All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2019 Season

[formerlyfreedom]

The spot to discuss all 2019 episodes of The Rachael Maddow Show. Usual rules apply; discuss the show; personal politics will get a post removed, and repeated violations may result in further sanctions. Thank you!

[Jaded]

@car54 said in the previous thread before it closed.....

Quote

 

They seem to have recycled all the canned Christmas Eve regular shows shows on NY Eve.  

And tonight there seems to be wall to wall Dateline Extra.

 

It must be nice to have so much time off at the end of the year like some of the MSNBC hosts. At least it gives other people there time to shine or let it be known that they aren't really host material. 

Hope to see Rachel tonight.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Jaded

[jackiecat]

Rachel tweeted that she would be back in the studio tonight and interviewing Elizabeth Warren.

[freddi]

1 hour ago, jackiecat said:

Rachel tweeted that she would be back in the studio tonight and interviewing Elizabeth Warren.

Oh, interesting.  I knew she would be back, but I had the impression her Warren interview had been already recorded -- I thought I saw a clip in a promotion for the interview, but maybe it was from a past interview.  Live is so much better!  

[Medicine Crow]

Being a dog lover, I'm naturally drawn to the TV screen that has a dog.  I was tickled to death that Elizabeth Warren called her husband & their Golden Retriever pup to the mic.  The pup was acting up so Mr. Warren leaned over & whispered in it's ear ... that pup sat so fast, it looked like he'd been tranq'd.  Too funny, LOL.

[freddi]

13 minutes ago, Medicine Crow said:

Being a dog lover, I'm naturally drawn to the TV screen that has a dog.  I was tickled to death that Elizabeth Warren called her husband & their Golden Retriever pup to the mic.  The pup was acting up so Mr. Warren leaned over & whispered in it's ear ... that pup sat so fast, it looked like he'd been tranq'd.  Too funny, LOL.

I only saw the dog on the repeat, and missed that!  I will go to the podcast to see it.  My cynical reaction was "oh, look, she rented a dog for her press availability."  And that reaction was NOT about Elizabeth Warren, but based on my poly sci professor in college, who taught us that "Politicians always get dogs, they're good for photo ops.  Did you ever see a politician with a cat?"  That was pre-Clinton and Socks.  (And I had a friend who worked in that White House who said that Socks was toast once Buddy joined the menagerie.)  

I really liked the opening montage of "Elizabeth Warren over many years and many haircuts", because it reminded me of her long-term commitment to access to financial equity and opportunity.  Her personal story is a good one, and inspiring, but she will need so much more to get the votes that would put a Democrat in office.  It was not a hard-nosed interview, but also not a puff interview; I know Rachel and most of her colleagues want any interviewee to want to come back, and it's a hard balance to strike:  pushing hard versus feeling good.  

[TexasGal]

I have gone from tears watching the Nancy Pelosi stuff to clenched fists at the “who’s feeding Donald Trump info if not Russia” segment.  As if I needed confirmation that this year will be as exhausting as the last. 

[shok]

I so enjoyed Rachel's coverage of the House swearing-in festivities. She covered the joy and pride of all those new congress critters being sworn in and the sense of promise in what they might be able to accomplish during their terms. Most of the other shows I caught bits of on both MSNBC and CNN fell back into their usual ruts of how Trump reacted or how much was Pelosi going to compromise but Rachel, as usual, found the fresh and informative angle of the proceedings.

[attica]

The lawyers being yelled at in last night's Court Transcript Dramatic Reading complained in court today about getting "threats [from people] whipped into their frenzy by a cable television entertainer unknown to undersigned counsel named Rachel Maddow". 

I can't even breathe for laughing. 

[jackiecat]

Rachel Maddow MSNBC Retweeted

Maddow Blog‏Verified account @MaddowBlog 4h4 hours ago

Tonight! Rachel #Maddow will start her night early, joining @ChrisLHayes in the 8pm hour. Afterward she'll be joined by @ChrisLHayes, @NicolleDwallace, @OmarJadwat, and @AOC

[freddi]

I am loving this small panel of Rachel, Chris Hayes, and Nicolle Wallace.  It is such a natural conversation, and they are so considerate of each other, while so on point.  (Nicolle:  "He's like the Sun King, no one can obscure the light on him."*)  I'd watch the three of them at the end of every day in a show called:  "So, What Happened Today?"  

