All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2019 Season

[MMEButterfly]

9 minutes ago, PennyPie18 said:

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.

I believe this will be attempted. I am literally praying daily for his strength against this. I do suspect he has a spiritual inner core to handle such ugliness. 

[teddysmom]

8 minutes ago, Medicine Crow said:

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!!)

I just saw that.  

Believe it or not I know someone who doesn't think he could get elected "because he's not tall enough".   I almost threw out my neck rolling my eyes at him.   

[meowmommy]

6 minutes ago, teddysmom said:

Believe it or not I know someone who doesn't think he could get elected "because he's not tall enough".   I almost threw out my neck rolling my eyes at him. 

Well, hey, we live in a world where the Chairwoman of the Federal Reserve was fired because she wasn't tall enough.  Too bad nobody's heard of little Jemmy Madison, the 5'4" genius, President, and Father of the Constitution.  

[PennyPie18]

Amazing, but true.  I read an article years ago stating that Americans prefer, and elect, persons who are taller than average. But, wait, trump is tall, and he's been made to look foolish by much shorter men (Putin and Un), over and over again! So there goes that outdated theory right out the window. And how would Americans react to a much shorter Pence if he should decide to run??

[Galloway Cave]

I was also impressed with Mayor Pete and agree that Rachel did an excellent job with her interview. She wasn't just repeating other interview questions I have heard and she pushed him on publishing his policies on his website (something I have been waiting for). He will be an excellent addition to the new administration, in whatever capacity he gets selected for.

[izabella]

I like Mayor Pete, but I like my POTUS to have had more experience than just being the mayor of a 100k person college town.

[Robert Lynch]

Mayor Pete reminds me of the child character actor Gabriel Damon from the 80s and 90s.

[Cyranetta]

 Mayor Pete is the candidate out of the current crop whose interviews seem to contain the fewest talking points, which is why I find his interviews of more interest than the other "Bs". Rachel is the interviewer who takes advantage of that to cgive a really fascinating time.

[possibilities]

Until I get detailed policy info, I'm not committing to anyone. Right now, I like several of the candidates in a kind of vague impression way, but I'm not interested in electing someone based on a vague sense of they seem decent and well-meaning and smart. Those are necessary, but not sufficient. I want the details of what SPECIFICALLY they want to do, in practical terms.

There's plenty of time for Pete to flesh that out, but "values" are easily manipulated. I need to know way more concretely what his proposals are for action.

[ScoobieDoobs]

As Rachel pointed out about Mayor Pete's website (and also in his previous interviews), he has been light on his policy beliefs.  He said that throwing out detailed policies this early was not as helpful as getting his "values" out.  Was this a bluff for not having his policy beliefs together?  I didn't get that impression.  Was it a bit of a poke at policy-heavy Warren?  Maybe.  But don't a lot of the candidates seem to have similar (if not the same) policy ideas?  So how do we differentiate between them?  Maybe Mayor Pete is on the right track to focus more generally on "values" at this point, rather than overly detailed policies?

I liked that he emphasized focusing on tech advertising in the campaign -- in addition to television advertising.  Strategic tech campaign advertising is absolutely essential now.  Mayor Pete correctly stated how TV advertising is easier to build because it's a traditional track that's already well known.  Tech advertising is more difficult because there are so many paths to follow -- but it's more important than ever to pursue because of its influence.  I haven't heard this from any other candidate so far.

Ugh, a half-hour history lesson from Rachel tonite!  I might be alone here, but I was squirming to tune out.  I'm not thrilled with being force-fed, watching awful stuff from 30 years ago.  But I made myself watch & figured Rachel was doing this for a reason.  Glad I stuck with it.  Rachel was soooo right to show this stuff.  Look, we have no idea what's gonna come out on Thursday.  And if history does repeat itself with Barr's past shady/shifty behavior, Rachel is merely preparing for what could likely be 399 and 3/4 pages of colorfully blocked-out useless garbage. 

While everyone else on cable news is screeching about Trump's peeps being scared shitless of being mentioned in the Mueller report, I suspect they're all wrong, and Rachel has got it absolutely dead-on right.

OK Rach, you had Mayor Pete on, so what about Beto & Bernie?

