Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
saoirse

All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2019 Season

Recommended Posts

Quote

Anyone think Rachel will cry when the day comes that she has no more court transcripts to read?  She enjoys them so much and really gets into them.  I'm going to miss them if they ever dry up

I think she'll have plenty for the next few years, but my wish is that someday she can have a Friday night cocktails and trivia show again.    It seems like forever since she used to do those.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, Rachel said tonight that Sen. Sam Erwin created the phrase "I'm just a simple country lawyer" -- yes, he did say that, but it had been around for a very long time.  First example that come to mind is Jimmy Stewart saying it in "Anatomy of a Murder" (1959), long before Watergate.  

I did like the graphic with "On Second, Third, Fourth Thought..."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I snorted when Rachel (in introducing the last story about the several investigations into the inaugural shenanigans) suggested we get more tacks and yarn for our Carrie Matthison Cork Board.   Better known as Carrie's Wall o'Crazy on Homeland. Hee!

  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, car54 said:

No Rachel--Ali Velshi just announced he is doing her show tonight.

Thanks.  I take this news a lot better when I know in advance! 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I see Joy is in the studio tonight so I wonder if she will do Lawrence's show.   He usually takes Fridays off.

  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

“Rachel will be back on Monday.”  Thanks, Ali, that makes me want to watch you for a while.  Always appreciate the future updates. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

OK, so Rachel has discussed the Trump Azerbaijan project before.  I remember she talked about Ivanka shlepping there many times to promote it & there were tons of shifty/shady characters involved (of various nationalities, Russians, among others) & it never got finished. 

But what I DO NOT remember is that the proposed finished building would look like a huge gigantic VAGINA!  Uh, what the what?   Did Rach ever show that before?  Sheesh, I get her moment of prudishness.  That was a hide-the-kiddies moment.

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

Boy, Dan Rather annoyed me last night.  IMO, he acted as if the release of the Mueller report is all dependent on us.  Nope.  While we need to let our Members of Congress know how we feel, its also up to Congress to actually do their job and also the Media to continue to report on it.   He could have at least mentioned the media also. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Lawrence O'Donnell to Rachel: "When did you switch to Wheaties?"

Rachel's eyebrows levitate off her forehead as she says: "WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO SAY we know what each other eats for breakfast, Lawrence!" (more eyebrow action)

Very funny handoff! 

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 6

Share this post


Link to post

Tonight, Rachel was in a good mood as she announced it was her 20th Anniversary with Susan, she said something like "I'll be home soon honey".

  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post

Oh Rach, ya made me chuckle every time ya said “massage parlor lady” — hee!

Were you really a lifeguard, Rach?  Anyhoo, thanks for the tip about not swimming with a thumb drive. The Mar-a-lago Chinese spy lady should listen to Rach.

So Rachel is finally having Mayor Pete on Monday.  She seemed reluctant about him.  She pretty much said she thinks polling now is useless, so it’s not that he’s polling surprisingly well.  So then why?  I suspect it’s his battle with Pence. He’s making an utter fool outta Pence & I bet Rach luvs it.  Me too, Rach.  Whatever the reason, glad she’s having him on.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

So Rachel is finally having Mayor Pete on Monday.  She seemed reluctant about him.  She pretty much said she thinks polling now is useless, so it’s not that he’s polling surprisingly well.  So then why?  I suspect it’s his battle with Pence.

After Rachel was (apparently correctly) reluctant to allow famewhore Michael Avenatti on her set, I'll trust her on who she books.  😺

As for the mayor, certainly might be the battle with Pence, but also probably that he's getting a whole lot of coverage lately.  Everyone thought he'd languish in the unknowns with the likes of Marianne Williamson and John Delaney and Tulsi Gabbard, but he's breaking through the ice into the national consciousness.  Out Beto-ing Beto.  Plus he's a fellow nerd and Rhodes scholar, which has to be like catnip to Rachel.

And hopefully better than Eric Swalwell's performance last night.  I like the Congressman and I think he has a lot to offer, but every response he gave to Rachel came across to me as totally rehearsed, canned campaign-speak.  It's as if he forgot how to be himself, which is what I liked about him in the first place.

Liked Rachel reading the tweets using Stephen Colbert's dotdotdotdots....

