke from a point of view that's shared with an awful lot of other people but which never gets discussed on these news shows. The media is still giving a guy who was thoroughly trounced in the primaries the kind of coverage commensurate with someone who won. That same Harvard study that reported that Trump had gotten an historical amount of free tv coverage also found that Sanders had gotten far and away the most positive coverage of any candidate and that's continued three months after he was numerically eliminated from the race. I mean, nobody (besides Trump of course) been on so many tv shows this past week and been allowed to spout his talking points unchallenged which is why I found that segment, although short, so refreshing to hear the counter point of his quixotic quest discussed. She wasn't nasty about him, or derogatory or anything like that, she just presented a different point of view.

[Ohwell]

I respectfully disagree.  Based on her mannerisms alone, she seemed testy and dismissive of Bernie Sanders.  And she, like a lot of other people, wants him to just go away.  He has just as much right as any candidate to 1) withhold his endorsement and 2) take his campaign all the way to the convention, where it will presumably end.  There was nothing "quixotic" about his campaign; he had a message and he also had a right to speak on it.  It's not his fault if he happened to stay around while others dropped out.  I say, if he wants to die a slow death, then let him do it his way.

Anyway, I still think she was a dismissive ass.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Ohwell
Typo

[WendyCR72]

Okay, gang, this is skating close to "politics only" and not the show, so agree to disagree and let's move on. Thanks.

[NewDigs]

Oh Luke. 

Maybe I'm not savvy enough in the news-lingo department but li'l Luke was just on to report on most recent Benghazi findings. He held it up (a la Dan Abrams in 2000) and announced that this news, "just dropped".

I know that albums drop and singles drop but news? It just seemed so trying-too-hard.

[xaxat]

In addition to his father's connections, Luke also appears to have benefited from an unusually chummy relationship (for a junior reporter) with then House Speaker John Boehner. (Although I'm sure the two are related.)

It annoyed me (and probably the rest of the press corps) that Boehner went to Luke for the first question at the press conference when he announced his retirement.

ETA, Luke went from sports talk radio to "youth correspondent" to Congressional correspondent in what? Three/four years?

Edited June 28, 2016 by xaxat

[jjj]

Boy, MSNBC's shortcomings really show up when there is international breaking news.  With the Brexit vote and Cameron resignation last week, and now with the Istanbul airport bombing, MSNBC just does not have the resources to cover events abroad.  They covered Brexit as breaking news, but did not have staff on the ground in London, while CNN had many street interviews happening there.  Tonight, CNN is on the ground live with new news each hour in Istanbul, and MSNBC is still re-running the early evening shows.  I never watch CNN except for the international incidents; it really has established footholds on many continents. 

[potatoradio]

Quote

MSNBC just does not have the resources to cover events abroad

I don't know what you're talking about.  They defrost BriWi to sit like a pompous boob and mansplain what's going on. Everyone else doesn't need to be on location because all they have to cover is whatever Trump is saying at the moment. We also flipped over to CNN for (gawd help us) news. As I was falling asleep last night listening to L.O. immediately dive into what Trump was saying about the Istanbul tragedy, I woke up long enough to ask if Clinton's comments were also covered. My wife said, "I'm sure she's not awake in the middle of the night giving commentary." And I yelled, "then why in ever loving f*ck are we listening to Trumpbites?" She turned off the TV.

[jjj]

1 hour ago, potatoradio said:

They defrost BriWi to sit like a pompous boob and mansplain what's going on.

That is it, in a nutshell! There must be a button someplace that has that label written above it:  "Press here to defrost BriWi to sit like a pompous boob and mansplain what's going on."

I heart MSNBC for its national and political coverage; but was so baffled at all the reruns last night -- not even any live updates that I noticed. (I could have missed some.)  But eight-hour-old "Hardball" in the middle of the night while it was already the next day in Istanbul was so stale. 

[represent]

Switched to CNN who had the sense NOT to interrupt their coverage of President Obama, the president of Canada and the president of Mexico's conference. Why on earth would MSNBC think that I want to see an ugly, orange looking primate, when I can listen two three fine, intelligent looking men? Obama is just handsome, Justin I think his name is, is a hottie and Mexico isn't doing that bad either cause he's pretty cute even if he's short. 

