Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
AmandaPanda

All Episodes Discussion: 2017 Season

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

She took a swipe at Stephen Colbert tonight.  I guess the storm of criticism bothered her more than she let on.

She's getting all dramatic again about all these revelations pending tomorrow, and I am sensing the girl who cried wolf.  Trust level is not high.

What was the Colbert swipe? I've been multi-tasking with Maddow as background noise. 

Share this post


Link to post

20 minutes ago, General Days said:

What was the Colbert swipe? I've been multi-tasking with Maddow as background noise. 

She was going to try to pronounce the name of a Russian location, but said she'd better not or Stephen Colbert would make fun of her again.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

To you, that is a swipe. To me, it is an acknowledgment. Rachel is the real deal. So she tweeted about her (then) upcoming episode. So what? I don't see how it matters, except to liberals/progressives (and I am one) who want to eat their own.

  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sure that she's a little bummed about the mixed reviews of Monday's show, but she and Colbert have a relationship. I really doubt that Colbert would go to the point of genuinely insulting Rachel, and she certainly seems to have enough of a sense of humor about herself to take it. I didn't think it was a swipe as much as an ironic "touche" of sorts. In the greater scheme of things, she might even see the entire episode as a bit of a win. She got over 4 million viewers and, for those that aren't regular viewers and/or political junkies, the context, especially about the Russian oligarchs, may have been welcome.

I do wonder about the choice to go on air, etc. Johnston, after all, was the one who received the returns, which he also disseminated on The Daily Beast. It is possible that he oversold the story and MSNBC/Rachel erred in building up the pre-show hype.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

OK, thanks.  I'm still fuzzy on usage of the word.

 

petard |pəˈtärd| noun historical: a small bomb made of a metal or wooden box filled with powder, used to blast down a door or to make a hole in a wall.• a kind of firework that explodes with a sharp report.

PHRASES:  hoist with (or by) one's own petard - have one's plans to cause trouble for others backfire on one.[from Shakespeare's Hamlet ( iii. iv. 207); hoist is in the sense ‘lifted and removed,’ past participle of dialect hoise (see hoist) .]

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, meowmommy said:

She was going to try to pronounce the name of a Russian location, but said she'd better not or Stephen Colbert would make fun of her again.

The Colbert piece was hysterical.  He MUST watch her because he used her mannerisms to a tee!  Even stacking the papers the way she does.  Actually it was so close to the real Rachel that she should view it as a compliment.  He even wore her uniform - black on black - LOL!

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Quote

Yep.  I think Rachel took the Colbert bit as a compliment.

Me too.  This was her response on twitter "OH MY GOD HOW DOES HE KNOW I HAD A PET CHICKEN." 

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Except for the Twitter teases, not to mention the giant box over the right side of the screen with the countdown clock during Chris Hayes's show.

Two tweets, one specifically to tamp down expectations, doesn't strike me as particularly hype-y. The countdown clock? Well, that probably was the doing of the suits, who for years have been watching Fox and Drudge put up flashing red lights for all of their 'scoops' and deciding to do a thing that works to pull in viewers. I don't think there's a network person alive or dead who feels the least bit bad when a viewer says "You tricked me into watching you and then failed to meet my expectations!" 

I'm eager to see the return of that Caplin kid; that was interesting. I hope his babysitter's on board.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

No. There's is no petard for me. There is for you, and that's your petarding prerogative. You saw her as teasing something "yuge." I didn't see her as acting like the cat who ate the canary. I saw her as wonky Rachel, setting up everything in a wonky and detailed way, like she always does.

I know a lot of people were disappointed. I just don't think this was different from what she frequently does. It's her usual schtick of big long set up and. "I'm gonna tell you this long story and will eventually get to my real point. Then, we'll go from there." 