I truly don't understand this anti-transgender stance, either as a nurse or as ex-military.  I was a military intelligence officer and as part of getting my top secret/SCI clearance, I was asked -- we're talking 40 years ago, pre-don't ask don't tell -- if I was a lesbian.  The reason they asked is because in those days, putting blatant homophobia aside, they thought someone in the closet was at risk of being blackmailed and therefore a security risk.  Nowadays AFAIK, people are out and proud, or trans and proud.  There's nothing to blackmail about.  They do the same job as everyone else.  What is the deal?  (Speaking rhetorically.  I know what the deal is.  Hate.)

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post

Well, what I just realized is Mayor Pete hasn't formally announced he's running for President.  That could be the reason she hasn't interviewed him.  But that's supposed to happen on Sunday.  So Rachel is acting pretty darn quick by interviewing him the next day.

I hope Rachel brings up a lot of issues with him.  I've seen a number of interviews with him & he's consistently been extremely impressive.  He casually & unconsciously presents himself as a total opposite to Trump.  Let's see how he is with Rachel.

The Eric Swalwell interview was a waste of time.  Look, he's smart, attractive & a nice guy, but he's on TV too much -- and my cat has a better chance of winning than he does.  So far EVERY one of Rachel's interviews with candidates have been unmemorable.  Sure, Rachel has been easier on some than others, but if these interviews have been unmemorable, it's not Rachel's fault.  It's the candidates . . .

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

3 hours ago, possibilities said:

Has Rachel interviewed Kamala Harris? If not, why not? I haven't seen her on tv much since the weekend she announced her candidacy.

Yes.

It was back in January.  The candidates need to be circling back, but with so many in the field, and so much other news to talk about, I imagine it's hard to book those repeat appearances.  I just totally hate this two-year election cycle bullshit.  It's just too damn long.

6 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Look, he's smart, attractive & a nice guy, but he's on TV too much

Did you notice the other day -- I'm not sure if it was Rachel or LOD who said it -- complimenting Ways and Means Chairman Neal for just doing his job and never going on the talk shows?  It really felt like a backhanded slap at politicians like Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff who are ubiquitous on the teevee, even though the bread and butter of the talk shows is getting to interview politicians. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Well, what I just realized is Mayor Pete hasn't formally announced he's running for President.  That could be the reason she hasn't interviewed him.  But that's supposed to happen on Sunday.  So Rachel is acting pretty darn quick by interviewing him the next day

Neither did Booker (he's doing it today). I think she didn't give him a spot because he was considered a "joke" candidate for awhile. She also hasn't given a spot to Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gibbard, or Beto (that I'm aware of). Heck has Bernie even been on the show?

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

The Eric Swalwell interview was a waste of time.  Look, he's smart, attractive & a nice guy, but he's on TV too much -- and my cat has a better chance of winning than he does.  So far EVERY one of Rachel's interviews with candidates have been unmemorable.  Sure, Rachel has been easier on some than others, but if these interviews have been unmemorable, it's not Rachel's fault.  It's the candidates . . .

This is how I feel about Swalwell too.  Dude is pretty young, I don’t understand why he’d feel the need to join such a crowded race this time around.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

I hope Rachel brings up a lot of issues with him.  I've seen a number of interviews with him & he's consistently been extremely impressive.  He casually & unconsciously presents himself as a total opposite to Trump.  Let's see how he is with Rachel.

I hope she asks a lot of specific questions on policy.  Mayor Pete says all the right things at a high level on issues, but our only evidence of anything is his record as Mayor of a small college town in Indiana where his major accomplishment was tearing down 1000 housing units in 1000 days....no mention of where the displaced poor people went or anything that he is doing to revitalize the neighborhoods which must be full of vacant lots now.  He's the son of two Notre Dame professors and has a steady supply of privilege in his background.  

Of course, Warren was also only ok on Rachel's show, even though she has been issuing a steady stream of policy and position papers with actual plans regularly.  I'd hate to see a lightweight who speechifies better get farther than someone who has actual policies and a track record of fighting for consumers and constituents as well as years of experience proposing and getting laws passed in Congress.

