Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2018 Season

formerlyfreedom

By formerlyfreedom
in The Rachel Maddow Show

  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

freddi

freddi

(edited)
8 minutes ago, stormy said:

Actually I think that proclamation should have been signed and out on Sunday. There's no excuse for what has gone on since Senator McCain passed.

Previous White House staffs would have had it out on Saturday, especially ready after the announcement of his imminent death on Friday.  As Rachel said, the decent thing to do. 

This will be a whole sorry chapter in the story of this petty administration.  Rachel does not focus on all the little paper cuts, so when she leads with this, it is highly meaningful. 

Edited by freddi
  • Love 5
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

jjj
jjj

Oh, Rachel.  Our hearts are breaking with yours.  When Rachel Maddow bursts into tears on the show -- well, this is a very new and horrifying era. 

Hanahope
Hanahope

It was such a delight to have full and complete sentences and coherent thoughts.  I weep that Hillary is not our president.

Morrigan2575
Morrigan2575

God dammit! Rachel started crying and now I'm crying. ?

Posted Images

freddi

freddi

(edited)

The opening segment was amazing.  Of course, the transcript reading, and negotiating about a continuance for the next Manafort case was high entertainment.  I could have listened to her reading of the transcript for much longer. 

But then to turn the mood from that "heeeere's entertainment" to the Russian mob and then to Bruce Ohr being the latest in a string of Russian espionage/mob investigators to go before a Congressional committee and then to be maligned -- and (she did not say this next part) about to have his security clearance revoked for political reasons -- well, that was just chilling.

She used to show that long list of departees of the Trump administration.  A few weeks ago, she showed a list of investigators and officials that have been removed from their positions (or given no choice but to resign).  She should bring that list back, with Ohr on it, and help us keep track.  Again, this is totally chilling: intentional and coordinated and effective and frightening.  

Then Kornacki like the comic relief in a Shakespeare play.  Ah, finally a result in Florida! 

Edited by freddi
  • Love 6
ScoobieDoobs

ScoobieDoobs

Thanks, Rach, for pointing out Bruce Ohr's vast experience prosecuting Russian mobsters.  Coinky-dink that Trump & the Trumpers in Congress are now targeting him?  Rachel's stink-eye tonite gave us the answer to that one.

The court transcript readings are always fun, but I'm really digging Rach playing the part of the female judge in the new Manafort trial!

Rach's guest was interesting, if kinda dry.

  • Love 3
Quilt Fairy

Quilt Fairy

(edited)
18 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

The court transcript readings are always fun, but I'm really digging Rach playing the part of the female judge in the new Manafort trial!

This is one time I thought she was over-doing it, to the point of changing the meaning of what was said.   I doubt the judge sounds quite that strident and hysterical IRL.

Edited by Quilt Fairy
  • Love 2
freddi

freddi

(edited)

Can you imagine just doing your job that you do week in and week out, trying to do your job fairly, then one night go home and find Rachel Maddow re-enacting what you had said that day?  

1 hour ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

The court transcript readings are always fun, but I'm really digging Rach playing the part of the female judge in the new Manafort trial!

 

Edited by freddi
  • Love 5
meowmommy

meowmommy

10 hours ago, freddi said:

Can you imagine just doing your job that you do week in and week out, trying to do your job fairly, then one night go home and find Rachel Maddow re-enacting what you had said that day?  

It really makes me wish they had cameras in Federal Court.  This would be more fascinating than the OJ trial!

  • Love 3
freddi

freddi

(edited)

Ari Melber started his show with a clip of Rachel's show from January 25, when McGahn had threatened to resign if Trump fired Mueller.  He included her saying "So, basically, he is the only person standing between us and the abyss."  Oh, and he played more from that same January 25 show, including Rachel and Barbara McQuade (Barb!) talking about this.  

4 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Pssst, Rach, it's time to drag out that backwall of Trumper casualties . . .

Edited by freddi
  • Love 4
freddi

freddi

I was so surprised to see Rachel on the air this evening, and so pleased that I said "It's *Rachel*!" when the show started.  Even though she was extolling the importance of Friday evening broadcasts, she has basically worked one Friday each month this summer.  I think this makes two in August (but there are five Fridays this month!).  

I believe this is the first time Natasha Bertrand has been on Rachel's show (ready to be corrected!), plus the first time Natasha has not worn black since she started appearing on MSNBC.  She has a great black wardrobe.  Most of her time has been on Chris's and Lawrence's shows in the evening, plus some daytime appearances.  I think she has really grown as a commentator over the past eight months or so when she started on the channel.