*The real Sun King (Louis XIV of France) felt the world revolved around him, so that works on several levels.  

[Medicine Crow]

Am I the only one noticing that Nicolle isn't wearing a wedding band or her eye-catching diamond ring???

[Calvada]

Let's add Michael Beschloss to the panel.  It's always a better day when he's on my tv, especially with Rachel.  I would have preferred a full hour of Rachel addressing the events of the day.  And add Chuck Rosenberg or Joyce Vance to the panel for this discussion. 

Chuck would have been a good addition to the discussion of Trump's remarks, as the former head of DEA and a former federal prosecutor, to address how drugs really enter America.  

[TexasGal]

Loved Rachel just outright asking - why did this just happen?  Why did he do this?

Also, wow, she looks tired tonight!

[Quilt Fairy]

3 hours ago, freddi said:

I am loving this small panel of Rachel, Chris Hayes, and Nicolle Wallace.  It is such a natural conversation, and they are so considerate of each other, while so on point.  (Nicolle:  "He's like the Sun King, no one can obscure the light on him."*)  I'd watch the three of them at the end of every day in a show called:  "So, What Happened Today?"   

 

2 hours ago, Calvada said:

Let's add Michael Beschloss to the panel.  It's always a better day when he's on my tv, especially with Rachel.  I would have preferred a full hour of Rachel addressing the events of the day.  And add Chuck Rosenberg or Joyce Vance to the panel for this discussion. 

Chuck would have been a good addition to the discussion of Trump's remarks, as the former head of DEA and a former federal prosecutor, to address how drugs really enter America.  

I like the Rachel/Chris/Nicolle combo idea better.  They're just discussing the politics of the thing, not the history or the law of it.  And they can all get appropriately snarky doing it. 

[Hooper]

The panel was great, and although there are many worthy candidates to consider adding to future panels, part of what made this one so good was that it was just three people and they all got to talk.

But the part of the show I appreciated the most?  Rachel told us ahead of time that the address was going to be about 10 minutes long, so I knew how long to turn my TV off.

[attica]

I watched the A block...of Law & Order!

[SpiritSong]

Since Rachel has the highest rated show on her network, and therefore the most power, I wish she would have called out MSNBC for their idiotic, pandering decision to give airtime to Cheeto von Tweeto. Anyone paying the least bit of attention would have known the Donald was going to use the time to lie repeatedly to the American people. They willingly gave him a platform to do that. Networks clearly only care about the $$, but that's no reason for the more popular and visible hosts/anchors no meekly go along with it.

Edited January 10, 2019 by SpiritSong

[freddi]

Rachel, tonight:  "I am aggressively agnostic" (about what to expect in the Mueller report).  

And, oh, the "tips" from the Coast Guard about "managing your finances" while not getting a paycheck:  "Be creative", "have a garage sale", "take care of people's children", "become a secret shopper", "turn your hobby into money".  How awfully this is impacting the guardians of safety and service in our country.  I saw an article at CNN that said this "tip sheet" has been taken off the Coast Guard website today.  

[Calvada]

At least they are not suggesting that federal employees start selling their blood - yet.  I loved the one early on about negotiating services in place of your payments.  How many of you think your bank would permit late payments on your mortgage without penalties and adverse impact on your credit rating if you come in and sweep their floors?  They also suggested that people contact their attorney to negotiate adjusted mortgage/rent/car loan/student loan/gas & electric/phone bill payments.  Their attorney???  Yeah, a lot of GS 6 clerks keep an attorney on retainer.  What's next - check the cushions of your sofa for spare change!  Break into your kid's piggy bank!  Get a paper route!  Does your kid really need 3 meals a day?  Remember, ketchup is a vegetable!  

I should probably stop giving them ideas, eh?  

I can't wait to see Mnuchin testify about the rationale for lifting sanctions on the firms controlled by Deripaska.  But if it's in a public hearing, we won't have Rachel reading transcripts.  Glass half full or half empty?

[ScoobieDoobs]

3 hours ago, freddi said:

Rachel, tonight:  "I am aggressively agnostic" (about what to expect in the Mueller report).  