Edited by izabella
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

I’m trying to figure out Rachel’s strategy with these candidate interviews.  Is she trying to draw out every stance they have on every issue out there — or shoot the breeze with them & give us a taste of their personalities?  Or both?

Has she accomplished much with these interviews?  Uh, no, not so far.  Harris & Warren were OK, but unmemorable — and they both fared better in CNN town halls.  Booker was a bore & Gillibrand sounded like a lightweight.  Castro is a nice guy, but I lost interest quick.  I’ve forgotten any other candidate interviews.

As Mayor Pete rises, a good interview with Rachel could help him a bit, but it’s just one interview.  The ones who really could use a Rachel interview right now are Beto & Bernie.  Beto is looking like a shallow, breathless, arm-waving empty shell.  And Bernie needs to distract from being another old rich guy & sell his healthcare plan that’ll likely never happen in a zillion years.  Those 2 desperately need Rachel.  Maybe that’s why she hasn’t had either of ‘em on?

Edited by ScoobieDoobs

Share this post


Link to post

I think Rachel is giving them a chance to get their message out there, and in some cases, introduce these people to voters.  She's not doing hard-hitting interviews, and unfortunately, a lot of them come on the show with prepared talking points and don't necessarily let their personalities and passions through.  It's also early days in the campaigns, so the candidates themselves are still working on their pitches.  It already feels like a long campaign season, one that never stopped after 2016.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, TexasGal said:

I don’t understand why he’d feel the need to join such a crowded race this time around.

I don't understand anyone joining the race at this point, even though I think everyone's jumped the gun a year too early.  (Yes, I know it's all about fundraising.)  You have to have a serious ego to think after 18 people are already signed up, some of whom are heavy hitters, no, forget all those people, I'm the one.

19 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Booker was a bore & Gillibrand sounded like a lightweight.  Castro is a nice guy, but I lost interest quick.  I’ve forgotten any other candidate interviews.

She interviewed Amy Klobuchar.  She seems to like Amy Klobuchar a lot.  

I refused to watch Gillibrand.  I saw her on Colbert and she had the gravitas of a junior-high school pompom girl.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I think Swalwell is just trying to get his gun restrictions message out there and maybe setting himself up for a cabinet position. Some of the others are doing the same or campaigning for VP.

I think Mayor Pete would be an awesome running mate for Harris 

As for what Rachel's goal is with these interviews, I think it's just to let the people introduce themselves. Hard hitting interviews shouldn't even start (IMO) until October/November. We've got a long way to go before the 2020 election, we haven't even gotten t9 the first Debate (June) and still a long way to Iowa. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:

I think Swalwell is just trying to get his gun restrictions message out there and maybe setting himself up for a cabinet position. Some of the others are doing the same or campaigning for VP.

I think Mayor Pete would be an awesome running mate for Harris 

As for what Rachel's goal is with these interviews, I think it's just to let the people introduce themselves. Hard hitting interviews shouldn't even start (IMO) until October/November. We've got a long way to go before the 2020 election, we haven't even gotten t9 the first Debate (June) and still a long way to Iowa. 

I agree - all of these people are aware that if not the nominee, there's always the chance to get the VP slot.  Really looking forward to Rachel's interview of Mayor Pete.  I would like to see her interview William Weld too. 

I'm glad Adam Schiff has not declared (yet) since I enjoy his appearances with Rachel so much.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I was kinda puzzled why Rachel had Swalwell on.  Was it cuz he represents her parents’ district, as she implied?  Er, not buyin’ that.  I suspect there’s more going on.

Swalwell is clearly very ambitious. I bet he’s using this candidacy for even more attention than he gets from his numerous television appearances.  Why?  I bet he has his eye on Feinstein’s Senate seat.  Don’t forget she’s 85 & might decide to retire after Trump is out, if he loses.

Rachel clearly likes Swalwell (as I do too) & she was probably OK with promoting him, in spite of being an extreme long shot.  Didn’t she pretty much say that?

Gosh, I completely forgot about Rachel’s interview with Klobuchar, who I do like, but is yet another who seems to be getting lost in the crowd of candidates.

As Rachel briefly discussed the awfulness of renewed efforts of the military trans ban, I wondered what Mayor Pete would say on it.  Now, surely all the others Rachel has interviewed would have a predictably sympathetic line.  Will Mayor Pete’s be any more probing & enlightening?  I’d like to see.