Edited April 17, 2019 by ScoobieDoobs

[meowmommy]

The cry of the fisher cat got the attention of my cat.

I had forgotten about Paul "Pete" McCloskey.  As has everyone else.  I think Rachel was initially driving the extended handover, but then LOD took the wheel and barreled down the highway at 90 MPH.

3 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

But I made myself watch & figured Rach was doing this for a reason. 

I think history and context are important, and certainly that was borne out by Rachel's end point, but not necessarily in the excruciating detail Rachel provides.  Just because you have the liberty of an extended A block doesn't mean you always have to fill it with every nugget you've found in the archives.

Rather than see each prime-time host do their own spin on Thursday, I'd rather see them pool their resources into a big tent for the evening and just hash it out. 

[SpiritSong]

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I think history and context are important, and certainly that was borne out by Rachel's end point, but not necessarily in the excruciating detail Rachel provides.  Just because you have the liberty of an extended A block doesn't mean you always have to fill it with every nugget you've found in the archives.

Rather than see each prime-time host do their own spin on Thursday, I'd rather see them pool their resources into a big tent for the evening and just hash it out. 

Yes, it was excruciating. Good word. I fast forwarded through the first 30 minutes.

I'd be okay with them all discussing what, if any, actual news comes out about the Mueller Report on Thursday but NOT if Brian Williams is included. I don't need a lightweight newsreader trying to spin it when we have smart people who can do actual analysis. Rachel, Lawrence and Ari would be fine with me. (I tuned into MSNBC yesterday when I heard about Notre Dame, saw BW's mug and immediately changed the channel.)

[QueerGirrl]

There's nothing better than a long detailed history lesson from Rachel and last night was no exception.   Keep doing you Rachel. 

[M. Darcy]

Wow.  You cannot tell me that the Senate did not know all of that in Rachel's story before they voted for him.  He should have never even gotten a conformation hearing - never the less be confirmed. But sadly that is just par for the course the past few years.  

[QueerGirrl]

They probably did but didn't care, or they agreed with what he did back then. 

[izabella]

The Senate knew.  That's WHY he was confirmed.  They needed someone experienced in cover-ups to manage the cover-up.

[ScoobieDoobs]

5 minutes ago, izabella said:

The Senate knew.  That's WHY he was confirmed.  They needed someone experienced in cover-ups to manage the cover-up.

And Rachel spotlighted his past behavior as Bush AG, before the confirmation.  The rest of media?  Not so much.  Still, they harped on him being a professional & even some Dems voted for him.  Ugh. 

Could anyone in the Senate not have known Barr’s past experience & that it was such a perfect fit to hide what’s in the Mueller report?  Hard to believe.  But his past experience didn’t come up in the confirmation hearing.  Dems just repeatedly mentioned his memo (uh, job application) to Trump.  Those Dem Senators should be required to watch Rach nightly!

[teddysmom]

50 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

nd Rachel spotlighted his past behavior as Bush AG, before the confirmation.  The rest of media?  Not so much.  Still, they harped on him being a professional & even some Dems voted for him.  Ugh. 

Could anyone in the Senate not have known Barr’s past experience & that it was such a perfect fit to hide what’s in the Mueller report?  Hard to believe.  But his past experience didn’t come up in the confirmation hearing.  Dems just repeatedly mentioned his memo (uh, job application) to Trump.  Those Dem Senators should be required to watch Rach nightly!

ITA. 

[meowmommy]

You know you watch too much Rachel Maddow when, as you're flipping through the Special Counsel report at 10 am, all you can think is how much Rachel and her team are digging through this in detail and trying to guess which sections she's going to read out loud to us tonight.  

Nicolle Wallace said Rachel's going to have Adam Schiff on tonight.  Good.

[ScoobieDoobs]

Uh, Rachel signed off with see-ya-soon.  So we know what that means.

It’s OK by me for Rachel to take Friday off.  She said she’ll be reading it for the next year.  Whatever on that, Rach.  She should digest it more over the weekend & come up with some more interesting conclusions.  Meanwhile, I need a break from it for a bit.

CNN & MSNBC are just going nuts with it.  And they are absolutely driving the narrative that Fox News & ALL Republicans want to push hard — that we’re all sick of it & to just not talk about it anymore.  Uh, no freakin’ way.