And, oh, the "tips" from the Coast Guard about "managing your finances" while not getting a paycheck:  "Be creative", "have a garage sale", "take care of people's children", "become a secret shopper", "turn your hobby into money".  How awfully this is impacting the guardians of safety and service in our country.  I saw an article at CNN that said this "tip sheet" has been taken off the Coast Guard website today.  

I felt like Rach said she was "agnostic" about these reports of Mueller wrapping up (which are coming from her own network, NBC) about 10 times.  OK, maybe it wasn't that many times, but it was more than once.  ITA with Rach.  But I wish Rach woulda said she was giving it serious stink-eye.  Uh, guess we have to translate "agnostic" as Rach-speak that she is giving it serious stink-eye -- and she knows she can't exactly throw crap at her own network?

[Quilt Fairy]

1 hour ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Uh, guess we have to translate "agnostic" as Rach-speak that she is giving it serious stink-eye -- and she knows she can't exactly throw crap at her own network?

I didn't take it like that, but as part of her "Watch what they do, not what they say" philosophy in the current political climate.  It can apply to the Mueller investigation as well as the Trump administration.

Quote

Anyone paying the least bit of attention would have known the Donald was going to use the time to lie repeatedly to the American people. They willingly gave him a platform to do that.

They keep expecting him to act Presidential.  I won't hold my breath.  

Edited January 10, 2019 by Quilt Fairy

[freddi]

Oy, I was getting such a sense of dread when Rachel started talking about Ruth Bader Ginsberg's absence from the Court proceedings.  But then she started telling us about Dr. Flores from Mount Sinai, who has done so many of these operations, and would be in the next segment to tell us how normal this recovery is sounding.  "Dr. Flores is an expert!"  "Dr. Flores has come here from Mount Sinai to tell us about this operation!"  

And then, Dr. Flores appeared across from Rachel, and I thought, "Wow, I am so glad he got out of study hall and had a note that let him leave school."   (But he was reassuring!)

[M. Darcy]

Thank you Rachel for reminding people that Bush I pardoned the Iran Contra Gang! 

And, heh, it did make me laugh to hear Sam Donaldson's voice shouting questions at Reagan.  Aw, memories of the 80s. 

Edited January 11, 2019 by M. Darcy

[izabella]

It's because Bush pardoned everyone that we have the issues we have now.  If criminals can just get pardoned, even in the top levels of government, there is no deterrence to others who would commit crimes at the highest levels of government.  So glad Rachel highlighted that issue. 

[freddi]

Aw, Rachel, you always say the Friday evenings are the prime time for surprising breaking news -- but you are not here for the news that the FBI has been investigating whether the president has been secretly working for Russia?   There must be a thermometer somewhere that shows how hot the news has to get for Rachel to cancel plans or call in to a show.  I can think of a few scenarios where she would paddle back to Manhattan to cover an historical event.  

"Rachel will be back on Monday."    

[fairffaxx]

Joy Reid is not up to this task.  Bad timing for a night off.

[gatopretoNYC]

My reaction at 9pm on yet another Friday: "Oh, mannnn..."

[AnnA]

44 minutes ago, fairffaxx said:

Joy Reid is not up to this task.  Bad timing for a night off.

I agree and switched over to watch Chris Cuomo instead.  

Joy Reid just can't be compared to Rachael.  I'm not as big a Joy Reid fan as I used to be and I'm not sure why.   I know I was annoyed that she did a softball interview with Donna Brazile when her book was released and I hated her old blog entries and the lies she told to try and cover it up when the news broke.   

Edited January 12, 2019 by AnnA

[Medicine Crow]

She did look very good tonight ... hair & make-up flawless!!!  Just sayin'.

[ScoobieDoobs]

Seems like Rach snickers every nite about how busy a news nite it is.  So is it ever a good nite for Rach to take off?  But tonite was an especially lousy one for her to take off.  That Times story broke just around Rach's show & we needed her to slam her spotlight on it -- as only she can.  Even LOD was off!  Oy, I hope this story doesn't get lost.  Joy is OK, but she just doesn't have Rachel's impact.

[OhIKnow]

I think when Joy is covering for Rachel, she tries to kinda mimic Rachel, to the point where it becomes distracting.  

Just my opinion..