I wish Rachel will push Mayor Pete on how being gay could impact his candidacy.  I have not seen this discussed seriously anywhere else.  Maybe Rachel, being gay herself, should be the first one to bring it up & push on it.  If he becomes a more viable candidate, could hate arise & be thrown at him?  Could get very ugly.  Do him a big favor, Rach, and bring that up now.  Another forgettable puff interview would be useless.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

I bet he has his eye on Feinstein’s Senate seat.  Don’t forget she’s 85 & might decide to retire after Trump is out, if he loses.

Rachel clearly likes Swalwell (as I do too) & she was probably OK with promoting him, in spite of being an extreme long shot.

I'd been hoping that Adam Schiff would go for that seat until Feinstein said she was running again in 2018, but he wields a lot more clout as a House Committee chairman than he would as a Senate backbencher.

Swalwell's been such a reliable guest for MSNBC; whenever anyone needs a quote in prime time, he's been there, so maybe they think they owe him.  If he'd just talked about his ideas as he's fully capable of doing, and not tried to push out a prepared speech that didn't answer the direct question, it would have been ok.  

1 hour ago, Morrigan2575 said:

As for what Rachel's goal is with these interviews, I think it's just to let the people introduce themselves. Hard hitting interviews shouldn't even start (IMO) until October/November.

I think you're very, very right.  And she doesn't want to give the right any ammunition to shoot these people with later (so to speak).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/14/2019 at 10:32 PM, taurusrose said:

Rachel was right on target tonight when she talked about the petty lies coming out of Trump’s White House. The letter from his doctor about his health was sort of icky, and why would he (the doctor) state Trump is taller than he is? Can anyone on Trump’s team tell a simple truth?

If he is reported to be taller, the lie about his weight (He is clearly heavier than reported) makes him a pound or two under the "obese" classification.  Our eyes can see the Trump is Obese, but he would flip to be called that by his doctor or by any reporter that can look up the weight chart.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

15 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Yes.

Thanks! I forgot about that.

I've been watching the Town Halls that are being aired by CNN and also the ones with Chris Hayes on MSNBC and they are showing A LOT more of both personality and issue/policy than these little bits on TRMS. It's been very interesting, actually. The quality of both the questions and the answers have been quite good, where Rachel is just kind of glossing over everything and fluffing people's images.

FWIW, there's a recent poll out that says a majority of people don't have a problem with the idea of a gay POTUS. I can't remember the exact numbers, but it was surprisingly good.

I do hope Rachel tries to get Buttigieg to talk about concrete policy, though. He's great at inspirational sound bytes, but I'm starting to get very irritated by how short he is on concrete specifics. He's like the anti-Warren (all generalities and charming fuzzies, zero policy to her extremely detailed policy focus with less of a fuzzy vibe). Mayor Pete has gotten A LOT of media lately. He doesn't really need an introduction right now, he needs to get focused.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Kira53 said:

If he is reported to be taller, the lie about his weight (He is clearly heavier than reported) makes him a pound or two under the "obese" classification.  Our eyes can see the Trump is Obese, but he would flip to be called that by his doctor or by any reporter that can look up the weight chart.

At his age 6'3" has easily become 6'2" which factors in as well. And he weighs one hell of a lot more than 239. 

Do we remember Rachel's tone and facial expressions re the first offishul medical report which was replete with superlatives and gushed about 45's "good genes" and was signed by Dr Ronnie Jackson?

Except ... a physician would sign such a document as Ronnie Jackson, MD. 

And his first name happens to be: "Ronny." 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, possibilities said:

Thanks! I forgot about that.

I've been watching the Town Halls that are being aired by CNN and also the ones with Chris Hayes on MSNBC and they are showing A LOT more of both personality and issue/policy than these little bits on TRMS. It's been very interesting, actually. The quality of both the questions and the answers have been quite good, where Rachel is just kind of glossing over everything and fluffing people's images.

FWIW, there's a recent poll out that says a majority of people don't have a problem with the idea of a gay POTUS. I can't remember the exact numbers, but it was surprisingly good.