Rachel has the right idea to take a break, look at it more closely to draw more conclusions, but don’t get obsessed with it.  Well, I’m not quite sure Rachel isn’t obsessed with it too, since she said she’s imagining the miniseries of it — just hope she calms down about it too.

[annzeepark914]

3 hours ago, PennyPie18 said:

I suppose this is the wrong place to ask this, (sorry Mods, if it is, ) but is there a Deadline White House forum for Nicolle's show? I like her style, and the way she brings all her guests into the conversations. Maybe one hasn't been started yet??? Maybe I've missed it? Thanks.

I agree. I watch it Monday - Friday.  Most of her guests are great (big exception: Donny Deutch!)  

[Calvada]

Oh no - the bad breath woman is back on the commercials.  I had hoped we had seen the last of her.  TRMS is one of the very few things I watch live (the others being sports) and I can't avoid the commercials.  Yes, I know, I could record it and start watching at about 8:15, but most days I really, really need Rachel by 8:00.

I enjoyed the interviews with Schiff and McCabe.  And I agree with Rachel, she could spend the next year on the report.  "Tonight on the Rachel Maddow Show - pages 47 to 52!"

[freddi]

I loved the opening on Friday, with Rachel acting out Trump having a brainstorm of a great idea -- and another idea...  

I was sorry the Barbara McQuade was only on for about three minutes at the end of the show on Thursday (Mueller Day) -- I could listen to her and Joyce Vance for extended sessions.  And Chuck Rosenberg.  I would have preferred another segment with Joyce tonight instead of two presidential candidates saying that the Report might indicate the need for impeachment.  (For Dem candidates, that is a "Duh" question) 

 

I am so glad all of you weighed in on this interview -- on Monday, I was all Notre Dame, all the time, so not interested in another presidential interview.  But I went back this evening on the last day it was On Demand, and wow, I see why everyone was talking about this.  Yes, for me it was the sense that he was not there delivering his talking points, but there to have a real conversation, and a thoughtful one, that made it so compelling.  Many thanks for highlighting this episode!  

On 4/16/2019 at 11:48 AM, teddysmom said:

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. 

On 4/16/2019 at 11:57 AM, Medicine Crow said:

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!!)

On 4/15/2019 at 11:05 PM, ScoobieDoobs said:

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.

[ScoobieDoobs]

Surprised, but glad to see ya on, Rach!  Some fun zingers tonite.

“Quick, Cory, bite off a finger & write this down in blood!”  Uh, I could so see the wormy creep doing that.

“What a campaign slogan — vote for me so I can avoid indictments. Eh, they can make it rhyme & fit it on a hat.”  Thanks for the chuckles, Rach!

Warren?  Sorry, Rach, you may not agree, but I think she was trying to make headlines.  Meh.

She ended with my fav Joyce (that is, when Barb isn’t around) with some interesting stuff on Dan Coates that I’ve heard nowhere else.  Hey, is Chuck on MSNBC so much during the day, he’s too pooped to go on with Rachel?  Aw . . .

Edited April 20, 2019 by ScoobieDoobs

[Calvada]

A bit of a combative interview with Seth Moulton, talking over each other a couple of times.  If during your first national interview after throwing your hat in the race , you have to address  what you have to do to win back women voters, you just might be a long shot for the nomination.   

[ScoobieDoobs]

Wow, I thought Rachel was pretty tough on Moulton.  She started out tough on him & continued being tough on him.  Uh, what was up with this?  Oh, I'm totally indifferent to him, but it was nice to see her finally, finally, finally being tough on a candidate. 

Now, if she can only be this tough on Bernie when he comes around.  I was really doubting she could & figured she'll she just be a fawning fangirl when Bernie is there.  But in her signoff to LOD, she referred to Biden & Bernie as octogenarians, with a slight sneer.  Is she not the Bernie fan she once was?  Hmmmm.  Also surprising to me in the signoff -- she mentioned in the past, more candidates in the primary resulted in an eventually stronger Presidential candidate.  Um, what the what?  She's been so sarcastic about mentioning the ever growing number of candidates, I thought she didn't approve.  Color me confused.  Guess I'm not good at reading Rachel?