[izabella]

9 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Seems like Rach snickers every nite about how busy a news nite it is.  So is it ever a good nite for Rach to take off? 

That's what weekends are for.  Most of the rest of us have to work five days a week, not four.  I'm not sure when all this "take Friday off" thing started.

Sigh.  It just goes to show how much I rely on Rachel to sort through BIG news for us.  This FBI investigation into whether Trump has been working as Putin's Puppet while POTUS is huge news, the biggest, even though it's what many of us have suspected since the beginning.  I would have really liked to hear Rachel's take on it. 

Edited January 12, 2019 by izabella

[freddi]

I’m not saying that the NY Times releases stories a half hour ahead of Rachel’s show to get attention on her show— but some stories do hit that time frame when they are posted on the site.  If I were one of the reporters, I’d be disappointed to learn Rachel is away, if her show is the first appearance.  

The difference between Rachel and Joy became so clear to me on that huge story last night.  Rachel is always curious, probing, inquisitive, both talking to the camera and talking to guests.  Joy just read the news copy handed to her.  I missed Rachel’s inquisitiveness.  

[Quilt Fairy]

21 hours ago, OhIKnow said:

I think when Joy is covering for Rachel, she tries to kinda mimic Rachel, to the point where it becomes distracting.  

Just my opinion..

I think all the fill-ins do that, take on the attitude of the person they're subbing for.  You can see it on LOD's show as well. Maybe it's the way the copy is written behind the scenes, but I'm sure it's intentional.

[Morrigan2575]

On 1/12/2019 at 3:45 AM, OhIKnow said:

I think when Joy is covering for Rachel, she tries to kinda mimic Rachel, to the point where it becomes distracting.  

Just my opinion..

Do you mean in the shows format or in her actions/responses? I've noticed that she keeps to RMS's storytelling device but, I assumed that was normal when covering, you basically have to keep to the show's theme. 

I also think it comes from the Show's Producers abs writers who obviously help craft each episode.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Morrigan2575

[shok]

On 1/12/2019 at 8:37 AM, izabella said:

That's what weekends are for.  Most of the rest of us have to work five days a week, not four.  I'm not sure when all this "take Friday off" thing started.

Most of the rest of us get a few weeks of vacation too. Rachael doesn't. Besides being off for a couple of weeks when she was quite sick early last year, I only recall her taking one week of vacation/fishing time in the whole year so I don't begrudge her occasional 3-day weekends. Plus she works killer long days from noon or earlier to after 10:00 pm.

Nights like last Friday night though certainly reinforce how valuable she is to journalism.

[gatopretoNYC]

I loved tonight's hand off to Lawrence. :)

[ahisma]

I really appreciate Rachel stepping back and giving the big picture. News stories tend to pile up in small, separate sound bites, but Trump being willing to pull support from NATO and Brexit taking a step closer to disaster really could set the stage for the weakening of Western Europe.

[M. Darcy]

I got one of those fake newspapers!  Right by the White House when I was walking to work yesterday.  

[SpiritSong]

I was extremely disappointed that Rachel didn't ask Senator Gillibrand about her role in pushing Al Franken out of the Senate without even an investigation. It's an issue that isn't going to go away, so ignoring it made this interview seem more like a puff piece than hard hitting journalism. I expect better from Rachel.

[Calvada]

At least Rachel spoke briefly about the Republican senators who voted to reduce sanctions against companies controlled by Oleg Deripaska.  Very disappointed with the media in general for not addressing that these are the very people who have failed to vote to re-open the government.  Aid and comfort to an oligarch, but a big screw you to America and Americans.  

I would like to know more about Sen. Gillibrand's switch in positions.  I'm somewhat cynical by her proclamations of seeing the light on guns, gay marriage, and other issues, and wonder if it was just determining which way the political winds were blowing.  The latter would be nothing new in American politics, and seems much more likely than being born again  on all these issues.  

Thank goodness Rachel talked about her blazer being blue - While watching, I was thinking I really need a new TV.  

Edited January 18, 2019 by Calvada

[freddi]

Rachel on inadvertently putting on a blue blazer:  "the light in my office is dim, and I'm getting older".  I'm just surprised there was even a blue blazer on the rack!  Until she said that, I questioned the choice of that shade of blue with the same blue background on the set, then wondered if she were going for a floating head effect.  

