All Episodes Discussion: 2017 Season

[jjj]

I am a fan of Hillary Clinton, but listening to her voice recording of her own book on Rachel's show tonight (I assume it was the audio version of her book) was painful.  She does not have natural inflections or ease in her reading, and it was more sarcastic sounding than I want an audio book to be.  I guess she rejected having someone like Meryl Streep read it...  (P.S. -- I would not have minded her reading style if it were a live reading at a bookstore.  But it was jarring for an audio book.)

Yes, great "get" for Rachel next Thursday! 

32 minutes ago, car54 said:

Well this is a big "get" for Rachel.

Edited September 8, 2017 by jjj

[Quilt Fairy]

2 hours ago, jjj said:

I am a fan of Hillary Clinton, but listening to her voice recording of her own book on Rachel's show tonight (I assume it was the audio version of her book) was painful.  She does not have natural inflections or ease in her reading, and it was more sarcastic sounding than I want an audio book to be.  I guess she rejected having someone like Meryl Streep read it...  (P.S. -- I would not have minded her reading style if it were a live reading at a bookstore.  But it was jarring for an audio book.)

ITA.  I was planning on getting the audiobook, and now I'm not so sure.  Many authors do quite well reading their own work and I was surprised at how stilted HC sounded, like she was just reading words off of a page rather than speaking her own thoughts.  This is not the first time she's read the audio version of her work, so it's even more surprising.

I am anxious to view the interview next week.

Edited September 8, 2017 by Quilt Fairy

[ScoobieDoobs]

2 hours ago, jjj said:

I am a fan of Hillary Clinton, but listening to her voice recording of her own book on Rachel's show tonight (I assume it was the audio version of her book) was painful.  She does not have natural inflections or ease in her reading, and it was more sarcastic sounding than I want an audio book to be.  I guess she rejected having someone like Meryl Streep read it...  (P.S. -- I would not have minded her reading style if it were a live reading at a bookstore.  But it was jarring for an audio book.)

Yes, great "get" for Rachel next Thursday! 

Boy, do I ever agree with you!  BUT I'm pissed as hell that Hillary is pushing this.  And I was ready to give Rach hell for giving her a platform to selfishly push her own agenda -- at a possibly steep cost to Dems.  

And I gotta tell ya, it annoyed me even further to hear Rachel say how the excerpts from Hillary's book are "driving everyone nuts".  It made think -- does she want to interview Hillary to exploit the annoyance so many are feeling toward her, in response to the book's excerpts that came out?  Or did Rachel say Hillary's book is "driving everyone nuts", in response to Chris Hayes' interview with Bernie (a half hour earlier), where he was asked about excerpts from Hillary's book & he looked really pissed?

Well, have to say I'm a bit less pissed at Hillary & Rach now -- because of the excerpt Rachel played from Hillary's book.  One thing Hillary ALWAYS got dead-on right was what Putin is all about.  Her comments on Putin (in her book) were awesome!  So kudos to you, Rach, for finding & concentrating on something positive in Hillary's book.  Makes me wonder if that was exceptionally difficult to do.

Edited September 8, 2017 by ScoobieDoobs

[Morrigan2575]

8 hours ago, jjj said:

I am a fan of Hillary Clinton, but listening to her voice recording of her own book on Rachel's show tonight (I assume it was the audio version of her book) was painful.  She does not have natural inflections or ease in her reading, and it was more sarcastic sounding than I want an audio book to be.  I guess she rejected having someone like Meryl Streep read it...  (P.S. -- I would not have minded her reading style if it were a live reading at a bookstore.  But it was jarring for an audio book.)

Yes, great "get" for Rachel next Thursday! 

Yeah, it's always been a weakness of he's she doesn't have that charm/charisma that Bill and Obama have when speaking. 

[teddysmom]

This is why I am not a fan of audio books. Sometimes the voice of the reader really takes you out of the moment.   Maybe she felt it was her story and she was going to do it her way. 

