Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
saoirse

All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2019 Season

Recommended Posts

11 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 don't mind if she says the name, but I sure do appreciate that she doesn't show endless clips of him spewing his lies. It saves wear and tear on my mute button.

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post

So Rachel had on that guy from Indivisible, talking about a pledge to support the eventual Democratic candidate.  So Bernie is pledging to support the Democratic candidate in 2020 . . . just like he did for Hillary in 2016?  Really?  Uh, OK then.  Sorry, but I don't trust Bernie for a second, given the way he behaved before the 2016 election.  This pledge doesn't mean jack shit if Bernie signs it.  He could lose the primary & go run as an Independent (uh, like he actually is).

Did Rachel seem skeptical or supportive of this?  I couldn't tell.  Look, Rachel, you showed us you can be tough, like in ripping Bridget & Moulton to shreds.  We need Rachel to be tough on candidates & anything related to them.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

I finally got a chance to watch Thursday's show with Bridget Anne Kelly.  I had to FF through the interview after about 2 minutes.  You're not the victim here, Ms. Kelly, the citizens of Fort Lee are.  She's all concerned about her poor children having to see Mommy on the news and in newspapers, but here's an idea - when you're a public servant, how about actually serving the public, instead of engaging in this type of casually cruel , incredibly petty corruption?  Be someone your children can be proud of, try saying right from the start when this type of bullshit is proposed that it is wrong and I'm not going to be a part of it, and make ethics and personal integrity part of your life.  People who do that rarely find themselves charged with a crime of corruption.  

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

So Rachel had on that guy from Indivisible, talking about a pledge to support the eventual Democratic candidate.  So Bernie is pledging to support the Democratic candidate in 2020 . . . just like he did for Hillary in 2016?  Really?  Uh, OK then.  Sorry, but I don't trust Bernie for a second, given the way he behaved before the 2016 election.  This pledge doesn't mean jack shit if Bernie signs it.  He could lose the primary & go run as an Independent (uh, like he actually is).

Did Rachel seem skeptical or supportive of this?  I couldn't tell.  Look, Rachel, you showed us you can be tough, like in ripping Bridget & Moulton to shreds.  We need Rachel to be tough on candidates & anything related to them.

I think Rachael is terrific but I can't help remember that she was loving Bernie in 2016.  She had him as a guest quite often.   I remember one night she had Jane on and she was positively giddy when introducing her.  Chris Hayes was another Bernie Bro.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think the pledge is a good idea. No, there's no way to enforce it if they candidates don't follow through after they sign it. But it's not just the candidates who are being asked to pledge. There is also a pledge for everybody else to sign, and there are going to be events to try to motivate people to follow through.

Indivisible has been one of the more effective forces organizing people in the past 2 years, so even if they can't force anyone to keep their word, I think it's not just about that. I think it's a good message to be putting out, backed up by their other efforts.

I think they are trying, at least, to stop other candidates from developing cult loyalist factions. It may or may not work, but I don't know who else is doing something MORE likely to make a difference, so I'm glad they're trying.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, AnnA said:

I think Rachael is terrific but I can't help remember that she was loving Bernie in 2016.  She had him as a guest quite often.   I remember one night she had Jane on and she was positively giddy when introducing her.  Chris Hayes was another Bernie Bro.

That’s really interesting cuz right now we have absolutely no idea who Rachel favors — or if she favors anyone.  Er, hasn’t she pretty much snuggled up to EVERY candidate she’s had on so far?  Well, except for Moulton.  For some unknown reason, she hates his guts.  But he’s a long shot anyway, so who cares?

I’m really curious if she’ll slobber over Bernie when he finally shows up.  And I wanna see if she’d slaughter Biden over Anita Hill — or will she give him the same kinda cuddly-wuddly interview she’s given all the other candidates except Moulton?

I don’t think she mentioned the Correspondents’ Dinner, did she? As I watched it, the only I was looking for (but did not spot) was Rachel.  Hmmmm.

