All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2019 Season

[ScoobieDoobs]

The Missouri abortion story is absolutely important & was glad Rach was on it -- and that she pointed out exactly who the awful character is responsible for it.  But was really glad to see Rach all over the Mike Flynn happenings.  She's been on Flynn since the beginning of this horrible administration.  Thank you for that, Rachel!

For me, the best moment of Friday's show was when Rachel casually said how meaningless the polls are now -- implying that Biden's still big (but quickly shrinking) lead in the polls means NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING!  Rachel is the only one in the media saying this.  Thank you for this too, Rach.

Edited June 9, 2019 by ScoobieDoobs

[possibilities]

Maddow is one of the few people in the media who doesn't live solely in the moment, and is capable of looking both forward and back. It means her show is able to follow breadcrumbs and not just shriek about the crumb of the day.

[car54]

Aw...Missouri is mad at Rachel for covering the clinic story.

My response.....too bad.    

I am not sure if she said this--if so I missed it--so if the state law is that the women are required to have the exam prior to getting a requested abortion....who pays?    If it isn't medically necessary, it really should not be up to their insurance, if they have it....is the state providing a fund to pay for these legally required unnecessary tests?   If it costs them--then I'd be up for the exam that costs them money.   

I saw one of my insurance bills for a doctor visit where they did a much simpler less invasive exam recently and it was over $300---the doctor didn't even do the test, her LPN did it, and she spoke with me after---I was probably there less than 15 minutes.

[possibilities]

I don't think she did say who pays for it. It's an excellent question!

[wendyg]

I assume that Planned Parenthood still operates in Missouri the way it used to in NY State, using a sliding scale of charges based on what you can afford to pay. If that's the case, then it's likely PP is picking up some or all of the costs.

[ScoobieDoobs]

Ah, so when Rachel shines her spotlight on yet another slimy, disgusting, lowball, completely corrupt character in the Trump admin, DAMN, she’s spot on!!  Now it’s the totally vile Elaine Chao.

Sure, there’s been stuff about Chao’s unethical behavior in the Times & WaPo in the past few weeks, but Rachel’s sum-up of Chao’s exceptional (& yet seemingly casual) corruption was jaw dropping.  Thank you for this, Rachel.  Just when you think this administration couldn’t get any more crooked & corrupt, we can count on Rachel to clue us in how they are.  Ugh.

Edited June 12, 2019 by ScoobieDoobs

[freddi]

I thought I had missed Rachel mentioning that she would be a host of the first debate, but I see it was just announced today, so good for her!  She presented this news like it was already old news, so that’s a bit of modesty.  

[freddi]

How interesting, in the handoff to Lawrence, that Rachel said "I never cover anything the president says, but I threw out my whole show because of this."   Love hearing directly that she deliberately does not include his comments, so often noted here., 

She seemed a little irked at Stephanie Ruhle, at the implication that it was a treat that Rachel was hosting tonight:  "Of course I'm here, it's 9:00." I think Stephanie just meant that the guest hosting was done for the evening.  Man, I'd be sweating bullets if I thought I had offended Rachel! 

"Norway," heh.  (handoff talk)

Edited June 13, 2019 by freddi

[Medicine Crow]

2 hours ago, freddi said:

She seemed a little irked at Stephanie Ruhle, at the implication that it was a treat that Rachel was hosting tonight:  "Of course I'm here, it's 9:00." I think Stephanie just meant that the guest hosting was done for the evening.  Man, I'd be sweating bullets if I thought I had offended Rachel! 

"Norway," heh.  (handoff talk)

I tuned in to Rachel's show at the hand-off & noticed Stephanie's shit-eating smile faded very quickly after Rachel's "Of course I'm here, it's 9:00."  Hilarious!!!

[possibilities]

I get annoyed by Rachel's faux humility. Stephanie was complimenting her and Rachel's deflection came off ungracious. Maybe she just panicked, but she over-corrects and it comes off rude.