I'm old school, I like to hold an actual book, and to read it.  

TBS I am stoked about HRC next week.  I'm in the camp that thinks Rachel is doing this to annoy all the men who want Hillary to shut up.

[Keepitmoving]

Quote

TBS I am stoked about HRC next week.  I'm in the camp that thinks Rachel is doing this to annoy all the men who want Hillary to shut up.

Me too and I love it, and it's not just men who want her to shut up.  But as far as this woman is concerned, Hillary can talk all she wants if one doesn't want to listen, then don't. She isn't doing anything to the democratic party, please. The party sucks all on its own without her. They are extremely passive, lack energy, lack guts and that is something the Hillary has in spades whether you think she was the most corrupt evil person to ever walk the earth *eye roll* or not. 

Ah, her voice on that audio book didn't bother me one bit. It was her voice during her speeches when she tried to pretend to raise it. That audio book voice, no problem, it sounded like her, her calm voice and that voice never bothered me. I love when she talks about Vlad and love when they show the pictures of her meeting with him. Boy is he a piece of shit, although I couldn't help but bust out laughing at the picture of him trying to intimidate Merkel with that dog. All I could say was damn, he's a straight up street thug. You ever just watch him walk? Thug, thug life for sure, LOL.

Edited September 8, 2017 by Keepitmoving

[attica]

12 hours ago, jjj said:

it was more sarcastic sounding than I want an audio book to be.

I actually guffawed on hearing HRC's reading of the word "Hilarious." I could hear her eyes rolling. So, so over it all with that asshole. (I guess that means I like my audiobooks sarcastic?) But generally, I agree about the stiltedness otherwise.

Good interview with the Ft. Lauderdale mayor. 

[Hanahope]

Definitely looking forward to the interview with Hillary.  Its annoying that people are so hung up on "charisma" when really we need a president who can actually do the right thing.  The way Hillary said "hillarious," you could just hear that eye roll.  Putin needed trump in the race because any other candidate would never have  colluded the way trump did.

[ButterQueen]

7 hours ago, Keepitmoving said:

Me too and I love it, and it's not just men who want her to shut up.  But as far as this woman is concerned, Hillary can talk all she wants if one doesn't want to listen, then don't. She isn't doing anything to the democratic party, please. The party sucks all on its own without her. They are extremely passive, lack energy, lack guts and that is something the Hillary has in spades whether you think she was the most corrupt evil person to ever walk the earth *eye roll* or not. 

Ah, her voice on that audio book didn't bother me one bit. It was her voice during her speeches when she tried to pretend to raise it. That audio book voice, no problem, it sounded like her, her calm voice and that voice never bothered me. I love when she talks about Vlad and love when they show the pictures of her meeting with him. Boy is he a piece of shit, although I couldn't help but bust out laughing at the picture of him trying to intimidate Merkel with that dog. All I could say was damn, he's a straight up street thug. You ever just watch him walk? Thug, thug life for sure, LOL.

I agree with all of this.  I am glad Hillary is speaking out, and her voice didn't bother me at all.  I do not understand how her speaking out could hurt the Dems....makes no sense.  She has a lot to say that I am interested in.  Given what Rachel has uncovered about the election, Trump, and the Russians, I don't know that Hillary will ever get over losing the election.  I know I would have a hard time.  If having her voice helps her, I say go for it.

Putin is just a piece of shit......moldy shit.

[Morrigan2575]

Is Rachel on tonight? 

[chessiegal]

8 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:

Is Rachel on tonight? 

Her show is, don't know if she'll be hosting.

[Morrigan2575]

Thx

[jjj]

1 hour ago, Morrigan2575 said:

Is Rachel on tonight? 

Weill, it is her show's anniversary, so maybe?  But Brian Williams signed off his show on Thursday by saying that "next week, we will have more to report on the hurricane."  So, it made me thing that this might be a guest-host Friday -- but we just had clip-show Monday, so I'm hoping for the regular hosts, including Rachel.