WTF MSNBC? That's how you lose my viewership to CNN. And I switch from CNN any time Corey Lowendowski or how ever the hell you spell his name, comes on the screen.

Edited June 29, 2016 by represent

[Padma]

I left the house this morning and they were talking about Trump, his "rape" comments from last night. Oh, and the speech at the garbage wall which was perfect.

I returned a few hours later and it wasn't Trump!!! Woo-hoo! It was Obama in Ottawa actually with two other people who weren't Trump! And the three Not Trump's were having a press conference! (First question I saw, two the other two, was "What do you think about Trump?")

MSNBC could tell we were missing the wall-to-wall coverage of the Real Thing so they interrupted this international press conference, for a live event! Surely some breaking news!

No, it was Trump live in ... Maine!!!! Wow, I wouldn't have missed hearing him repeat his talking points unchallenged again for anything!!! Thanks, MSNBC!

(It would, seriously, make a fun gambling game.  "Let's turn on MSNBC. If they're talking about Trump, I get $5. If it's any other topic in the world, YOU get $5."  I know it's mean to take advantage of the gullible because betting on MSNBC's coverage of Trump, one would absolutely Clean Up! Love him or hate him, their round-the-clock obsession with him is sickening!)

[jjj]

I hardly ever get to see MSNBC during the day (and when I do, it is Li'l Luke on the screen, so I stop watching), so I appreciate this coverage of the daytime choices of MSNBC!  I don't mind the Trump coverage now that I have all those great epithets in tweets about him from Scotland (courtesy The Rachel Maddow Show) -- try: "you mangled apricot hellbeast" -- feels good to shout it at the screen! 

Edited June 30, 2016 by jjj

[shok]

7 hours ago, represent said:

President Obama, the president of Canada and the president of Mexico

Prime Minister of Canada. ;)

 

Other than that, I agree with your post.

[xaxat]

On 6/29/2016 at 10:57 AM, potatoradio said:

 They defrost BriWi to sit like a pompous boob and mansplain what's going on.

Brian Williams really is the William Hurt character from Broadcast News.

I wonder how high the bidding went for Lewandowski's "services".Because there's no doubt that MSNBC really wanted him.

[Padma]

I wonder if BriWi ever thinks he's becoming like a joke, the guy who ONLY is trotted out for disasters (and, of course, elections). I mean, it is kind of funny when you see him it's like "Oh no. What's gone wrong now?"  I'm not sure that's the rehab image he's going for. (Also, other feeling soon follows--"Who did he bump that I'd rather be seeing?")

As for Corey L.  I'd be surprised if MSNBC wanted him.  CNN has their fleet of political hacks commentators that are brought out to spew talking points in big panels and one to ones.  MSNBC has a different kind of model.  Rick Tyler's one thing.  A tough guy who is still a 100% Trump loyalist is another.  Plus, I think--hope--the nighttime commentators Chris H  &M, Rachel & LO'D would seriously protest the hiring of a man who treated journalists so badly including roughing up one woman and lying about it (and even though FL said "no charges" they said that he HAD done it)

Plus Jeff Zucker is a big buddy of Trump. (Per Scarborough, Trump calls him "my booker").  Would'n't surprise me if the job change was arranged well in advance of the firing--letting Corey keep spinning for Trump on CNN while giving him a moment to look like there were real staff changes/strategies underway.   I think the CNN anchors should boycott over that hire (paying him to spin for Trump!!!!) but I guess they won't..

[Moose135]

1 hour ago, Padma said:

I wonder if BriWi ever thinks he's becoming like a joke, the guy who ONLY is trotted out for disasters (and, of course, elections). I mean, it is kind of funny when you see him it's like "Oh no. What's gone wrong now?"  I'm not sure that's the rehab image he's going for. (Also, other feeling soon follows--"Who did he bump that I'd rather be seeing?")

I think BriWi probably thinks that he is being held in reserve for big news stories, that not all everyday occurrences warrant his superior skills as a newscaster.