I'm with you, I certainly didn't expect that they'd be hauling Trump off to jail because Rachel got her hands on his tax returns. If anything there'd just be more investigation, as if anyone in the gov't is really investigating. I'll believe that when I see results.  But just getting her hands on any of his tax returns was news in itself for Rachel because she and all of the responsible journalists which have been few IMO, have been calling for them. Just because I didn't get what I mostly want which is his ass impeached, doesn't mean she nor MSNBC promised me that just because they were all hyped up and promoting that they had got their hands on a copy of his tax returns. That wasn't promised to me even though that would have been real news, because I want his head on a platter. That's what I was hoping or trying to read into it, but that was certainly not what the advertising purposely led me to believe. The advertising was NEVER that there was a bombshell coming up on Rachel Maddow as she's got her hands on a copy of Trump's taxes, nope, that wasn't advertised. She's not a tax specialist, so she waited to have that Johnston guy on to review them with her and they just presented the facts about those two pages. Then the following day, her follow up on the story ended with her saying that nothing disastrous came out of them releasing those two pages so where's the rest? What's the problem White House? Why not release the rest? If the rest are on the up and up like the 2005 which by the way was missing pages, then release decades of them just like other presidents have done. Why not release taxes from years unlike 2005 where his taxes had to be on the up and up because he was taking his then "illegal" wife, since they like calling other brown  people illegal, to get her citizenship papers and presenting perfect tax returns was a must that year in order for her to get her citizenship papers.  Apparently, you have to bring at least three years of tax returns if you are married and want to apply for citizenship and obvious there better not be any shady shit going on with them, they better be pretty pristine. So of course his 2005 tax returns look good.  This was all pointed out in her follow  up to this story.  So, where are the rest? Because this citizen is one of those citizens Rachel was referring to when she said we are interested, we want to know. I want to know and will continue to want to know. 

Thank you Rachel, keep it up.

Edited by Keepitmoving
  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post

Just saw a clip where Steve Doocy (on Faux & Fiends) wondered if perhaps Rachel herself stole the two pages of returns.  Man o' man, these guys have no shame.

If #45 wasn't in so much hot twitter water, he'd be tweeting @ 3am in the morning that he got it from a good source that Maddow stole the return she displayed on her show.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Evagirl said:

tweeting @ 3am in the morning

Just a personal pet peeve, but when other than 'in the morning' does 3 AM occur?  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

So Rachel does great in-depth reporting on Russian hacking of the Clinton campaign.

And what will become of it?  Nothing.  It will fall on deaf ears.  The republicans will do nothing.  It's not in their interest.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I always thought of her as a fearless journalist.

One that valued content over being afraid of mispronouncing a few foreign names?

Nothing beats a win, but a try?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel was not the only journalist who did in-depth reporting on Russian hacking of the Clinton campaign.  She is not the Mother Teresa of journalism.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Ohwell said:

Rachel was not the only journalist who did in-depth reporting on Russian hacking of the Clinton campaign.  She is not the Mother Teresa of journalism.

 

No, she isn't, but Rachel and her staff have connected the dots in ways other news venues have not. Not to mention her show has been relentless about Trump and Russia, devoting almost entire shows to the topic, and that's something few reporters can claim. If Trump is complicit in Russia's attacks on the United States then Rachel's dogged reporting is extremely notable, is worth praising, and I hope people pay attention.

  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post

My takeaway from this week's tax ep is Rach won.  And she won big.  She got her highest ratings ever, and she beat Fox's ratings by a mile.  OK, so the story turned out to be mostly nothing.  But it proves something.  The interest in his taxes is real -- despite his & Spicer's & Smellyanne's denials.  This proves people wanna see those damn taxes.

I hope her enormous ratings this week aren't merely a one time blip & she continues to not just have good ratings, but really beat out Fox consistently.

As far as the Russia story goes?  She keeps asking the right questions & pointing out what doesn't make sense, and she's not letting up on Flynn.  Is she being overly dramatic on what's going now with the Senate Intel committee?  No, but it may go nowhere & could lead to nothing.  I still like that she's pushing the questions & probing what makes no sense, and she keeps pointing out what looks really strange & has NEVER happened before.

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post

5 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

My takeaway from this week's tax ep is Rach won.  And she won big.  She got her highest ratings ever, and she beat Fox's ratings by a mile.  OK, so the story turned out to be mostly nothing.  But it proves something.  The interest in his taxes is real -- despite his & Spicer's & Smellyanne's denials.  This proves people wanna see those damn taxes.

One great thing I saw on Twitter was someone tweeted at the time of the show something like “If people don’t care about Trump’s taxes how come I’m in a bar that went silent and turned up the TVs for this broadcast?”