[freddi]

11 minutes ago, Medicine Crow said:

I tuned in to Rachel's show at the hand-off & noticed Stephanie's shit-eating smile faded very quickly after Rachel's "Of course I'm here, it's 9:00."  Hilarious!!!

Thanks for the report, I did not get to see Stephanie -- just noticed that Rachel's tone was rather tart, for her!  

Edited June 13, 2019 by freddi

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, freddi said:

She seemed a little irked at Stephanie Ruhle, at the implication that it was a treat that Rachel was hosting tonight:  

8 minutes ago, Medicine Crow said:

I tuned in to Rachel's show at the hand-off & noticed Stephanie's shit-eating smile faded very quickly after Rachel's "Of course I'm here, it's 9:00."

I didn't understand what Stephanie did wrong.  All I saw was Stephanie saying the viewers would be in luck because Chris is coming back tomorrow and even greater luck because Rachel is here now.  I know Rachel hates compliments and buildup but she needs to just smile and say thank you.

Actually, I feel bad for people like Stephanie and Ali who host their own shows and then have to come back as much as eight hours later to try to reproduce someone else's show.  You do not see Rachel or Chris or LOD subbing for anyone else, ever, even when it might seem logical for one of them to do two hours back to back rather than pulling someone from day shift.

1 hour ago, freddi said:

Love hearing directly that she deliberately does not include his comments, so often noted here.

"Watch what he does, not what he says," has been her mantra forever.  But when she decides to start running clips, she starts with the Lester Holt interview that everybody and their grandmother has already seen eleventy-billion times, instead of just citing it?  I half expected the Access Hollywood tape next, but, mercifully, Rachel only alluded to it.

I absolutely understand her approach to not playing the smoke and mirrors designed to deflect from what he is doing, and I am grateful for it.  I can't bear the sound of his voice.

[ScoobieDoobs]

I was disappointed Rachel succumbed to playing the shit-ass Trump clips (of the ABC interview) that everyone on CNN & MSNBC was predictably playing endlessly.  Sorry, Rach, but I expect more of you.  Now I'm forced to mute Rachel’s show too?  No.  Keep avoiding the Trump clips, Rachel.  I despise watching or listening to the orange fool.

Ah, but Rachel was back in fine form when discussing the latest on Flynn & his new lawyer, another Fox loon.  Have not heard about this crazy shit anywhere else, so thanks for the chuckles on this, Rach.

[stormy]

I hadn't seen Rep Adam Schiff for what seemed like a long time so I was looking forward to the interview.  It made me angry.  I don't think I can stomach  hearing one more democratic congress person utter the words "issue a subpoena",  Is this going to be their MO forever? Do something!

It's a breathe of fresh air to hear a new voice.  David Laufman was a great guest.

[tessaray]

I've just moved a bunch of NYT and debate posts to Rachel's topic.  That includes posts that may have been slightly on topic (the Show itself) but had way too much of the off-topic. 

As long as the NYT edict is not covered by Rachel on her show - it does not belong here.  If Rachel is a real journalist does not belong here. Future debate speculation does not belong here.

Thank you to those who keep the discussion focused.  We appreciate it.

[izabella]

4 hours ago, stormy said:

I hadn't seen Rep Adam Schiff for what seemed like a long time so I was looking forward to the interview.  It made me angry.  I don't think I can stomach  hearing one more democratic congress person utter the words "issue a subpoena",  Is this going to be their MO forever? Do something!

It's a breathe of fresh air to hear a new voice.  David Laufman was a great guest.

Subpoenas, contempt of Congress, and the courts are the legal, Constitutional and democratic remedies we have.   If they do anything else, they would be just as wrong as the illegal and unethical things the administration  and the GOP, is doing.  And these remedies would be working if they weren't dealing with unethical people in the WH, administration, Cabinet, DOJ, and GOP.

Dems get a lot of blame for not doing enough, not doing it faster, etc.  The pressure should be on the GOP since they are the ones blocking meaningful Congressional oversight, and on the POTUS and WH for being unethical and criminal.