I used to like the guy and all, but NBC really needs to drop him.

[NextIteration]

21 hours ago, Padma said:

Would'n't surprise me if the job change was arranged well in advance of the firing--letting Corey keep spinning for Trump on CNN while giving him a moment to look like there were real staff changes/strategies underway.   I think the CNN anchors should boycott over that hire (paying him to spin for Trump!!!!) but I guess they won't..

While Roger Stone was not elevated to "analyst" status on CNN, they sure had him on a lot after he "left" the tRump campaign last fall (and allowed him to sell his book of bullshit fantasies about Clinton).  CNN also has that idiotic Jeff Lord on all the time.

I find that Lawrence O'Donnell is the most obnoxious with the tRump coverage in the evenings.  Just stop it, for the love of sweet baby jeebus.

Edited July 1, 2016 by NextIteration

[Ohwell]

Loretta Lynch is on right now, talking to Jonathan Capehart about her meeting with Bill Clinton.  While I can believe Clinton doing what he did and I'm not at all surprised, I cannot understand how she got herself into this position.  Jonathan sounds like he can't understand it either.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Ohwell

[Padma]

3 hours ago, Ohwell said:

Loretta Lynch is on right now, talking to Jonathan Capehart about her meeting with Bill Clinton.  While I can believe Clinton doing what he did and I'm not at all surprised, I cannot understand how she got herself into this position.  Jonathan sounds like he can't understand it either.

Who can?  I get it that Bill C. is arrogant enough to think he can get away with pretty much anything. I still worry that either "private misconduct" or "foundation issues" on his part will sink Hillary. I also believe it was his idea to have the server at home, because she seems pretty ignorant of the ins and outs of technology. He's my biggest concern re: President Trump.

I'm glad Jonathan was talking with Lynch because, unlike some on MSNBC, he's an actual journalist and will know what to ask. I hope I can see that later. Because I agree with you. Bill? No surprise there. But the AG who has to date conducted herself beyond reproach? What in the world was SHE thinking????

[shok]

I ranted about this on the Morning Joe thread but jeebus murphy, the collective outrage about Bill Clinton just makes me crazy. FFS, the Republicans can be (and have been) as chummy as they want with members of the judiciary and others and nothing is said but let Bill Clinton have a casual chat with an old friend about his new grandson and they lose their effing minds. Jonathon Capehart was just as bad as the right wing. He got the vapors over it and is piling on to the RWNJ conspiracy theories. If Bill, or Hillary for that matter, wanted to have some kind of scurrilous meeting with the AG, they could have gone to her office which is in the same building in NY as Clinton's campaign headquarters for fuck sake!!!! It's bad enough that the Republicans and the complicit media lose their collective minds over the fact that the Clintons breathe and exist, but when MSNBC joins in the group-mind-losing, it's pretty sad. Between the incessant unending Trump ass licking and the scare mongering about ISIS and terrorists, MSNBC has reached plumb bottom along with FOX and CNN and it's going to be a long four months until the election.

[NextIteration]

20 hours ago, Ohwell said:

While I can believe Clinton doing what he did and I'm not at all surprised, I cannot understand how she got herself into this position.  Jonathan sounds like he can't understand it either.

I didn't get the impression that Jonathan didn't understand, he just used some beautiful snark with his "What were you thinking"?

And what the hell was she supposed to do, tell Bill to get off the fucking plane?

17 hours ago, Padma said:

I get it that Bill C. is arrogant enough to think he can get away with pretty much anything.

Meh, I think Bill is just an enthusiastic and somewhat excitable guy (no, I don't mean that way!) and he just goes through life not thinking about consequences.  It's a rather unsettling trait in a POTUS but it's also a big part of his charm in my mind.  I appreciated Matthews' characterization - that Big Dawg doesn't mean top dog, but a big (tall) puppy with boundless energy.

[Ohwell]

2 hours ago, NextIteration said:

I didn't get the impression that Jonathan didn't understand, he just used some beautiful snark with his "What were you thinking"?

You misunderstood my post.  That's what I meant by saying Jonathan couldn't understand why she did what she did.  