  • Like 20

Share this post


Link to post
On March 11, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Calvada said:

About Andrea asking Tillerson questions when clearly they have been instructed NOT to do so, it's humorous to hear the agonized "Andrea.  Please.  Andrea." out of the State staffers.  It's sort of a combination of embarrassment at what they have become and "please don't make me look bad in front of the new bosses."  However, I can't help but think for Andrea, in addition to wanting to be a good journalist, there's also an internal voice wondering, "Don't they know who I am??  I'm Andrea Mitchell for chrissakes!"

I get your thinking. Still, it is good to have this balance of "power" with the press, I think. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Wow, Rach has a lot to go on about tonite.  Great questions from Dems at the Comey hearing.  It's like they were watching Rach EVERY nite for the past month.  Just surprised nobody said "Russian fertilizer king" outright -- or mentioned Trump's failed vagina building in Azerbaijan or bullshitter Ivanka's bragging tweet on it.

Well, Adam Schiff is on either her show or All In just about every night.  Wouldn't be surprised to see him tonight.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm pretty sure Rachel (but most likely Chris Hayes) will be preempted tonight while MSNBC covers trump's campaign rally in Louisville live tonight.

Hell, they've already got Kristen Welker reporting from there live this afternoon.  :(

Edited by stormy

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/16/2017 at 2:20 PM, ScoobieDoobs said:

Hey, if she did get played, it was a clever move by him.  Look, I get the impression Rach is eager to break stories.  But she's not in that position.  She's a pundit -- sitting there trying to connect the dots every nite, in her unique hand-waving, eye-rolling, super-snarky way.  But she ain't ever especially breaking stories. 

I get the impression she envies the investigative reporters she has on who actually are getting scoops.  If anything, this episode shows she's not great at handling the breaking of a big story.  And this wasn't even a big story.  

But that's the thing about Rachel.  She over-dramatizes everything.  That's her shtick.  It's up to the viewers to decide if anything (or everything) she says is worth being concerned about.  That is, if they aren't too distracted or annoyed by her non-stop eye-rolling & hand-waving & snarkiness.  It's only lately that I've been hooked on her.  And it's only because of Trump & his lunacy.  I've always found Rachel''s shtick extremely annoying & couldn't stand watching her for more than a few minutes.

Idk that ANY of the other pundits on MSNBC would have teased out an actual scoop the way Rachel did.  Nope, only she'd do that.  Bottom line is her ratings are excellent now & she's beating Fox  Just hope, in her eagerness to break stories, she doesn't let herself become a messenger for Trump.  Cuz then I'd stop watching her for sure.

I disagree so much with this.  She has discussed Russian connections to Trump that no one else has.  And I love her style.  It beats Chris Matthews interrupting his guests every 20 seconds with his mouth full of spit, or Chris Hayes who talks 100 miles an hour and lets his guests ramble on too long.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

On ‎3‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 3:42 AM, nowandlater said:

She also overhyped it by waiting nearly half an hour to get to the point. The more she dragged it out, the more she was saying "I've got nothing." She would never, never ever do this on another episode.

Rachel made the John Oliver show last night.  I love Rachel, but this was seriously funny. She's at the :50 second mark.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel just cited Reuters: Tillerson is skipping Brussels NATO meeting in a couple weeks so as to be here when the Chinese president visits the US. After that, Tillerson will travel to Russia.

Priorities.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Well, Adam Schiff is on either her show or All In just about every night.  Wouldn't be surprised to see him tonight.

I win.

Geez, it's not bad enough that Chris Hayes has been pimping his book on his own show every night for weeks, now he's gotta take ten minutes out of TRMS on a huge news night?  I FFd right past it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

As our favorite fictional president Jeb Bartlett once said, "if they're shooting at you, you must be doing something right". 

I get the feeling a lot of the rage from fellow media folk over the tax return show was more that she got them, but it was hidden in "it took her 20 minutes to finally show them".

If you stick with it, she puts what she's going to talk about in perspective of the bigger historical picture.   