[Quilt Fairy]

50 minutes ago, freddi said:

Rachel on inadvertently putting on a blue blazer:  "the light in my office is dim, and I'm getting older".  I'm just surprised there was even a blue blazer on the rack!  Until she said that, I questioned the choice of that shade of blue with the same blue background on the set, then wondered if she were going for a floating head effect.  

I was more surprised when she said "...not the same black blazer I've worn for the past 2 years."  I know she's always worn dark colors, but I didn't realize she's specifically worn black since Trump took office.

[freddi]

1 hour ago, Quilt Fairy said:

I was more surprised when she said "...not the same black blazer I've worn for the past 2 years."  I know she's always worn dark colors, but I didn't realize she's specifically worn black since Trump took office.

She wore black for years before that.  I thought she meant the actual same blazer, but that seems unlikely!  Here she is in a black blazer from July 23, 2015. I don’t want to tell you whose shoulder is on the background screen, and how chipper she was about his futile candidacy.  Podcasts are forever: 

Edited January 18, 2019 by freddi

[ScoobieDoobs]

12 hours ago, SpiritSong said:

I was extremely disappointed that Rachel didn't ask Senator Gillibrand about her role in pushing Al Franken out of the Senate without even an investigation. It's an issue that isn't going to go away, so ignoring it made this interview seem more like a puff piece than hard hitting journalism. I expect better from Rachel.

I was rolling my eyes pretty hard on that interview.  It wasn't really Rachel's fault.  Gillibrand sounded like she was a high school girl asking for her classmates' vote for prom queen.  Gillibrand is a crap candidate for all the reasons stated above.  Hopefully, she'll fade out quickly.  Rachel asking her tougher questions wouldn't have made a diff anyway.  She woulda just given nothing happy-talk answers.  Put her next to Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris & either of them & many, many other contenders would easily blow her away.  The interview merely highlighted what a lightweight she is.

Boy, something happens with Michael Cohen & there predictably pops up Emily Jane Fox.  Why?  Guess she's the resident expert on Michael Cohen for MSNBC & CNN?  Jeez, what an awful thing to put on a resume . . .

I didn't notice the blue blazer till I came here, but I think it looked really sharp on Rach.  Guess it's a definite choice to wear the black blazer every nite?  It''s OK by me, but if she wanted to try something else, I'm sure she could carry it off.  Just no pins, Rach, cuz that's for Jill Wine-Banks only!

Good coverage on the Belarusian model, Rach.  Gulp!  First thing I thought is she'll be killed & never heard from again.  But I don't think that's the Russian way.  As Rach emphasized, she was arrested immediately when her plane landed briefly in Moscow, so she'll probably get a loooong prison sentence.  Keep on it, Rach.

Edited January 18, 2019 by ScoobieDoobs

[Sharpie66]

I think she only mentioned the blue blazer because she was wearing a black tank top with it. I didn’t notice the different color blazer until she mentioned it, then looked specifically to see if she had black underneath. I have seen interviews of her with her rack of black blazers, so I know she hasn’t been wearing the same one for 2 1/2 years!

oh, and I can relate to needing more light to see details as I get older!

Edited January 18, 2019 by Sharpie66

[Quilt Fairy]

13 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

First thing I thought is she'll be killed & never heard from again.  But I don't think that's the Russian way. 

I'm pretty sure that's exactly the Russian way.

[OhIKnow]

On 1/13/2019 at 7:21 PM, Morrigan2575 said:

Do you mean in the shows format or in her actions/responses? I've noticed that she keeps to RMS's storytelling device but, I assumed that was normal when covering, you basically have to keep to the show's theme. 

I also think it comes from the Show's Producers abs writers who obviously help craft each episode.

I mean her delivery. I work in tv so I appreciate the need to keep the format the same, but her actual delivery of lines is what takes me out of it at times. 

[Galloway Cave]

On 1/18/2019 at 10:19 PM, OhIKnow said:

but her actual delivery of lines is what takes me out of it at times. 

Rachel's delivery is very natural and non-telepromter-reading in tempo. Joy, who I love, does sound more like she is reading her narrative, rather than having a conversation with us. But I do think she is the best choice for stand-in.