2 hours ago, NextIteration said:

And what the hell was she supposed to do, tell Bill to get off the fucking plane?

Yes.

[Milburn Stone]

42 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

You misunderstood my post.  That's what I meant by saying Jonathan couldn't understand why she did what she did. 

Yeah. In fact, I don't know any other way to interpret "What were you thinking?" than "I don't understand how you could do that." The same is true when "thinking" is emphasized: "What were you thinking?!?" The only way those words mean anything else is when "what" is slightly emphasized: "What were you thinking?" That could be an honest inquiry. Any other reading equals "what you did defies all understanding."

I do feel, though, that it could be exceptionally difficult for Lynch to send BC on his way, because that would have caused extreme humiliation, and you don't want to do that to a friend. So I think the question "What were you thinking?" actually has an answer.

Edited July 2, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[Ohwell]

5 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

I do feel, though, that it could be exceptionally difficult for Lynch to send BC on his way, because that would have caused extreme humiliation, and you don't want to do that to a friend. So I think the question "What were you thinking?" actually has an answer.

Oh no, I don't think she could have, or should have, told him "get off the fucking plane" but I think she could have explained to him how it made for bad optics for them to be talking to each other, so it would be best if he left.   

So yeah, there was certainly a way to tell him to "get off the fucking plane" (without actually saying those words, of course). 

Edited July 2, 2016 by Ohwell

[NextIteration]

I'm going to back out on a limb and say that Jonathan was being snarky, and understood completely why she let Bill on the plane.

He's a huge Clinton supporter (his snark on Twitter about Bernie Bros is fabulous) and I think he was only incredulous about it because of the optics that the GOP is making shenanigans out of.

He was scheduled to do that interview with Lynch months before at the Aspen Ideas summit, but Lynch decided at the last minute to scrap her interview and just do the sit-down with Capehart.

Edited July 5, 2016 by NextIteration

[Padma]

As AG (or president) you have to always put the law above friendship. Lynch may have only talked about the grandkids, exactly as she says, but the optics say they were both putting friendship above the law. To right-wingers, there's nothing surprising there--it's "BC on behalf of HRC + an Obama appointee", so of course they're corrupt.

To those of us who completely reject that characterization, its extremely shocking and disappointing--because, right or wrong--that's exactly what it looked like. I've seen a couple of MSNBC-ers try to defend it (the best was, I think, Andrea Mitchell who explained about it always being BC's habit to greet cabinet secretaries, etc. when at the same airport).  

But even the most innocent explanation--that BC really just wanted to say hi and didn't know better --makes me wonder what other unethical things he'd be willing to do. He's not stupid! (And then visiting for 30 minutes!!! Even two minutes would make me wonder if he'd gotten a quick heads-up re: Hillary & the FBI)  So disappointing--and hurting her chances through no fault of her own!

[Milburn Stone]

A real problem is that even if they only did talk about grandkids--and I take it on faith that that's all they did--it's still about trying to exercise undue influence. The unspoken communication: "We have so much in common, and go so far back. We know each other's grandkids. You don't really want to send my wife to jail, do you?"

Edited July 2, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[NextIteration]

Well, since Hillary went and gave a deposition at the FBI this morning, perhaps we could assume that "the talk" was about finalizing negotiations to facilitate that.

Still think it's much ado about nothing.  Bill has done that with lots of GOPers to include Ted Cruz before - it's not a Phoenix tarmac thing, it's a tarmac thing with him.

[alias1]

I think it's much ado about nothing.  Of course the republicans are doing what they always do.  And they had Hugh Hewitt on today and asked him what he thought of it.  Please.  Has he ever missed a chance to disparage Hillary?  I could have written his script for him. I think MSNBC should be ashamed of the people they bring on in an attempt to appear objective.  .   

[Padma]

2 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

A real problem is that even if they only did talk about grandkids--and I take it on faith that that's all they did--it's still about trying to exercise undue influence. The unspoken communication: "We have so much in common, and go so far back. We know each other's grandkids. You don't really want to send my wife to jail, do you?"