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Jeez Louise, why is Rach so cozy cozy cozy with that Slate reporter, Molly something?  Is she maybe a side piece of yours, Rach?  That woman NEVER adds anything when you have her on -- uh, so why have her on, Rach?

Fascinating stuff about Twitter bots.  I've not seen this discussed anywhere else.

Andrea Mitchell is a "barnacle" for Tillerson?  Hee, hee, well put, Rach!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

8 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Jeez Louise, why is Rach so cozy cozy cozy with that Slate reporter, Molly something?  Is she maybe a side piece of yours, Rach?  That woman NEVER adds anything when you have her on -- uh, so why have her on, Rach?

Fascinating stuff about Twitter bots.  I've not seen this discussed anywhere else.

Andrea Mitchell is a "barnacle" for Tillerson?  Hee, hee, well put, Rach!

Would you say that about a male host?  For Christ's sake!!!

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Medicine Crow said:

Would you say that about a male host?  For Christ's sake!!!

Absolutely!  She acts kinda odd when that woman is on.  She always has such excellent reporters on, but still say that woman never seems to add much.

Edited by ScoobieDoobs

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Absolutely!  She acts kinda odd when that woman is on.  She always has such excellent reporters on, but still say that woman never seems to add much.

She doesn't act odd around that woman to me. In one interview a while back with this same woman, she disagreed with Rachel and I can't remember the subject matter, but I remember her sounding apologetic for disagreeing with Rachel. Rachel then proceeded to tell her not to be sorry, that, that is why she had her on, to state her case, not to just agree with her.  All I saw was geeky yet cool Rachel, which is how she is with all of her guests IMO. How we even get to the "side piece" stuff is beyond me.

Oh I remember, it was also on the this SC nominee, she was pointing out to Rachel not to overdo it with the outrage at even giving this guy a hearing. Or, not over doing it with reactions to some of things that were coming out about him. She said something about his hearing being a good civics lesson for the public, something to that effect, and we should let it play out. So that's why this time around Rachel said something about her being good at bringing Rachel down when she gets too high on her soap box.

Edited by Keepitmoving
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

OK, OK, I'll watch her again.  But every time this woman is on, Rach gets sooooo icky sweet with her.  To me, it's weird and kinda nauseating.  The other reporter Rach had on, she was really good & professional with.  This Molly lady, she was all smiles & quivering & laughter & it was so distracting I didn't know what they were talking about.  If she is a highly knowledgeable & great reporter, she doesn't especially show it so well on TV -- at least that I've seen.  Just my opinion tho.  As far as the silly side piece comment goes, well, there is Mika & Joe -- and it was my attempt to NOT add to the impression the other side already has that liberals have zero sense of humor.  Sorry for going overboard, if it was offensive.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I wish Rachel would further explain why she thinks the Dems shouldn't even be in the room for the Gorsuch hearings. Would that matter? Since they're in the minority, they can't block the hearing, right? So they might as well be in there to ask hard questions? But if any Dem votes for Gorsuch, I will give money and support to his or her primary opponent during the next election.

Listening to yesterday's show, I found it weird that the guy who gave away our nuclear secrets to Russia only got 14 years in prison. Really? I would think that would constitute treason of the highest order and would result in a death sentence.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

11 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Jeez Louise, why is Rach so cozy cozy cozy with that Slate reporter, Molly something?  Is she maybe a side piece of yours, Rach?  That woman NEVER adds anything when you have her on -- uh, so why have her on, Rach?

Fascinating stuff about Twitter bots.  I've not seen this discussed anywhere else.

Andrea Mitchell is a "barnacle" for Tillerson?  Hee, hee, well put, Rach!

"A side piece"........how offensive.  

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

I found the discussion of the history of SCOTUS nominees somewhat disingenuous, as if Rachel was saying, how terrible is it that SCOTUS has been politicized, as if it had just been invented.  True, there had been nominees who were rejected for sheer incompetence (Haynesworth and Carswell coming to mind, which led to one of my all time favorite quotes*), but IMO, the true politicization of the advise and consent process came with the nomination of Robert Bork.  Nobody doubted he had a fine legal mind, but his conservative record, and most critically, his action as Solicitor General in being that guy who fired Archibald Cox after Richardson and Ruckelshaus refused, damned him eternally with the Democratic majority and he went down in flames.  It came to be known as being "Borked."  Every nominee after that has been bear bait, depending on which side of the aisle you occupy.  And of course Earl Warren is the classic example of you-can't-predict-a-SCOTUS-career-based-on-prior-history.