And there was a Russian blip at the White House that will surely make it onto her show if she is hosting tonight -- she is tweeting about it.  But I don't want to go off-topic! 

1 hour ago, chessiegal said:

Her show is, don't know if she'll be hosting.

[Tunia]

Quote

Well this is a big "get" for Rachel.

HRC is hawking her book, so she probably wants all the air time she can muster.  I might think of it more of a "big get" if HRC weren't also going to be on The View next Wednesday...right now she'll go anywhere her agent can book her.  Being on TRMS is as much of a win for HRC as it is for Rachel.  That having been said, I enjoy HRC and will watch her wherever she appears.

Edited September 9, 2017 by Tunia

[Calvada]

TRMS is #1 in ratings - anyone hawking a book would want to appear on it.  But it is a huge get for Rachel, an extended interview with HRC to talk about all that has come out since last November about Russian involvement in the election.  Will she be devoting the entire hour to this interview?  There's so much to talk about, they could spend the entire three hours of primetime just going through the timeline and getting HRC's thoughts/reactions.  Rachel needs one of those huge touch-screens.  Maybe Bill Moyers would allow her to use the timeline he has created on his website.  

[bad things are bad]

Quote

This is why I am not a fan of audio books. Sometimes the voice of the reader really takes you out of the moment.

There was a Seinfeld where George pretends to be blind because he wanted an audio version of a textbook, which he thought would be read by a sexy sounding woman. And it ended up being read by a guy who sounded like George!

Poor Hillary. Every fault she has is magnified, every flaw Trump has is minimized.

I hope Rachel can get her to relax a bit, she's always at her best when she stops being the character HRC. 

[teddysmom]

1 hour ago, bad things are bad said:

Poor Hillary. Every fault she has is magnified, every flaw Trump has is minimized.

This!  

I didn't mean HRC's voice  in particular re: audio books. I couldn't listen to Jim Dale read the Harry Potter books, and the author of Big Little Lies read her book and I couldn't take it.   But this is my quirk, not the person's voice.  

[ScoobieDoobs]

Good show, Rach.  I sure as shit had enough of watching Hayes & his raccoon face, standing in water all weekend.  When Hayes was still on & the clock struck 9, I was ready to go down to the MSNBC studio & kick him the fuck off the air myself.  As usual, Rach, your presence was really welcome -- great coverage on Irma, with some excellent explanations of the happenings in FL & Cuba & the Keys & the Caribbean, & just the right amount of time spent, & even a good interview with the VI governor.  And then thankfully onto politics, which is EXACTLY what we expect from you, Rach -- so glad you didn't disappoint!

Was also glad Rach discussed the Bannon interview briefly, & mercifully only showed him for a very short moment.  Ugh, watching Bannon makes my gag reflex go nuts.

Uh, I didn't see anywhere else about Trump meeting with the new Russian ambassador.  Why has NOBODY else on cable TV discussed this except for Rachel tonite?  Er, maybe cuz ALL weekend (and Friday & even today), CNN had Anderson Cooper posing just so, in his tighty-tight black Armani tee, against a backdrop of pouring rain & wind-driven palm trees, and on MSNBC, Hayes posed waist-deep in water, while Brian Williams did his usual, annoying overly-dramatic shtick.  Three days non-stop of this shit, and do ya think any of 'em coulda taken a break from it for 2 seconds, to talk politics?  Nope, guess that's why we depend on Rach, eh?

Edited September 12, 2017 by ScoobieDoobs

[possibilities]

Ari talked about the news on the Mueller front with only a short look at Irma, so I thought we'd finally moved on from all hurricane all the time. But then Rachel doubled down. I suspect they have a lot of network pressure to cover whatever is ratings bait, but then I don't know why Ari (Melber, as in the 6pm "The Beat") would be exempt.

But I do give Rachel credit for getting into what's happening in the "territories" and doing it her usual nerdy, informative way, instead of just making it a showcase for tragedy porn.