[freddi]

Heh, as Rachel was describing the Trump Beverly Hills home that was sold well above its assessed value to a aspiring president of Indonesia, she actually, consciously, quoted the theme song from "The Beverly Hillbillies", namely "swimmin' pools, movie stars" -- she put an emphasis on the quote that made me pay attention.  I had to go check to be sure, but yup!  Nice subtext!  

[car54]

13 hours ago, freddi said:

Heh, as Rachel was describing the Trump Beverly Hills home that was sold well above its assessed value to a aspiring president of Indonesia, she actually, consciously, quoted the theme song from "The Beverly Hillbillies", namely "swimmin' pools, movie stars" -- she put an emphasis on the quote that made me pay attention.  I had to go check to be sure, but yup!  Nice subtext!  

I call them the Clampetts all the time so that made me laugh out loud.

[freddi]

“It’s 9:00, of course I’m here.”  Um, I had a feeling the testiness was due to an impending day off.  Yup. 

[shok]

On 6/13/2019 at 9:17 AM, izabella said:

Subpoenas, contempt of Congress, and the courts are the legal, Constitutional and democratic remedies we have.   If they do anything else, they would be just as wrong as the illegal and unethical things the administration  and the GOP, is doing.  And these remedies would be working if they weren't dealing with unethical people in the WH, administration, Cabinet, DOJ, and GOP.

Dems get a lot of blame for not doing enough, not doing it faster, etc.  The pressure should be on the GOP since they are the ones blocking meaningful Congressional oversight, and on the POTUS and WH for being unethical and criminal.

+1000

I don't understand why Rachel (and 99% of the rest of the media) are so adamant about the Democrats starting impeachment proceedings. Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi know what they're doing and I'm always glad to see Schiff on the show telling us how they're plodding along doing their jobs in spite of the media uproar telling them what they should be doing. What I don't understand is why the media isn't raising a hullabaloo about the Republicans being so obstructionist about the oversight and all the bills the Democrats have passed in the House which the Republicans won't bring up in the Senate.

We all know how Trump has bellowed over and over again NO COLLUSION in spite of all the evidence against him. Can you imagine how crazy he would be after an impeachment bill was passed by the Democrats in the House and the Republicans in the Senate would vote not guilty? Rachel is usually so shrewd that I'm surprised she doesn't seem to have thought this through.

[ScoobieDoobs]

I’ve noticed too many hosts on MSNBC & CNN (and all too many guests/panelists) pushing an impeachment agenda - and pushing it too obviously & way too aggressively.  Ari & Chris Matthews rudely & casually interrupt their guests from Congress (even more than they usually do) over it.  Rachel hasn’t done this — that I’ve seen.

Rachel did seem honestly shocked over Trump’s comment about accepting foreign help to get re-elected.  I shrugged, but I’m glad her shock has motivated her to stay on this issue.  She was great the other nite when she spotlighted how Warner brought up a bill to specifically outlaw foreign help in elections, but McConnell (of course) blocked it.

It’s extremely important for Rachel to put a spotlight on the type of heinous & hypocritical shit McConnell routinely gets away with.  Guess she can only cover just so much of the awful shit he’s doing.

Edited June 16, 2019 by ScoobieDoobs

[ScoobieDoobs]

Not a super terrific show tonite, Rach.  Scared the shit outta me about Iran, & then a five minute Trump clip (I had to run for the remote to mute), & then Chris Matthews?  Ew & feh!  Once Matthews came on, I checked out quick. 

My guess is MSNBC/NBC bosses forced Rach to have Matthews on to promote his shit & also forced her to play that long shitty-ass Trump clip.  God, how I despise those awful Trump clips.

[M. Darcy]

Ugh, was Matthews on last night?  Good thing I fell asleep.  

[izabella]

Matthews did a town hall type interview in Ohio.  I thought it was pretty good.  He even shut down and took the mic away from an audience member who started off with, "Listen, Cupcake..."  And Matthews said no, we're hear to respectfully listen to each other.  He was on the LOD slot, though, with the town hall.