* Nebraska Senator Roman Hruska, on the nomination of Carswell:  "So what if he is mediocre?  There are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers.  They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they?  We can't have all Brandeises, Cardozos, and Frankfurters and stuff like that there."

Edited by meowmommy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Absolutely!  She acts kinda odd when that woman is on.  She always has such excellent reporters on, but still say that woman never seems to add much.

 

21 hours ago, attica said:

Are you talking about Dahlia Lithwick? One of the best SCOTUS reporters on earth? 

I'm echoing Attica here, ScoobieDoobs. Are you talking about Dahlia Lithwick? [Link]. During her appearance on TRMS last night, she was wearing glasses, which she isn't in that link. Otherwise, I don't know who you're talking about.

I'm not sure how much the rules here differ from those at TWoP, so dear mods, please know I'm not trying to cause trouble; it just seems there is a little more latitude, which is why I'm adding that I found the earlier "side piece" comment unnecessarily offensive. In my opinion, there are other ways to critique Rachel, her guests, and the presentation of same, without going there. 

Edited by General Days
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Calling someone a "sidepiece" can definitely be considered offensive, but does not cross the line into hostile or slanderous. You all have been having a civil conversation and explaining your differing views on the interview with Dahlia. The only posts that have been hidden are ones that did cross the line into uncivil or were off-topic from the content of the show. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I can understand why Rachel can be annoyed at Dems participation in the Gorsuch hearings but at least with them there they can question G and show everyone his extreme views so it's not a complete tongue bath.  Maybe they'll even change someone's mind.  I wish Rachel had thought of that. 

I had no idea about the twitter bots.  I guess maybe it didn't affect retweets as I'm sure I did that during the election, and I don't recall getting hit with trump trash 

i hope the FBI watches Rachel, she gets good info.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

I had no idea about the twitter bots.  I guess maybe it didn't affect retweets as I'm sure I did that during the election, and I don't recall getting hit with trump trash.

The social media gaming mostly affected Bernie Sanders Facebook groups. Rachel has mentioned this Huffington Post piece twice on her show, now, which does do a really good job of explaining how foreign agents were flooding Bernie fans with fake news to discourage them from turning out to vote for Hillary:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-fake-news-russia_us_58c34d97e4b0ed71826cdb36

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, strong show tonite, Rach.  Please, please, please stay all over Manafort.  His casual denials of doing anything political for Putin are bugging the absolute hell outta me.

I also liked the way she was all over Nunes & what Schiff last said about there being something (finally) NOT circumstantial tying Trump to Russia.  Was she overdramatizing what Schiff said?  Maybe, but I'm glad she picked up on it.

Just wish she had spent more time with the AP reporter who broke the Manafort story.  

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Wow, strong show tonite, Rach.  Please, please, please stay all over Manafort.  His casual denials of doing anything political for Putin are bugging the absolute hell outta me.

I also liked the way she was all over Nunes & what Schiff last said about there being something (finally) NOT circumstantial tying Trump to Russia.  Was she overdramatizing what Schiff said?  Maybe, but I'm glad she picked up on it.

Just wish she had spent more time with the AP reporter who broke the Manafort story.  

Her show is riveting, and I hope the FBI is watching.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

She said something quick last nite I thought was really interesting.  She said she was one of the few in media who didn't go crazy over Trump's tweet about being tapped.  She didn't state why exactly.  But she said she has been asking how we know about what Flynn said to the Russian ambassador.  Yeah, it was from a leak.  But what Rach meant is -- was Flynn himself under surveillance?  Was Flynn tapped incidentally because of speaking to the ambassador -- or was Intel tapping him anyway?

What I'm getting from Rach, even tho she didn't say it outright, is she suspects Trump & his staff may well have been (and continues to be) under surveillance by Intel.  So maybe Rach suspects his tweet wasn't completely wrong about being tapped.  But of course, the part about Bam ordering it is false.