[jjj]

On ‎9‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 5:04 PM, jjj said:

And there was a Russian blip at the White House that will surely make it onto her show if she is hosting tonight -- she is tweeting about it.  But I don't want to go off-topic! 

I wrote this on Friday, when the Russian ambassador mystery meeting was in the news, but only covered by Russian media.  I thought she might mention it on Friday, and am glad she got to it today.  It is not even a secret meeting, just one that Russian media is allowed to cover, but not U.S. media.  Way to support the U.S.A. workforce. 

25 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Uh, I didn't see anywhere else about Trump meeting with the new Russian ambassador.  Why has NOBODY else on cable TV discussed this except for Rachel tonite?  Er, maybe cuz ALL weekend (and Friday & even today), CNN had Anderson Cooper posing just so, in his tighty-tight black Armani tee, against a backdrop of pouring rain & wind-driven palm trees, and on MSNBC, Hayes posed waist-deep in water, while Brian Williams did his usual, annoying overly-dramatic shtick.  Three days non-stop of this shit, and do ya think any of 'em coulda taken a break from it for 2 seconds, to talk politics?  Nope, guess that's why we depend on Rach, eh?

[kassygreene]

Welll, as a Florida panhandle resident, it was kind of nice to have an alternative to the Weather Channel.  I spent the largest part of a week wondering if that thing would push through into the Gulf, remain a Cat 5, dance for a few days, and then do a run at some part of the Gulf Coast (like my part of the Gulf Coast).  

As for the Russian meeting, I'd heard it was the credentialing meeting, and therefore sort of ordinary.  That this admin would keep that on the down-low is just typical: take a regular thing and make it look nefarious.

[teddysmom]

7 hours ago, kassygreene said:

As for the Russian meeting, I'd heard it was the credentialing meeting, and therefore sort of ordinary.  That this admin would keep that on the down-low is just typical: take a regular thing and make it look nefarious.

Yeah they ran about 20 ambassadors thru that day. It was just credentialing. There was an episode of The West Wing where this was portrayed, it's basically, here's my papers, photo op, on to the next one. 

[ahisma]

15 hours ago, possibilities said:

Ari talked about the news on the Mueller front with only a short look at Irma, so I thought we'd finally moved on from all hurricane all the time. But then Rachel doubled down. I suspect they have a lot of network pressure to cover whatever is ratings bait, but then I don't know why Ari (Melber, as in the 6pm "The Beat") would be exempt.

Ari and Rachel are both much more political reporters, so either they push harder against TPTB, or TPTB just know to let them run with their strengths. Since Rachel was covering hurricane damage in her A block, they were probably happy.

I also really liked the way she pulled back and did a big overview of the aftermath in the Caribbean. I hadn't seen that anywhere else. 

[taanja]

23 minutes ago, teddysmom said:

Yeah they ran about 20 ambassadors thru that day. It was just credentialing. There was an episode of The West Wing where this was portrayed, it's basically, here's my papers, photo op, on to the next one. 

I think Rachel's point was that all the other ambassadors were listed by the WH-- but the Russian ambassador was mysteriously missing -- until the Russian news announced it and the WH was like-- oops did we forget to list the Russian ambassador! 

[teddysmom]

14 minutes ago, taanja said:

I think Rachel's point was that all the other ambassadors were listed by the WH-- but the Russian ambassador was mysteriously missing -- until the Russian news announced it and the WH was like-- oops did we forget to list the Russian ambassador! 

Oh! I didn't see last night. I wonder if they were afraid to put him on the list becos the media would make more of it than it was, not that they don't deserve it.  And by omitting it they made it worse.  They really are a cluster fuck waiting to happen. 

18 minutes ago, ahisma said:

also really liked the way she pulled back and did a big overview of the aftermath in the Caribbean. I hadn't seen that anywhere else.

Agree!  It's natural for US media to focus on the US, but a whole lotta people in the Caribbean were devastated as well.