Edited April 23, 2019 by ScoobieDoobs

[freddi]

I totally didn’t follow the “more candidates leads to a more electable candidate“.  That’s a political theory I haven’t seen much.  Guess that’s how we got Trump?  

30 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Also surprising to me in the signoff -- she mentioned in the past, more candidates in the primary resulted in an eventually stronger Presidential candidate.  Um, what the what?  She's been so sarcastic about mentioning the ever growing number of candidates, I thought she didn't approve.  Color me confused.  Guess I'm not good at reading Rachel?

[Sesquipedalia]

Damn. You know your interview isn't going well when you have to randomly out of nowhere bring up your war record. As soon as Rachel used the phrase "came at the queen and missed, twice" in the intro, I knew it would not be pretty.

[M. Darcy]

Yeah, Seth did not do himself any favors by going on the show.  I thought he came off as smug and a bit of an ass. 

[AnnA]

Rachael was pro-Bernie in 2016.    So was Chris Hayes.    I don't think they're going to repeat that this election.   They both got beat up on social media for it.  

I agree that she was hard on Seth last night.  I don't know why.   Maybe because she knows he's just doing it for name recognition.   There's another candidate, a woman (I forgot her name) who just released a book and I saw her on New Day this morning.   That's another reason some of them run......promote your book!   That aspect really pisses me off.   This election is serious business and I hate seeing anyone exploit it.    When Joe Biden announces this week, there will be 20 democrats running for the nomination.  😝

[TexasGal]

I never thought I’d hear Rachel discuss Whomp There It Is.  The world we live in!

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, TexasGal said:

I never thought I’d hear Rachel discuss Whomp There It Is.  The world we live in!

And I'm sorry, but I've never heard of it or any variation of it.  Rings absolutely zero bells.  So apparently, according to Rachel, I was not alive and sentient in 1993.  

[Sesquipedalia]

This was not one of Rachel's most relevant historical analogies. Her repeated references to the song only made sense if you hear it as "Oops, there it is" even though she explicitly pointed out that the actual lyric is "whoomp," which, as far as I can tell, is not a synonym for oops.

[wendyg]

I'm not surprised if Maddow and others are less keen on Sanders this time around: he's four years older and he's no longer the only one with progressive goals.

Before appearing on TRMS, Pete Buttigieg gave an interview to The West Wing Weekly podcast, and he made an interesting point that although we think of them as different generations because their ages were so different when they were president, Clinton, Bush, and Trump were all born within a few weeks of each other in 1946. (Curiously, since Obama was born in 1961 we have never had a president who was born in the 1950s, and unless something happens to Trump and Pence succeeds we are highly unlikely ever to have one).

Sanders was born in 1941, Biden in 1942, Nancy Pelosi in 1940. I would never say that someone should be disqualified from a job because of their age, but so many current issues are are late arrivals in the lives of people born in the 1940s but things younger people have grown up with that I really do think there's a lot to be said for moving on from the 1940s. Plus, of course, the US Presidency as normally executed is a hugely taxing job; even younger presidents like Obama and Clinton visibly age by the day. The exception was Reagan, who was 70 when first elected - but he always looked like he dyed his hair and wore makeup.

Edited April 25, 2019 by wendyg
corrected Buttigieg

[Medicine Crow]

I thought it was nice of Rachel to say that Brian Williams was a great interviewer & to watch his show (last night) to see him with ???.

[DorianGray]

24 minutes ago, Medicine Crow said:

I thought it was nice of Rachel to say that Brian Williams was a great interviewer & to watch his show (last night) to see him with ???.

Robert Costa. 

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

Rachel really grilled Bridget Kelly as she should. I remember her coverage on Bridge-gate.

Bridget Kelly is a model of conservative women who do the bidding of men and frankly, ideologies they themselves believe in but find themselves defenseless when it bites them. In the rare occasions there is real consequences of their actions, they realize how expandable they within the group they've aligned with.

She's now here playing the poor victim and bless Rachel, she won't let her. 

Edited April 26, 2019 by Deputy Deputy CoS

[freddi]

I heard the end of the opening segment, with "where are they now" rogues gallery from the Christie administration.  And it reminded me of the end of "Fast Times at Ridgemont High", with all the various future stories of success and shady careers.  