What I'm surprised at is she's not implying what an idiot he was for spotlighting being under surveillance by Intel, because it means there is some sinister reason for them to justify doing it in the first place.

Rach may be cool as a cucumber talking about the healthcare stuff, but it all makes me nervous as hell.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel is like Trump.  She knows stuff even the intelligence agencies don't know.  

Edited by Ohwell

Share this post


Link to post

LOL, this is terrifying and this, this media, with Rachel and a few other exceptions, is why I blame you. From the time Paul Manafort appeared on the scene I was posting, that if he doesn't look like he's straight out of central casting for the movie  Goodfellas, then I don't know who does.  And this is not by any means the first time Rachel has put him on blast because I definitely remember her way back during election season showing that ledger with his name and the payments that were made to him. Meanwhile, I had to watch Chris freaking Matthews refer to him as a good man. I was like are you fucking kidding me Matthews? Really? Where was the rest of the media showing this ledger and following up on these ties? They were nowhere, only Rachel was covering it and of course the newspapers/investigative reporters like Kurt Eichenwald. But the television media dropped the ball. 

Edited by Keepitmoving
  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

I spent most of election season loathing Rachel because of her over-the-top partisanship in favor of HRC.  I am truly amazed that Senator Sanders still agrees to sit down and talk to her given how badly she slanted her coverage of him during the Democratic primary.  (Jimmy Dore did a brutal YouTube series on when Rachel allowed "dean of Nevada political reporting" Jon Ralston to lie on her show about the "violence" and "throwing chairs" that didn't happen at the Nevada Democratic Party state convention in Las Vegas.  There was no violence.  There were no chairs thrown.  Yet Rachel let Ralston repeat the bogus story he alone reported on and he wasn't even in the room at the time.  His own reporting was secondhand.  And to add insult to injury, Rachel has never done a Debunktion Junction to acknowledge her error.)

Don't get me wrong, I've been watching with fascination Rachel connecting all of the dots of the Twitler/Russia collusion.  I just wish I knew I could trust Rachel.  Unfortunately I'm still on the fence about her.  I want to believe that she is being so thorough and dogged about Manafort, et. al., because she genuinely believes there's fire under all of this smoke we're seeing, but I suspect she's straining so hard because she's angry that her girl didn't get the White House and Rachel is personally vested in toppling this cabal of criminals now in charge of our government.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Perception is everything, I guess we like who we like, and trust who we trust, because I absolutely loathe Jimmy Dore. I'd like to send him to Russia indefinitely. I thought he was funny a time or two way back when, but now, he's off the charts bitter and seems to be running a campaign on talking about how full of shit people like Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes are over at MSNBC. Basically, he's not far off from Trump in characterizing the likes of Maddow and Hayes and fake news as bitter as he sounds when talking about them, because apparently their SOLE purpose is to do the bidding for the establishment.  When he started to sound that way, yet, I'm not hearing enough on Russia and Trump, no that's not important, I was done. By all means keep your foot up the ass of establishment democrats, but you can sell it elsewhere the idea that Rachel is being overdramatic over Trump and Russia, which is how Dore sounds. Yeah, I can't with him. Does he focus on any of the flaws in the Trump administration at all? Or does he solely focus on HRC and the pathetic democrats? And I agree, they are pathetic, but...let's have some balance.

I take it that Bernie Sanders knows the bottom line, and I personally think Rachel does as well, they're moving on and focusing on the real enemy and what's at stake.

Edited by Keepitmoving
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, it's definitely in the eye of the beholder. I stopped watching Rachel for a while during the primaries because I was sick of hearing her promote Bernie Sanders. He was always on the show even though he was losing BY A LOT. He did well in relation to expectations, but that's because expectations were so low. Before the campaign very few people who are not regular Maddow viewers even knew who Bernie was, despite his having 30 years in the Senate to make his mark. But media, including Rachel, drummed up the idea of a close race. I'll never forget the interview when she asked HRC a question that started, "if you're ahead . . . " and Clinton's exasperated reply was "I AM ahead . . . by MILLIONS of votes." This kind of coverage--with a lot of help from Russia--helped fuel the idea among Berners that they were somehow being cheated out of the nomination.

Edited by Sesquipedalia
  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size