So, Rachel made it sound like she would be on the air on Monday, but my guess is that it is a pre-taped show on Kavanaugh.  I've been wrong about things like this before, but I'd be surprised if she came in on a holiday for a subject that can be prepared in advance.  

  • Love 3
meowmommy

meowmommy

1 hour ago, freddi said:

I believe this is the first time Natasha Bertrand has been on Rachel's show (ready to be corrected!), plus the first time Natasha has not worn black since she started appearing on MSNBC.  She has a great black wardrobe.  Most of her time has been on Chris's and Lawrence's shows in the evening, plus some daytime appearances. 

Maybe she didn't want to compete with Rachel's basic black.

I've noticed that unlike Chris and Lawrence, Rachel doesn't book a lot of talking heads who are there solely to offer a political opinion.  She loves to have lawyers for their legal perspective and reporters to clarify their reporting, but not many people whose day job is opinion writing, even if they're MSNBC contributors.  

  • Love 6
freddi

freddi

(edited)
5 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Maybe she didn't want to compete with Rachel's basic black.

I've noticed that unlike Chris and Lawrence, Rachel doesn't book a lot of talking heads who are there solely to offer a political opinion.  She loves to have lawyers for their legal perspective and reporters to clarify their reporting, but not many people whose day job is opinion writing, even if they're MSNBC contributors.  

Hah, I also thought maybe she was going for visual contrast to Rachel's basic and perfect charcoal/black outfits!

Rachel has tons and tons of reporters on her show, and Natasha is a reporter, not an opinion writer -- and as Attica said, is continually amazing in her "scoopiness".  She has great sources on at least two continents.  When she first started appearing on MSNBC earlier in 2018, she looked even younger, with hair more than twice as long and with her constantly looking at the air over the host's head.  I assumed that someone helped her learn to present herself more professionally (and looking just as amazing) in a way that matched the professionalism of her writing.  

Edited by freddi
  • Love 6
meowmommy

meowmommy

4 minutes ago, freddi said:

Rachel has tons and tons of reporters on her show, and Natasha is a reporter, not an opinion writer

Absolutely.  I was just making the point that certain people who are regulars on Chris and Lawrence's shows never make it onto Rachel's, because she seems not to want to use her airtime for opinion writers, even if she agrees with their opinions.

  • Love 4
ScoobieDoobs

ScoobieDoobs

(edited)

Joyce!  Where's the rest of the dream team, Rach?  Everyone here knows I mean Chuck & Barb -- ahem, of course!  

Well, was glad to see Rach there cuz everyone else on MSNBC took off.  It looked like Kornacki replaced pretty much the whole MSNBC lineup & I kinda threw up in my mouth a little every time he appeared at the beginning of someone's show.

Rach clearly has great respect for reporters who get the big scoops.  She called the young guy reporter she had on last nite a "scoop monster".  Or was it "scoop machine"?  Anyway, it gave him & me a teeny chuckle.

Edited by ScoobieDoobs
  • Love 3
JakeyJokes

JakeyJokes

3 hours ago, attica said:

I know it's because I'm an old, but I'm continually amazed at the quality and scoopiness of NB's reporting.  Because she looks to me like she's still in middle school! Maybe people spill to her because they underestimate her. They really shouldn't. 

Ooh, good point. It reminded me of a Joan Didion quote I had to go look up:

"The only advantage that I have as a reporter is that I am so physically small, so temperamentally unobtrustive, and so neurotically inarticulate that people tend to forget that my presence runs counter to their best interests. And it always does. That is one last thing to remember: writers are always selling somebody out."

Conversely, the great crime writer (and Joan's brother-in-law) Dominick Dunne enjoyed being the center of attention, but his best sources were often wait staff and others seen as invisible.

In conclusion, I *love* journalism and I am glad Rachel does, too. She is also so good at pointing out when small newspapers break stories and why they are so important.

  • Love 8
freddi

freddi

1 hour ago, stormy said:

Also. Rachel will be on Monday night with a special on Kavanaugh's hearings. John Dean will be testifying against Kavanaugh.

The hearings start on Tuesday,  and I thought she said that the show on Monday is a special report on Kavanaugh -- so, background on Kavanaugh.  That's why I was skeptical above, regarding whether it would be a live versus pre-taped show.  

  • Love 1
freddi

freddi

(edited)
18 minutes ago, stormy said:

Yes. She didn't say If the show was live or taped. Only that she would be covering the upcoming hearings.