Great point--I hadn't thought of that. It's actually indefensible, even if you accept the Clinton explanation. I'm shocked at BC initiating it, especially after all the legal troubles he's gone through in the past. And I'm shocked at myself for being shocked. I don't trust him at all anymore.  I wonder what Hillary's plan is to keep him harmlessly occupied in the White House?

2 hours ago, SierraMist said:

I think it's much ado about nothing.  Of course the republicans are doing what they always do.  And they had Hugh Hewitt on today and asked him what he thought of it.  Please.  Has he ever missed a chance to disparage Hillary?  I could have written his script for him. I think MSNBC should be ashamed of the people they bring on in an attempt to appear objective.  .   

I disagree about being nothing, but I agree with you completely about Hewitt and the others.  I was watching this morning and wondering when "objectivity" came to mean "allow people with differing biases to share their differing versions of the truth" rather than "objectivity = facts, not opinion".

Katie Tur came back and reminded me how much I hate her coverage of Trump. Asked any question, you can see her trying to answer in a way that will be least offensive to the Trump campaign, including using phrases like, "Of course, he did an amazing job getting votes during the primaries,..."  No, it wasn't "amazing" if you're a reporter looking at facts. Just tell me--"33%, 14 million people". She always editorializes and downplays criticism (this morning it was the issue of him tweeting the image of a Jewish star in front of $100 bills raining down on Hillary.)

MSNBC and CNN would both be so much stronger as journalism if they got rid of the people who are always going to do pro-candidate spin.  (And the idea that they actually PAY many of them for the privilege of lying on-air for their candidates is incredible!!!)

[WendyCR72]

Happy 4th of July weekend, all. Just a reminder to keep all political talk within the scope of MSNBC and its programming. The talk must correlate with show content. If it doesn't, it goes off board.

Thanks and have a fun, safe weekend.

[33kaitykaity]

I had a gigantic thrill watching Dr. Dean go off on all of this crap, remembering why I was an enthusiastic Deaniac.  

Quote

‘This is crap’: Howard Dean loses it after MSNBC host calls Clinton-Lynch meeting ‘inexcusable’

[shok]

Oh gee, Alexandra Witt. Why do you suppose Hillary Clinton is considered untrustworthy by a swath of voters. Could it be because you just wasted five minutes of your show letting a Republican spout lies and talking points and feign outrage over a silly event? Why not ask your Republican friend why Justice Scalia spent his last weekend on earth with a former vice president? I wish more Dems would react like Gov Dean. Maybe it would embarrass some of those talking heads on MSNBC although I'm sure they're just giving the rightwing poohbahs in charge of these shows what they want. 

[Jaded]

I can't watch Alexandra Witt anymore without thinking about the large amount of money she borrowed from a friend years ago and the friend ended up having to take her to court to get repayment. I kind of liked her before that. I hadn't seen her on air in a long time since I haven't watched MSNBC regularly in a few years. Her face looks so different in that clip and it's more then just aging. She also comes across as pretty shrill in that clip too.

[Milburn Stone]

9 hours ago, shok said:

Oh gee, Alexandra Witt. Why do you suppose Hillary Clinton is considered untrustworthy by a swath of voters. Could it be because you just wasted five minutes of your show letting a Republican spout lies and talking points and feign outrage over a silly event?...I wish more Dems would react like Gov Dean. Maybe it would embarrass some of those talking heads on MSNBC although I'm sure they're just giving the rightwing poohbahs in charge of these shows what they want. 

I agree with a lot of your post, but I don't think this Crossfire-esque stuff is a result of right-wing directives from those in charge of MSNBC. I think it's that they have decided they'll get bigger audiences with a clash of contrasts than the somewhat monochromatic effect of one side talking to itself. No conflict, no drama. And we are a nation that craves drama.

Edited July 4, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[Ohwell]

I always thought that Howard Dean looked like a ticking time bomb when he's on these shows.

[alias1]

I saw that Howard Dean moment and thought, finally, someone has the balls to just call it crap.  And Alex Witt kept trying to cut him off.  Unbelievable.  I find her unwatchable and generally don't watch when she's on.  This is one of the few times I'm glad I caught it.