The she said that Bridget Ann Kelly was the next guest, and I went, "what is this, TMZ?"

But it was a great interview -- Rachel did not let her off the hook, and she got a lot of details from Bridget, even though it was clear that Rachel was not entirely convinced of her story from the days of the traffic slowdown.  But the attorney part of the story was outrageous!  I think Rachel found that part more believable -- mainly so she could start to follow that trail to the NJ Supreme Court.    

I loved Rachel's coverage of Bridgegate almost every night back then.  I could not get enough!  

5 minutes ago, Deputy Deputy CoS said:

Rachel really grilled Bridget Kelly as she should. I remember her coverage on Bridge-gate.

Edited April 26, 2019 by freddi

[M. Darcy]

9 minutes ago, Deputy Deputy CoS said:

She's now her playing the poor victim and bless Rachel, she won't let her. 

Yeah the amount of sympathy I have for her is zilch. She knew exactly what she was doing and she knew there was no traffic study. 

[ScoobieDoobs]

Soooo what exactly was the point of having Kelly there?  Look, I was chomping at the bit when the show started -- cuz anything that takes down a vile character like Christie would make me infinitely happy.  But that's NOT what happened.

Look, at the core of this is that Kelly is an EXTREMELY unsympathetic character in the Bridgegate bullshit.  She's going exactly where she should be going -- to jail.  And Rachel squashed her like a bug, kinda like she did (maybe not as justifiably) to Moulton a few nites ago.  So what was the point of having her there at all, Rachel?  To bring up this stuff about the guy Christie appointed to the NJ Supreme Court?  While you squashed Kelly like a bug, Rach, you also destroyed her credibility too.  This was a disappointing waste of time.  Devoting an hour to it?  Uh, no.

At least Rachel got to the Maria Butina news cuz I've been completely puzzled why she hasn't mentioned it all the last few nites, since much has been brewing with her & I thought Rach was totally obsessed with Butina.

You could skip the show tonite & just watch the signoff with LOD cuz he got in the best line -- that Rachel could expect a lineup of Trump appointees to come on her show in 2 years.  Now, that gave me a belly laugh!  Bridget Kelly?  Yech, blech & barf!!

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

20 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Soooo what exactly was the point of having Kelly there?  Look, I was chomping at the bit when the show started -- cuz anything that takes down a vile character like Christie would make me infinitely happy.  But that's NOT what happened.

Her appearance on the show is extremely important for continuity. The story didn't end after Rachel's extensive reporting. It'll be negligent of her to not follow-up given the current ramifications. Bridget  Kelly is appropriate to have on to showcase this as she's in the central character in the ongoing sage and one who is willing to go on her show.

Regardless of Kelly's agenda (it didn't fly with Rachel) having her on was a great journalist move. Taking down Chris Christie shouldn't be the reason why Rachel would continue to follow this story

[ScoobieDoobs]

Yeah, but there was nothing new here.  Nothing, but this accusation from Bridget against this Christie appointee.  And Bridget's credibility is zilch.  She made the same denials she made on the stand.  Actually, seeing her made me nauseous.  Sorry, I just saw no point to this.  Unless she thought she'd use Rachel to gain some sympathy & Rach shut that down quick.  But Rachel devoted an hour to this.  Why?

7 minutes ago, Deputy Deputy CoS said:

Her appearance on the show is extremely important for continuity. The story didn't end after Rachel's extensive reporting. It'll be negligent of her to not follow-up given the current ramifications. Bridget  Kelly is appropriate to have on to showcase this as she's in the central character in the ongoing sage and one who is willing to go on her show.

Regardless of Kelly's agenda (it didn't fly with Rachel) having her on was a great journalist move. Taking down Chris Christie shouldn't be the reason why Rachel would continue to follow this story

[ButterQueen]

On 4/17/2019 at 10:35 AM, QueerGirrl said:

There's nothing better than a long detailed history lesson from Rachel and last night was no exception.   Keep doing you Rachel. 

Sadly, we’re getting bored by her long A block.  I just tune her out.  

[meowmommy]

57 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Yeah, but there was nothing new here.  Nothing, but this accusation from Bridget against this Christie appointee. 