Wonder if maybe they could have been covering that prior to Sunday morning, becos to be honest, until it hit, just rehashing the same thing over and over was ridiculous. 

[ScoobieDoobs]

A little too much Irma coverage tonite for me.  I almost tuned out.  Is Rachel being "forced" to do this coverage?  My hunch is no.  She sounded concerned about whether the VI are getting the help they need ASAP.  And we know Rach likes to help underdogs, so maybe that's why she spent so much time on this coverage.

Uh, sorry, Rach, hate to break it to ya, but you will hardly be the first or the only one to interview Hillary about her book.  Sheesh, far from it!  She'll be on tomorrow with Anderson Cooper & then onto the rest of the world.  Hopefully, Rach's interview will cover different ground than the billions of other interviews Hillary is giving.  A get?  Nah, not so much.

I'm not expecting much from her Hillary interview.  Rach is usually better with reporters & experts than politicians.  It's not usually even Rach's fault, since politicians are so often stymied by whatever agenda they're out to push.  Will Hillary be any different? Doubt it, but we'll see.  I've been disappointed in Rach's hyped-up interviews in the past, which ended up being nothing special or memorable.

Edited September 13, 2017 by ScoobieDoobs

[jjj]

I have no idea if HRC is visiting other MSNBC shows -- but if her main interview is with Rachel, part of the "get" is that it is Rachel rather than one of the on-air personalities who worked on the campaign trail.  Andrea Mitchell slogged away on the HRC plane in an awful schedule some weeks, and while I am not a fan of Andrea Mitchell, I appreciate the long hours she put in near the end of the campaign to give us a glimpse of the inside of that plane.  Katy Tur was of course covering the "Brand X" candidate, but again, she hardly had any life for over a year on that campaign trail.  (I realize she just dropped a book that will pay off for her, plus her own daily hour hosting on MSNBC daytime, so it's not like she is hurting.)  I'm glad HRC is giving time to Rachel, and Rachel would certainly be my vote for the main interview.  Just pointing out what the "get" might look like from inside the MSNBC machine. 

[possibilities]

Rachel has the highest ratings. Of course Hillary wants to be seen by the largest audience. She's there for herself, not to prop up another person's show.

I happen to think Rachel's show is one of the better ones, but she's also not the hardest interviewer for this kind of thing. Rachel has a tendency to be very polite and almost self-deprecating during interviews, deferring to her guests as experts who are helping her understand things, rather than treating them as witnesses who need to be held accountable like Ari does, or someone like LOD who delights in mocking people at times.

[jjj]

1 hour ago, possibilities said:

Rachel has the highest ratings. Of course Hillary wants to be seen by the largest audience. She's there for herself, not to prop up another person's show.
Rachel has a tendency to be very polite and almost self-deprecating during interviews, deferring to her guests as experts who are helping her understand things, rather than treating them as witnesses who need to be held accountable like Ari does, or someone like LOD who delights in mocking people at times.

This is very true -- but part of it comes from the fact that Rachel does not need to prove she is the smartest person in the room.  Because she knows she is, and she knows that we know.  But LOD and Chris Todd often play the game of "gotcha!" or one-ups-manship to show the audience that they are more clever or more smart.  If Rachel plays "gotcha," as she has done a few times, it is because she truly has found some inconsistency, not because she is trying to prove her own smarts.  And you are right that HRC chose Rachel's show for the interview because it will get the best ratings. 

[Keepitmoving]

48 minutes ago, jjj said:

This is very true -- but part of it comes from the fact that Rachel does not need to prove she is the smartest person in the room.  Because she knows she is, and she knows that we know.  But LOD and Chris Todd often play the game of "gotcha!" or one-ups-manship to show the audience that they are more clever or more smart.  If Rachel plays "gotcha," as she has done a few times, it is because she truly has found some inconsistency, not because she is trying to prove her own smarts.  And you are right that HRC chose Rachel's show for the interview because it will get the best ratings. 