She said it was a report on Kavanaugh, not the hearings, and I got the impression it is background.  She did say that as of Tuesday, they will give lots of coverage to the hearings! 

29 minutes ago, car54 said:

I think they have pre-taped shows.   Matthews has one for Monday about John McCain, so I bet Rachel's team put together a show so they can be off on Monday.

Thanks!  They did this on Memorial Day, also, for all the evening shows (pre-taped shows); I did not think it was particularly successful.  It all felt very canned, when there was actual new news from that day.  I do appreciate that production staffs need their holidays.  She did a Memorial Day pre-taped special with Steve Kornacki about elections and majorities, which was repeated on July 4. 

Edited by freddi
meowmommy

meowmommy

Poor John Kerry.  Making the rounds to plug his book when all anyone wants to talk about is the new Woodward book.

And I suspect Rachel would rather come to work in a red dress and a blonde wig than do a version of Oprah's Book Club.  I imagine she would not want to be perceived as having a bias toward any particular guest or author.

  • Love 6
ScoobieDoobs

ScoobieDoobs

10 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Poor John Kerry.  Making the rounds to plug his book when all anyone wants to talk about is the new Woodward book.

And I suspect Rachel would rather come to work in a red dress and a blonde wig than do a version of Oprah's Book Club.  I imagine she would not want to be perceived as having a bias toward any particular guest or author.

Rach, it's enough with guests who say "these are unprecedented times" and "we've never seen this before".  Yawn, yawn, yawn & zzzzzzz.  

Yeah, I guess it's important to have people like Kerry on to provide historical perspective -- and particularly from recently.  But I was so bored with this interview (Rach was so dramatically plugging), I was focusing on Kerry's big hair too.  Book Woodward, Rach!

Good Cavanaugh coverage.  Keep it up, Rach.  But dull interviews, I'll skip.

  • Love 2
Calvada

Calvada

When Rachel was speculating about the anonymous author of the NYT's op-ed, all I could think was please let it turn out to be Ivanka!  The analysis which showed that a couple of words/phrases were those commonly used by Pence - is it part of a coup?  Or was that a deliberate tactic to place suspicion on the VP and/or his staff?  Rachel is right, this is just like the movies!  

  • Love 3
ScoobieDoobs

ScoobieDoobs

Rach, ya gave me some chuckles pinning the op-ed piece on Trump's golf caddie (according to Woodward) Pence.

And yeah, Rach, please come up with another word other than "unprecedented".  It's so over-used now, it bores me silly.  "Amorality" is a new one that I kinda like.  Rach needs to latch onto that one like LOD did tonite.

  • Love 2
Calvada

Calvada

I looked for "Night of Camp David" at my local library - it's not there.  On Amazon, it's available only from private sellers, all at prices more than $100.  Whoever owns the rights to Fletcher Knebel's books is probably hoping Rachel's interest in the book will cause such demand that it will be reprinted. 

Rachel's interest in "The Manchurian Candidate" and "Seven Days in May"  make me wish that Turner Classic would bring her in as a guest programmer. 

  • Love 4
Quilt Fairy

Quilt Fairy

(edited)
4 hours ago, Calvada said:

I looked for "Night of Camp David" at my local library - it's not there.  On Amazon, it's available only from private sellers, all at prices more than $100.  Whoever owns the rights to Fletcher Knebel's books is probably hoping Rachel's interest in the book will cause such demand that it will be reprinted. 

I took a look at my library's website for the book.  My library (in the Chicago suburbs) is in a consortium with several dozen other suburban libraries that I can research and request from.  In total, the consortium has 3 copies and currently 17 (now 18) holds on them.  For a 1965 book.  And they're probably all from tonight's show.  

By the time I get it, who knows where we'll be? 

Edited by Quilt Fairy
  • Love 5
fairffaxx

fairffaxx

20 hours ago, Calvada said:

... Rachel's interest in "The Manchurian Candidate" and "Seven Days in May"  make me wish that Turner Classic would bring her in as a guest programmer. 

My first thought when learning of the NY Times story yesterday was that it must have been written by today's version of General Jack Ripper, Sterling Hayden's character in "Dr Strangelove".  Careful what you wish for, military coup-wise.....

ScoobieDoobs

ScoobieDoobs

(edited)

Sigh, I'm not sure what to make of Rach seeming so hopeful that the Cavanaugh confirmation will fall apart.  Is it me or did it seem like she's sure it's gonna fall apart?  Idk, Rach, I'm kinda glad you're being so optimistic.  But I'm a realist & think this is a done deal.  Dems don't have the votes & that's the end of the story to me.  Hope you're right, Rach. 