40 minutes ago, ButterQueen said:

Sadly, we’re getting bored by her long A block.

I was bored out of my mind.  This is old news, despite Bridget Kelly being resentenced yesterday.  I don't know if she's trying to have her Michael Cohen moment in the sun, but it didn't work and Rachel wasted a good hour that could have been spent on a worthwhile topic or three.  I shut it off halfway through.  No amount of last minute rabbit tricks is going to result in Chris Christie on trial.  

1 hour ago, Deputy Deputy CoS said:

Her appearance on the show is extremely important for continuity. The story didn't end after Rachel's extensive reporting. It'll be negligent of her to not follow-up given the current ramifications.

Hafta see it differently.  The only thing that changed yesterday is that someone who was already sentenced to jail had the term modified.  There is no news here, and certainly nothing to take the full hour.

This inquiring mind wants to know why the hell has Rachel not had Auntie Maxine back after their technical difficulties.

[possibilities]

I honestly didn't understand what the point was. She is NOW going to start talking? NOW? If she had information she should have said something a long time ago. She saved it why? Did she think she was going to be pardoned or something, and now that she realizes no one is going to rescue her, she's decided to speak up?

It's like if Sarah Huckabee Sanders suddenly asked for sympathy because she participated in something that everyone else got away with.

You're an adult. "A traffic study" that resulted in deaths and was not stopped when the ambulances couldn't get through? Really?

[ScoobieDoobs]

Didn't Rachel poise the show (from the start) to blare loudly -- Rachel's got a big, fat, gigantic scoop?  Cuz if she did, well, then it belly-flopped badly.  I'd much rather have seen her talking about Anita Hill's reaction to Biden so insincerely reaching out to her, rather this hour-long nothing-burger.  Oy, Rach, leave the scoops to the reporters at The Times or WP or WSJ, will ya?  

[teddysmom]

I thought Kelly is trying to point out that Christie knew about the bridge closing, and she was the one along with Stepien (?) who was thrown under the bus to protect Christie. 

The deal with that attorney saying he'd represent her, when it was nothing but a ploy to find out what she knew and what she'd say is pretty disgusting.  She should have known better. 

I don't have any sympathy for her, and I doubt she has hard proof that Christie knew. I'm sure he did, but if she had proof it would have come out at trial. 

I think she's trying to pull a Michael Cohen, but he had the receipts and she doesn't. 

Her explanation of the "is it wrong I'm smiling" was bullshit.  Also, why would you shut down lanes to do a traffic study? You put the counters across the lanes and the ramps.  

[Quilt Fairy]

I think Rachel wanted a show where she didn't have to say the name "Trump" for an entire 60 minutes and this was her chance.

[teddysmom]

4 hours ago, ButterQueen said:

We used to love her show and never missed it.  We still watch, but her A block loses us sometimes.  

DVR & FF are a blessing when watching Rachel sometimes. 

Occasionally when she starts reading transcripts I have to turn it off. 

[Sesquipedalia]

7 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

I think Rachel wanted a show where she didn't have to say the name "Trump" for an entire 60 minutes and this was her chance.

I have to say I enjoyed reliving the simpler times of the Bridgegate scandal and getting a temporary reprieve from the T word. But I understand what people are saying about the story maybe not being worthy of the whole hour. It seemed like Rachel was implying that Christie got the lawyer to trick Kelly into giving him information and then rewarded him with a supreme court seat. But she never came out and said that, and then Kelly wasn't any more explicit, even walking back the idea that she told the lawyer "everything." So, yeah, we're no closer to seeing Christie brought to justice, and it's not clear why Kelly would bring this up now. The whole thing sounds pretty sketchy, but how does talking about it help her?

I have mixed feelings about Kelly. On one hand, I have no doubt that her being a woman made it easier to scapegoat her, and the report that focused on her love life was sexist garbage. I also wouldn't be surprised if her comments about how she was just going along with the powerful men around her was at least partially true--just because it's so common for women to play that role of reflecting male colleagues back at twice their actual size.

On the other hand, I found her attempt to cast herself as the victim really annoying. Even if she was just going along with the men's idea, that's on her. She was around 40 at the time of Bridgegate. She was an adult woman responsible for her own actions.