 

Not only the points you make which I agree with, but Rachel runs her show as if she were a professor, that's how it comes off to me as a viewer. She has said as much in countless interviews that she is trying to give new information, that she wants viewers to learn something from watching. So yes, when people come on her show she does try to move out of the way, and not do most of the talking. She lets them present their expertise. If she thinks that something is wrong, or that she misunderstands them, then she cuts in to clarify, which is holding them accountable IMO. But to Rachel's credit, she has been critical of her own questioning skills and the need for improvement. She said that Chris Matthews was good, because he pretty much badgers his guest into blurting out shit that they don't want to. When she said that, I was like OK, I kinda agree, except Matthews then proceeds to interrupt so much it gives me a headache. I'm like damn, can he/she finish the sentence! But see, I realized that he doesn't want them to finish the sentence, he knows what sound bite he's looking for and if he doesn't get it in a matter of seconds he cuts them the hell off LOL. It's frustrating and funny in the same breath, he's definitely a SNL skit.

Anyway, I digress, Hillary is making the rounds, she's selling her book. Therefore she's showing up at what she and her people consider the most popular, highly rated moderate to liberal leaning talk shows she can show up on. I believe she was on the "View" today and I saw a clip of her showing up on the Today Show as well pimping her book. It's all as simple as that IMO.

Anyway, I can't wait till her interview with Rachel, I hope she takes up most of the hour. Hillary will never bug me, sorry, not sorry.

Edited September 13, 2017 by Keepitmoving

[possibilities]

Ha! I never thought of Chris Matthews that way. I might watch him again sometime, to see if that filter makes the chaos more bearable.

I love Rachel's professorial approach and that her show doesn't just repeat what everyone else is saying, and that she doesn't waste time with people arguing pro and anti on some talking point. She lays out a bunch of facts and tries to substantiate her story, and I find that much more worthwhile than the shouting matches of most other hours, so my comments about her not being a tough interview were not meant as criticism. There's a place for grilling people, but lots of shows do that. I appreciate a chance to hear someone deliver some expertise without it being an exercise in combat. She chooses guests for their professorial qualities, most of the time.

[ScoobieDoobs]

You worry me, Rach.  When she made the "connection" that maybe the Congressional committees were "blocking" access for Mueller, I was extremely skeptical of what she was basing this rather large accusation on.  I was so glad Senator Warner shot Rach's 'theory" down very quickly.  He shot it down nicely, but he shot it down nevertheless.  Good.  Please be careful about making accusations, Rach.  I really don't want you to be accused of spreading fake news.

Hate to admit it, but I am kinda looking forward to Rach's interview with Hillary tomorrow.  The Hillary interview with AC was good, if short.  I hope you were watching it, Rach, so you don't repeat what he asked.  Hillary has a real tendency to repeat her shticks.  I'm hearing everywhere, her saying how she took a lot of walks in the woods & cleaned her closets.  I've no doubt Rach will probe further to get more outta her than that.  Hillary seems more relaxed than ever, so it could be a good interview.  And if it inspires a Trump tweet (or 2 or 3), as well as gets good ratings, she'll have done well.

Edited September 14, 2017 by ScoobieDoobs

[Keepitmoving]

Well I for one did not buy Warner's response at all. He's a democrat and he does not get the final say on whether the transcripts are sent over to Mueller. I inferred from his answer that he was trying to say that they may have to have Manafort testify again and would like to wait until then before handing over the transcripts. Yeah right *eye roll.*

Well guess what? This tax paper couldn't care less about the shady investigations in congress. I care about the special counsel investigation Mr. Warner, and so do you. He was just trying not to ruffle feathers with the guy from the other party who runs this committee. 

Edited September 14, 2017 by Keepitmoving

[navelgazer]

I wondered who Rachel thought she was was talking to when she said something to the effect to Sen. Warner about him not doing very much television.  I was like WTF?  Seems to me like Warner is on some show or another nearly every goddamn day. 