  • Like 3
  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post

With the campaign season upon us, it seems to be the time for a reminder of the purpose of this forum; it's to discuss what happens on Rachel's show now. What's not the purpose? Rehashing past elections, interviews, or campaigns. Also not up for discussion; who should Rachel have on, and what should she talk about next?

We have allowed a lot of leeway in here, and that will end now. Stick to the show. This does not mean starting a post with "I loved when Rachel did this tonight..." and then promptly bringing up another MSNBC anchor's interview or who someone at MSNBC may support. Posts will disappear going forward. Repeat offenses may result in warnings, up to and including suspension; repeated violations may result in banning.

Thank you,

@tessaray & @saoirse

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

OK, Hayes kinda annoys the piss outta me, so his hand-offs to Rachel are usually of zero interest to me.  Uh, not so tonite.  Rachel asked Hayes quizzically — “Was that the first interview Beto did on cable TV since he announced his run in the Dem primary?”

So did Rachel ask that to confirm to us why she hasn’t had him on her show before?  Or was she wondering why dum-dum Beto gave his first cable TV interview to a lame-ass lightweight like Hayes, instead of Rachel, who gets way bigger ratings?  Or is it just me wondering that?

As pretty much the rest of all media is yammering & fussing over whether Barr is gonna testify before Congress, I loved that Rachel’s attitude about it was a big ole who-gives-a-fuck if he does or doesn’t.  Of course she’s right cuz he’s already shown us he’s just gonna spout a bunch of Trumpian PR spin whenever he speaks.  Rachel is all about Mueller going before Congress.  I’m not so sure . . .

Edited by ScoobieDoobs
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/26/2019 at 10:41 PM, Sesquipedalia said:

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.

This!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I thought the Bridge-gate story was worth it because of the info about them sending her a lawyer to get her info then having him dump her.

I think Rachel missed one other Christie associate who has done well for himself --Chris Wray was a lawyer for Christie when he was governor.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I think Chuck Rosenberg is the kind of person who not only thinks twice about any letter he writes, but thinks three, four, and probably five times.  And any first draft Rachel comes up with would be more concise, more intelligent, more incisive that anything I would write in 100 drafts.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

I was wondering if anyone has a screenshot of the chart Rachel put up on Monday's show, comparing the amount of money given to the various candidates, broken down by the gender of the donors?

Share this post


Link to post

10 minutes ago, possibilities said:

I was wondering if anyone has a screenshot of the chart Rachel put up on Monday's show, comparing the amount of money given to the various candidates, broken down by the gender of the donors?

You can find it on MSNBC - at 15:47 or thereabouts. 

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/democratic-primary-hits-full-stride-more-sign-indivisible-pledge-1514704451660 

image.thumb.png.04dd894bf81aea33b77c80dcbc5a80e9.png

The source material at opensecrets.org is more detailed. 

  • Like 1
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

Chuck has a podcast! 

Wow, even with all the breaking news stores happening,  Rachel got a lot covered last night. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I was geeked out to learn about Chuck's podcast!  Although, his speaking voice is so lovely and sonorous, I worry I'd be comforted right into a nap if I listened to it! But I bet I'd be smarter afterwards!

  • Like 5
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

Ha! I'm another one who was happy to hear about Chuck's podcast.

I find him to be so stable and capable when he speaks --things can be dropping in the news like crazy and he just sorts them out and helps make sense of them.

I thought he was very sweet last night when he said he was humbled that Rachel promoted his new podcast.

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, attica said:

I was geeked out to learn about Chuck's podcast!  Although, his speaking voice is so lovely and sonorous, I worry I'd be comforted right into a nap if I listened to it! But I bet I'd be smarter afterwards!

Better not listen while driving!  

I'm watching the interview with HRC.  Did she wear a black jacket to be like Rachel?  I'd love that for all the guests - there's the rack of black jackets, put one on!  And do you think the cyber security team for the IRS just said "oh shit" after hearing HRC's hypothetical about China?