It was nice to have Kamala on, but the interview didn't give me any indication anything is gonna change.  November 6th can't come fast enough for me . . .

Edited by ScoobieDoobs
  • Love 3
izabella

izabella

(edited)

It could fall apart fall apart if there are documents that show Kavanaugh is lying to Congress about his conversations, maybe a stray email or two.

But, I'm with you.  I think the GOP votes are set..  Rachel is being optimistic.  It's a good reminder, though, that this is what hearings are for and how they're supposed to work - informing the Senate's vote.

Edited by izabella
  • Love 5
Galloway Cave

Galloway Cave

25 minutes ago, M. Darcy said:

10 years! 

My vote is for a new deep purple blazer. In those older clips, she looked like she was wearing her dad's coats! They were hanging off of her. I am also a newer-ish viewer and didn't realize she used to be so goofy during her show. Can't wait for our world to settle down so she can go back to that.

  • Love 3
Hooper

Hooper

Quote

But, I'm with you.  I think the GOP votes are set..  Rachel is being optimistic.  It's a good reminder, though, that this is what hearings are for and how they're supposed to work - informing the Senate's vote.

And informing constituents on what their senator voted for.   I thought Rachel was being weirdly (desperately?) hopeful that a Murkowski and Collins would break with Republican marching orders.   Rachel did point out an interesting little twist in the Booker/Hirono document release - that Hirono specifically mentioned the implications of Kavanaugh's opinion on the validity of programs that target native Hawaiians for programs that target native Alaskans.  Heh.  I think that we can safely assume that reference to programs that benefit native Alaskans was intended for one specific colleague of Hirono's, and Rachel's show is the only place I'd seen or heard that mentioned.  But while I think targeting Murkowski and Collins is as good a tactic as the Dems have, it ain't gonna work.  All Kav has to do is tell the lady senators that oh, no, of course he isn't considering repealing Roe V Wade, and now Murkowski and Collins can safely vote for him while pretending that they would never vote for someone who would undermine a woman's right to choose not be an incubator against her will.  Then, when Kav does exactly that, they can be shocked! SHOCKED, I say! that their boy didn't keep his word.  Not their fault, and not their  problem.

  • Love 6
Susie Diamond

Susie Diamond

3 hours ago, Hooper said:

And informing constituents on what their senator voted for.   I thought Rachel was being weirdly (desperately?) hopeful that a Murkowski and Collins would break with Republican marching orders.   Rachel did point out an interesting little twist in the Booker/Hirono document release - that Hirono specifically mentioned the implications of Kavanaugh's opinion on the validity of programs that target native Hawaiians for programs that target native Alaskans.  Heh.  I think that we can safely assume that reference to programs that benefit native Alaskans was intended for one specific colleague of Hirono's, and Rachel's show is the only place I'd seen or heard that mentioned.  But while I think targeting Murkowski and Collins is as good a tactic as the Dems have, it ain't gonna work.  All Kav has to do is tell the lady senators that oh, no, of course he isn't considering repealing Roe V Wade, and now Murkowski and Collins can safely vote for him while pretending that they would never vote for someone who would undermine a woman's right to choose not be an incubator against her will.  Then, when Kav does exactly that, they can be shocked! SHOCKED, I say! that their boy didn't keep his word.  Not their fault, and not their  problem.

I get what you are saying, BUT I really do think that if Collins votes for him, she is doomed. Maybe not this term, but next, dirt nap.

  • Love 3
shok

shok

4 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

I've only been watching Rach in this horrible Trump era.  Has anyone been watching her since she started 10 years ago?

I kinda like her "5 dollar blazers".

Happy 10th, Rach! 

Btw, did she really say "nyuck, nyuck, nyuck" tonite?  Who says she's not goofy anymore?

Me! Me! I've watched her since she first started doing guest spots on some of the MSNBC shows and then Keith Olberman started having her guest host for him when he was taking a night off. She was super popular right from the beginning and TPTB almost had no choice but to give her her own show. Thank goodness.

I follow her on twitter and it's amazing the number of tweets she's getting congratulating her for 10 years. Virtually all of them are thanking her for teaching them so much about what's going on and for informing them of news they're not getting anywhere else on cable. It's good to see how loved she is. Bet she's blushing like crazy.  :-)

  • Love 13
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...