[ScoobieDoobs]

50 minutes ago, Keepitmoving said:

Well I for one did not buy Warner's response at all. He's a democrat and he does not get the final say on whether the transcripts are sent over to Mueller. I inferred from his answer that he was trying to say that they may have to have Manafort testify again and would like to wait until then before handing over the transcripts. Yeah right *eye roll.*

Well guess what? This tax paper couldn't care less about the shady investigations in congress. I care about the special counsel investigation Mr. Warner, and so do you. He was just trying not to ruffle feathers with the guy from the other party who runs this committee. 

You could be right.  Or maybe Warner knows something he can't say.  I believed him when he said of the many, many disturbing things Rach discussed previously, this ranked very low.  I was more bothered by Rach making such a large accusation -- based on not much.  So Rach thinks Mueller is being "blocked" cuz he asked for the testimony of Manafort & Trump Jr. & hasn't gotten it yet?  Really, Rach?  I think she was reaching on this one.  Let's wait a bit, Rach, before making claims that Mueller's investigation is being "blocked".

[Keepitmoving]

I don't see Rachel questioning the delay as jumping the gun at all. I don't think she should wait to ask the question and get confirmation on the matter,  which is what she was doing last night. The questioning was based on what she considers to be a reliable source in that I believe she was quoting from an article (forgot the name if newspaper). I don't trust what's going on now a days with these folks in power on all sides. They all need be kept on their toes,eyed and questioned constantly within an inch of their lives. And I'm thankful she tries to stay steps ahead of them in her questioning.

She often uses terms like "there may be...". "So and so could be..." Or,"Is so and so trying to..." Then she proceeds to present facts and has experts on to say yes, no, maybe..etc.. None of her reporting, speculations come out of thin air or from a place of wanting to sensationalize the news IMO; it comes from being extremely well informed, curious, vigilant in searching for the truth and a never ending side eye that people in power within our government always deserve IMO.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Keepitmoving

[M. Darcy]

Katy was much nicer than I would have been about the Trump crowds.  I honestly was scared that she was going to be hurt during the campaign (as was apparently the Secret Service).

[ahisma]

46 minutes ago, M. Darcy said:

Katy was much nicer than I would have been about the Trump crowds.  I honestly was scared that she was going to be hurt during the campaign (as was apparently the Secret Service).

Katy has ovaries of steel to persist through all that! It was terrifying just hearing about it.

[attica]

1 hour ago, M. Darcy said:

Katy was much nicer than I would have been about the Trump crowds. 

She actually annoyed me, by repeating the 'poor misunderstood Orange Grabber supporter' trope. If it was a strategy as attempt to avoid alienating them, it will not succeed (they already hate her, either for having lady parts or for no reason at all). If it was strategy to make her look like a 'both sides-er' to her bosses or the Very Serious People, screw them. If it's a view sincerely held, well, pox on her, too.  She oughta know better.

[jjj]

5 hours ago, M. Darcy said:

Katy was much nicer than I would have been about the Trump crowds.  I honestly was scared that she was going to be hurt during the campaign (as was apparently the Secret Service).

I'm still scared for her.  It was pretty clear (to me) that with her limited time on Rachel's show, she wanted to focus on angle that was fresh -- or maybe it was suggested to her that talking about the mindset of the crowds would be the angle Rachel would want to explore briefly.  Understanding the crowd mentality is not the same as empathy or sympathy, and I thought she was trying to explain "here's their point of view".  I did find her comments about Trump unleashing the beast of viciousness to be very striking -- along with her observation that in daily life, these same people would not be calling her "kill the b-word", or "c-word" -- but I think a few of them would. 

[ButterQueen]

I loved Rachel's interview with Hillary Clinton.  I have so much respect for both women. 

Katy's book arrived at my house yesterday.  My husband and I both look forward to reading it.