I do hope Rachel tries to get Buttigieg to talk about concrete policy, though. He's great at inspirational sound bytes, but I'm starting to get very irritated by how short he is on concrete specifics. He's like the anti-Warren (all generalities and charming fuzzies, zero policy to her extremely detailed policy focus with less of a fuzzy vibe). Mayor Pete has gotten A LOT of media lately. He doesn't really need an introduction right now, he needs to get focused.

Don’t count on Rachel getting in too deep with Mayor Pete — at least not yet.  You know, EVERY one of the candidates she’s interviewed has some negative baggage.  Uh, has Rachel ever brought up their baggage — in these mostly puff & forgettable interviews?  She asked Klobuchar briefly about hers, but quickly let it go.

Nah, Rachel is ALL about history & noting historical moments.  And you can be sure she’ll highlight how this is a historical moment — that Mayor Pete is the first openly gay candidate to run in a primary for President.

Edited by ScoobieDoobs
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

ScoobyDoobs: swimming with a USB key isn't ideal, but one of mine has been through the laundry cycle *twice* and survived just fine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Holy crow, two fine minds sharing a lovely and uplifting conversation. 

Mayor Pete's Arabic ... aerobics, ROFL. 

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, suomi said:

Holy crow, two fine minds sharing a lovely and uplifting conversation. 

Mayor Pete's Arabic ... aerobics, ROFL. 

Somebody - get Lawrence O'Donnell on the phone.  Rachel and Mayor Pete need his hour.  Or rather, I do!  I want more of this thoughtful, intelligent conversation.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

1 minute ago, Morrigan2575 said:

I grow more and more impressed with Mayor Pete. I don't know if he'll win the nomination but, I'd love to see him as a VP or Cabinet Member

He reminds me of Barack Obama - no drama, thoughtful, intelligent, decent, and although 2020 may not be his year, but as people said of Obama following his 2004 convention speech, that he would be America's first black president, perhaps we have seen the person who will be America's first openly gay president.  

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel seems to be open about her personal life and story, with her mentions of Susan, talking about her fishing, etc., but I've never seen her open up like this before, putting her personal experiences into an interview.  I can't imagine a conversation like this between a broadcaster and a politician happening even 5 or 10 years ago. 

And she got him talking about having kids - has he mentioned that in other interviews?  

  • Like 18

Share this post


Link to post

Such a great interview with Mayor Pete!  This candidate impresses me so much!  Smart, calm, thoughtful and sense of humor too.  And how interesting of Rachel to bring up her own experiences as gay and ask Pete about his....that has to be a 1st in Prime-time TV!

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

I hung on every word. I never do that. I'm so proud of this fellow Hoosier. He is very young. It could be really good if he were elected VP for 2 terms and then President. He has much to offer.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/14/2019 at 2:52 PM, ScoobieDoobs said:

And you can be sure she’ll highlight how this is a historical moment — that Mayor Pete is the first openly gay candidate to run in a primary for President.

Your prediction was spot-on.

1 hour ago, Morrigan2575 said:

I grow more and more impressed with Mayor Pete. I don't know if he'll win the nomination but, I'd love to see him as a VP or Cabinet Member

I suspect a lot of the current crop of candidates are really auditioning for one of those slots.

I think Mayor Pete is very smart and articulate, which is a quite refreshing change from the usual politician.  I just don't agree with him on a number of the ideas he's advocated.  That said, I'll vote for a potato next year if it's on the blue side of the ticket.  

They really did have a conversation, which contrasted even more with Eric Swalwell's dismal speechifying the other night.  I have found -- perhaps y'all have too -- that it can be really rare and really exhilarating to be part of a fast-moving intellectual conversation in which you neither have to rephrase your thoughts, nor provide context, because the other person has no trouble following along, no matter where the conversation goes.  That's what this felt like.

Curious why MSNBC tagged the interview as a TRMS exclusive.  It's hardly his first or only one-on-one interview.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

You know, I was as impressed by Rachel as I was by Mayor Pete in this interview.  I thought maybe she was being slightly judgy, with her question on Mayor Pete's timing of when he came out -- and how she could never have waited to come out the way he did.  We can thank LOD for helping her clear that up,  To LOD, she emphasized her experience was clearly different & stressed that she knew every gay person's experience in coming out is different.