[ScoobieDoobs]

Last nite Rachel devoted nearly a half-hour to a NY Times story (about National Security not telling Trump about Russia-related stuff), and tonite she devoted nearly a half-hour to a WaPo story on the Shanahan mess.  The diff was last nite she had no Times reporter on, & tonite she had on the WaPo reporter who broke the Shanahan story. 

So did it affect Rachel's show?  Not really, but the WaPo reporter did add a bit to the story.  In the end, the Times' stupid decision to ban reporters from Rachel's show will not have much (or any) impact on her show.  It's easy to see, it will ONLY affect the impact of The NY Times' stories & the reporters who write those stories.

Rachel seemed uncomfortable talking about the Shanahan story.  I liked that she stressed this story is NOT about Shanahan's failing, but about this WH's failing to properly vet pretty much any cabinet nominees.  Bravo for saying that, Rach!

[car54]

Ali Velshi just said he is doing Rachel's show for her tonight.

[ahisma]

It's a good thing Rachel wasn't on. I don't think she would have been able to read that assault description verbatim. 🙁

[car54]

I was hoping she'd recite the Hannity/Manafort tweets.

[possibilities]

I noticed she was kind of rushing tonight. There were too many stories to cover in her usual long-form way. I enjoyed that she didn't name the person who participated in the tweets with Manfort. I know who it is, and anyone who really wants to know can easily find out, but I felt like it was her way of not dignifying his ego.

[freddi]

3 minutes ago, possibilities said:

I noticed she was kind of rushing tonight. There were too many stories to cover in her usual long-form way. I enjoyed that she didn't name the person who participated in the tweets with Manfort. I know who it is, and anyone who really wants to know can easily find out, but I felt like it was her way of not dignifying his ego.

I had not picked up on that, but of course you’re right!  She did not sully her mouth or our ears by saying the name!  Good for her! 

Edited June 25, 2019 by freddi

[ScoobieDoobs]

I thought it was Tucker Carlson that Rach was referring to, but I was glad not to hear either of those 2 evil fools mentioned.

I do enjoy Rachel’s roasting & toasting Flynn’s new ridiculous Fox lawyer.

Anyone else get the impression Rachel is not looking forward to the debates?  Me neither, Rach, me neither.

[Quilt Fairy]

Did anyone else think Rachel looked red-eyed and a little flustered last night?  Like she didn't get enough sleep and wasn't as prepared as she normally is?  Maybe it had to do with her traveling to Miami for the debates. 

[ScoobieDoobs]

Yeah, I get the definite impression Rach is nervous about this gig.  Look, as moderator, you have you have to be prepared to be ready & able to cut people off -- if they're going over-time or off-topic.  Can Rachel do this -- with her shtick of always being nice?  I'm not so sure.  We'll see.  If she doesn't drop her nice shtick, the billions of 1-percenters, who have no shot of winning & have nothing to lose, will take advantage of Rachel's niceness & slaughter her & take over the debates.  Could easily turn into a disaster.

I'm a bit curious if, given her previous clobbering interview with Seth Moulton, if she doesn't bop him over the head.

Edited June 26, 2019 by ScoobieDoobs

[car54]

 I noticed she had some bags under her eyes but to me some of it was that whoever did her makeup didn't slather on the under-eye makeup they do now for HD tv--sometimes it looks like they put it on with a trowel and then I see her on Seth Meyers or somewhere that she wears her own clothes and looks natural and I realize how much NBC does that I suspect she would not do on her own.

Rachel has moderated debates before and I thought she was extremely well prepared--I think the challenge for this one is the 2-nights and 20 people to try to get to.   I feel like Lester, Savannah, Jose, and Rachel will do a great job--I am boycotting Chuck Todd so I'm not sure what I'm going to do when he's on camera.    

[tessaray]

Just a reminder that even though the debates are happening in Rachel's time slot, they are not on topic. 

[The Solution]

2 hours ago, tessaray said:

Just a reminder that even though the debates are happening in Rachel's time slot, they are not on topic. 

Is there a forum where we can discuss the debates?

[tessaray]

8 minutes ago, The Solution said:

Is there a forum where we can discuss the debates?