On 9/13/2017 at 8:16 PM, possibilities said:

Ha! I never thought of Chris Matthews that way. I might watch him again sometime, to see if that filter makes the chaos more bearable.

I loved when Chris Matthews said he wakes up every single morning, and shakes his head in disbelief that Donald Trump was elected president.  I do the same Chris.  ??

[M. Darcy]

HRC got the full hour!  I can't remember that ever happened.  That was really great.  An hour discussion by two very very smart women. 

[Keepitmoving]

46 minutes ago, M. Darcy said:

HRC got the full hour!  I can't remember that ever happened.  That was really great.  An hour discussion by two very very smart women. 

I loved the interview and I knew Rachel would do it in a way where she wouldn't get dragged into the splits within the democratic party over election 2016. Because every other reporter/interviewer focused on that, and what she is or is not doing to the sorry ass democratic party *eye roll.* They acted like that was the only thing covered in her book. I knew Rachel wouldn't go into that and I'm thankful because I think you have an extremely smart woman who has lived and is a walking history book, so why not focus more on her political expertise. She is a First and deserves to be deferred to because of her place/role in history.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Keepitmoving

[teddysmom]

My sister and I were texting during the interview how eloquent Hillary was, I said she is unmatched in her knowledge of foreign policy.

Everything people who know her personally say is true, she is briliant, charming, funny and someone I'd love to know. 

Loved how she went after Comey and Facebook. And that it's not politics re Russia, it's having a foreign country work to change our election. And one of the candidates help them. 

The fuckers are over there laughing that "they stole the American presidency". And yet everyone is still "they didn't change the election results".

The fuck they didn't. 

[Quilt Fairy]

51 minutes ago, Keepitmoving said:

so why not focus more on her political expertise.

And cute Pandas!

Great interview. I loved it.

[TexasGal]

46 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

And cute Pandas!

Great interview. I loved it.

I loved hearing HRC laughing during the panda clip.  Sigh.  I understand why she was guarded during the campaign but I wish more people could have seen her like that before the election.

[taanja]

That was a great interview! Rachel asked questions and let Hillary answer them! Kudos to them both. I was on the edge of my seat. Two smart, witty, and professional woman are like a breath of fresh air!

[Galloway Cave]

I was really glad Rachel stayed away (for the most part) from talking about Hillary's book and instead got her take on the various issues that would be happening no matter who would have been elected, like NK and the Russian Infiltration of the election. Hil didn't even have to gather her thoughts on how she would handle those issues; she had thoughtful, forceful and clearly stated plans that didn't require the country to worry on a day to day basis. Even the gossipy bits were great (Comey etc.) and Hil showed grace in those answers. I told my mom after the show it gave a glimpse of how we could be living right now- people of all colors, nationalities and orientation could be waking up each day with less fear and confussion, I would have a lot more free time because I wouldn't be watching MSNBC so much and Rachel may not be #1 because there wouldn't be a need to get the full correct story on the 385 stories that broke that day.

[kassygreene]

I started with the thought:  "How nice it is to hear a politician think and speak in complete, well thought out, structured sentences."

Then I thought: "How nice it is to hear a politican think and speak in complete, well thought out, structured paragraphs."

And then I laughed my ass off at the panda clip, and thought: "How decent of TRMS to replay it a few times, since we don't have a DVR."

And then I thought: "How freaking wonderful it is to listen to a politician think and speak answers to questions in complete, well thought out, structured pages."

And then I thought many many curse words to the media, the do-nothings on the other side of the aisle, and that thug-slug in Moscow.

Good show, and compared to the other interviews HRC has been doing, it is indeed the fabulous get that Rachel originally announced it as.

[Cyranetta]

So agree with kassygreene about appreciating the well thought out and well structure language.

What  I most appreciated (besides having the entire hour devoted to their discussion) was that Rachel drew from her opinions and explanations based on her actual expertise as a former Secretary of State, and to a certain extent, Senator. That's a far more substantive kind of discussion that rehashing the election like other interviewers have done and will do.