So thanks to LOD for helping Rach.  But thanks to Rachel for giving Mayor Pete the opportunity to so casually & easily say that he needed to accept his sexuality himself before he could come out.  He said something similar in an interview with Anderson Cooper, but this really stood out -- in such an honest & heartfelt way.  And when have we heard that description of a "politician" in the last 2 years?

Again, LOD's questioning of Rachel helped her help Mayor Pete.  To LOD, she clarified her reasoning behind asking him the coming out question.  His delay of coming out could imply dishonesty & Rachel knowingly said, as a candidate he'll be completely picked over, so it's better to get any possible baggage out now.

And Rachel also did him a big favor by asking him about foreign policy & in particular, troublesome foreign leaders such as Putin & Kim & how he'd deal with them.  Given his "limited" experience as local Midwest mayor, I was wondering about this.

So how did this interview compare with Rachel's other candidate interviews?  Uh, well, I didn't know Rachel was the first openly gay Rhodes Scholar.  That was interesting.  Did I learn anything new that I haven't seen in other interviews he's done?  Not really.  I will say he's consistent in interviews -- and this one was no different.  He's relaxed, yet focused; whip-smart, but not arrogant.  He just seems like a decent, sincere guy.

I think what impresses me most about Mayor Pete is he's such a clear & effective & compelling speaker.  Compare him to Cory Booker, who can speak for 2 minutes or 20 & I either shut down out of boredom, or wonder WTH he just said.  Mayor Pete is the exact opposite.  Eh, who knows if he can pull off getting the nom, but he sure has a bright future ahead of him.

Edited by ScoobieDoobs
  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Quote
9 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Uh, well, I didn't know Rachel was the first openly gay Rhodes Scholar.  

I was wondering if that was a known fact or the first time we've heard it. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

It’s been mentioned in many articles about her. I don’t remember her ever really talking about her Rhodes Scholar experience on her show before, though. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel's show last night was outstanding.  Mayor Pete is just so impressive and he makes me so hopeful about the future and what could be.. He reminds me of 44 and I am just so scared because of the realities of our country.  I will follow Pete, wherever his career takes him. I am so proud to be a Democrat due to the talent on our side.  An embarrassment of riches!

Edited by Apprentice79
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

I thought Rachel did a good job with her interview of Mayor Pete, although I have not needed to hear more about his personal life, it was a good TV moment.

There is an interesting article about Pete as Mayor with a lot of good details, both good and bad about how he has done in that job.  I'd like to hear more about those things and more about the specific things he intends to accomplish as President.   There is a lot of time tho, and I'm sure he'll be back on more to talk in more detail.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pete-buttigieg-effective-mayor-blind-spot_n_5cb4c9bce4b0ffefe3b4d93b

MSNBC has had a lot of candidates on most of their shows--not just Rachel's---all of the evening shows in particular have been giving them a lot of time.   I feel like that's an improvement over 2016--I felt like we saw a lot of Bernie's campaign people on back then and not that much from Hillary's people.     

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

As a fellow Hoosier (full disclosure I'm on his fundraising team) I'm so proud of Mayor Pete, I'm just glad Rachel had him on so more people can get to know him. 

Re Mueller report on Thursday, there's a fun push on Twitter to get Ari, Rachel & Maya Wiley to sit down and do a 4 hour show taking it all apart and explaining it. 

PPV with cocktails. 

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post

I thought Mayor Pete was great. I noticed that he always makes eye contact with whomever he is speaking,  something Trump rarely does, unless it's  with Putin or Un. My fears are that the nasty GOP campaign managers will use vicious lies to smear Pete, pay someone to come forward with  scandalous allegations, and really trash this decent man. I hope I'm wrong, but look at how down and dirty  the last campaign went.

Share this post


Link to post

Andrea Mitchell & her panel were extolling the virtues of how well Rachel "handled" her interview with Mayor Pete.  They all thought she did a fabulous job.  (So did I!!)

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
saoirse

Reminder; keep discussion to the current episodes of Rachel's show. Failure to follow the forum guidelines can result in removed posts and warnings being doled out. In some cases, suspensions and even banning may occur. Thank you. 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size