On Primetimer directly - no.  Please see the FAQ re: Political Discussion.

[gatopretoNYC]

I really enjoyed tonight's show.

[stormy]

10 hours ago, gatopretoNYC said:

I really enjoyed tonight's show.

Me too but I'm annoyed as hell that the July debates will again be 20 candidates over two nights.  I will not be watching till it's actual viable candidates having a serious debate.

[possibilities]

I was annoyed that once again the control room is incompetent. I wanted to see the actual clip she meant to show us, with Julian Castro, not some other random clip. I may be a bitch but I want them to start firing the tech staff when they make these mistakes on live television. BOTH nights of the debate had major screw ups (mics first night, stage management 2nd night when Holt didn't show up to ask his question from the audience). It's really annoying and wastes everybody's time.

Edited June 29, 2019 by possibilities

[Sesquipedalia]

Last night's episode reminded me of the old days when TV series would put together a clip show near the end of the season because they were running out of money.

[ScoobieDoobs]

So Rach did a sum-up of the debates & I was OK with that, but why was she soooo super sunny & positive about it?  Mostly, I hated the debates.  The first nite was boring as fuck, except for the too short moment of Castro beating up Beto.  And the 2nd nite was cringey, with Bernie acting wacky as usual & Biden being stiff & weakish, while Swalwell & Harris took cheap, manipulative, planned attacks on him.  Blech.

What was so great about this, Rachel?  I learned NOTHING new! Rachel even found positive things to say about DeBlasio & Williamson.  Uh, no, Rach.  This push for the “greatness” of the shitty debates was a waste of time.  And there’s gonna be a repeat of this in July?  Ugh.  Stick to the news nobody else covers, Rach.  I appreciate that much more.

[car54]

I watched both nights but I did enjoy her take on the debates and what each candidate accomplished (in her opinion).    And I got a kick out of her pulling cards out of the hat, then wearing the hat---all we needed was a little trivia, and her mixing a cocktail in the end and it would have felt like old Fridays before the deluge.

[jackiecat]

Here's a link to the correct clip with Castro from Rachel's twitter account.

https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/status/1144839097615298561

[ScoobieDoobs]

Rachel had a very important spotlight tonite about what's going on with the scientists at the Dept. of Ag.  So why didn't she lead with it?  Has less impact when she finally gets to it at 9:20.  C'mon, Rach, 20 minutes to get to this?

[freddi]

Yes, I would have been happy with 90% fewer images of MOULD (™ England), although I appreciated the setup regarding the importance of USDA research.      But it is such a remarkably vindictive move on the part of this administration, and everyone seems powerless to stop it. 

1 hour ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Rachel had a very important spotlight tonite about what's going on with the scientists at the Dept. of Ag.  So why didn't she lead with it?  Has less impact when she finally gets to it at 9:20.  C'mon, Rach, 20 minutes to get to this?

[stormy]

Sue! USDA employees. This is so messed up.

[M. Darcy]

I saw the mold once!  The Smithsonian had it one display.  Rachel's first story gave me all the emotions - pride in what we used to be and sadness because I just felt we are all just going to die. 

[stormy]

16 minutes ago, M. Darcy said:

I saw the mold once!  The Smithsonian had it one display.  Rachel's first story gave me all the emotions - pride in what we used to be and sadness because I just felt we are all just going to die. 

It's true. Only Rachel covers these kinds of stories that are detrimental to our lives and sometimes I feel like I should never see them. 

[Hooper]

Quote

I saw the mold once!  The Smithsonian had it one display.  Rachel's first story gave me all the emotions - pride in what we used to be and sadness because I just felt we are all just going to die. 

As a plant scientist, I've been peripherally associated with USDA labs and people who work there throughout my career.  Although the people most directly associated with Trump's purge are not as directly related to my field (so to speak) as the agronomists/weed scientists/soil scientists/plant pathologists are, for me seeing the USDA under attack is akin to watching Notre Dame engulfed in flames.  I had to turn the TV off before Rachel finished her segment.