[jjj]

4 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

I agree with a lot of your post, but I don't think this Crossfire-esque stuff is a result of right-wing directives from those in charge of MSNBC. I think it's that they have decided they'll get bigger audiences with a clash of contrasts than the somewhat monochromatic effect of one side talking to itself. No conflict, no drama. And we are a nation that craves drama.

Yes, that is completely true.  A friend who is a columnist for a major metropolitan newspaper said that he is supposed to write columns that have lots of argument in the comments, not just a wave of comments all on one side.  So, provocative columns are generally the preferred style.  Social media and comment threads in newspapers have really altered the approach to reporting-- quickest way to trend.  Thanks for the Howard Dean clip, and I completely agree with him on this point.  Sheesh, Alexandra Witt:  "Okay, I know it's probably hard to refute a former President from getting on the plane."  Refute?  I played it three times to make sure that was the word she used.  And Howard Dean looked like he was going to go ballistic every time they cut to him while the blathering was happening. 

When you have a plane (I know more people out West with planes than elsewhere -- there are a lot of private planes in the many landing fields), seeing someone on the tarmac is a welcome diversion, and like running into an acquaintance in a grocery store in a distant location on vacation -- unexpected, and the surprise captures you in a conversation with someone you otherwise would not have been seeking out back on the home turf. 

Edited July 4, 2016 by jjj

[maraleia]

8 hours ago, Ohwell said:

I always thought that Howard Dean looked like a ticking time bomb when he's on these shows.

Part of his problem is he needs a tailor who can outfit him with better suits and ties. You can tell that no fashion conscious gay man has ever crossed his path. He does always seem like he's ready to jump out of his chair when he's on TV.

[NextIteration]

On Dean, when he's remote his posture always appears very strange, especially against the books back drop (where some people look okay and others don't).

I think I've said this before but she's Alex Twitt in my mind every single time.

I appreciated Dean with Del Percio - she's not usually so rabid.  It seemed to me that the Clinton campaign and their surrogates had a coordinated message this weekend especially with all the "audition" appearances of many of possible Clinton VP picks - of telling the media to knock it off and get back to the issues.  Of course, it was a deflection about tarmac-gate and Hillary's FBI interview.  She managed to win a news cycle she should have lost, because tRump stepped all over it with his hateful tweet.

[Milburn Stone]

3 hours ago, NextIteration said:

On Dean, when he's remote his posture always appears very strange, especially against the books back drop (where some people look okay and others don't).

On the segment we're talking about, he seemed to have his chin and nose up in the air, with a sense of his shoulders being pinned back. It seemed like it was one-third snooty ("I can't believe I'm surrounded by these idiots"), one-third terrified ("these idiots are dangerous"), and one-third repelled ("there's a bad smell around here").

Edited July 5, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[movingtargetgal]

Brian Williams just shut up and go back to your crypt.  No one wants to hear your words of "wisdom"/

[Ohwell]

I made an innocent joke about President Obama, a joke told at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, and I got a warning.  Yet a big-assed picture of him with Hillary is ok.  Not what I call leaving politics out of it. 

[jjj]

Oh, gah, they show that first rally with HRC and Obama, and then MSNBC brings in Hugh Hewitt to comment?????  And he says, "She was convicted today"??? How about some commentary on the hour-long rally we just watched???

[WendyCR72]

59 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

I made an innocent joke about President Obama, a joke told at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, and I got a warning.  Yet a big-assed picture of him with Hillary is ok.  Not what I call leaving politics out of it. 

For the record, the picture is now removed. I mod many forums and cannot always be here. We mods also have our everyday lives. Rather than the backhanded complaints, report instead. That ensures the post will be attended to.

[WendyCR72]

Going forward, I am going to forgo reminders. I think there have been enough. Clinton/Obama (nor Trump/Sanders/other politicians) are NOT MSNBC staff. So such posts DO NOT BELONG HERE. That is under politics. Which everyone now knows is a no go.

Consider this a final warning. If such posts continue, warnings will be given. I have been more than lenient and fair here. So heed this or risk the consequences.

Carry on.