  • Like 13
  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post

Great interview with Hillary Clinton.  I loved how Hillary turned the whole Mueller investigation and the "no collusion" around by saying what if a democratic candidate went on TV to ask China to find trump's tax returns and the next day the IRS was hacked and his tax returns leaked.  Is that what our elections are reduced to?  asking foreign countries (and who knows who else) to commit crimes to help the candidates? but hey, since the candidate said it all in public and didn't promise to do anything in exchange, there's no crime by the candidate?  Hillary is right that its a dangerous road to be going down.

  • Like 20

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel has Michael Bennett on tonight for her interview.

I like that guy but I think he may be starting too late.

Share this post


Link to post

I loved the Michael Bennett interview last night.  Both parties seemed so at ease and natural.  I also hope he isn't starting too late; I am so glad she gave him an opportunity.  There was a comfort level between the two of them that I found heartening in these days.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Calvada: No, I thought of THE GOOD FIGHT, which had a China cyberspying reference recently.

Kemper: How can it be too late? The first primary is still 10 months away!

Share this post


Link to post

So another candidate interview & I came away with nothing other than Bennet seems like a really nice guy.  Am I expecting too much of Rachel that I want something substantial & memorable?  Even a teeny tiny kernel of something?  C’mon, Rach.

Will it be another unmemorable interview tonite with Kamala?  Hope not.  Rachel is certainly not obligated to interview all of the candidates.  If de Blasio’s peeps call, they should be told to fuck off.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel has Kamala Harris on tonight.  I look forward to this one--she is a candidate that I have not had as much time to research her policy ideas on--so I hope they get to that.

Edited by car54
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

This is odd.  I lost my TV signal exactly at 7:59 pm, but only MSNBC.  Still had Fox, for example.  Rachel came on at 8:06, but since then it's been freezing, pixilating, but again, only MSNBC.  Anyone else having this problem?   Just clicked through, I have NBC, CNBC, but no MSNBC.  

Is it the Russians?  I always thought they would target Rachel!  

Editing to add that after more than 10 minutes of a black screen it came back on - to a vintage Tom Brokaw clip.  But then it goes back to Rachel, and it pixilates again.  WTF??   I hope it's resolved for the later broadcast.  I'll try recording that.  Jesus, it's annoying.  I get maybe 7 seconds of Rachel in focus, then it pixilates and I lose sound.  But only MSNBC!

Edited by Calvada

Share this post


Link to post

8 minutes ago, Jaded said:

@Calvada MSNBC is fine for me through U-Verse. 

It came back on just as Rachel was saying stayed tuned, we have Sen. Kamala Harris here, then I got the commercials just fine (OF COURSE) and since then (fingers crossed) it's been OK.  

I'm still blaming the Russians. 🙂   I will record the later broadcast, since I missed almost half the show.  

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

You can also watch on msnbc.com, probably after 2 or 3 a.m. eastern tomorrow.  If your ISP is on the list, which I would assume since you can watch it on cable.

Share this post


Link to post

Good interview with Kamala.  As a DC insider & given the way she so casually crushed Barr a few days ago, it was nice.  But as a Presidential candidate, did I learn ANYTHING new?  Uh, no.  Guess Warren is the only one now who talks deets on policies?

Look, I don't blame Rach for wanting to talk with her about the current stuff, but why didn't Rachel at least attempt to veer off into some Presidential discussion?  OK, there may have been a slight attempt, but it lasted about a sec.  Why, Rach, why?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I enjoyed the interview with Bennett. I wish they hadn't run out of time, because I wanted to hear what Rachel was going to say about what bothered her in what he'd written, and then his response to that. I think how people respond to criticism is significant.

I also had no idea his mom was Jewish (which, according to Jewish rules, means he's Jewish). I really liked how he talked about his family. Now I'm wondering if he has a book out, as many candidates do.

I've had major candidate fatigue, and I just feel like there are way too many running. But at the same time, some of them are really interesting, and I would like to hear more from them even if not in the context of them being candidates for the presidency.

I get irritated when Rachel talks about how if she's going to be working on Friday, we have to show up. Shut up, woman! A lot of people work 5 days a week. I don't want to hear how burned out she is. Take a vacation if you need one, but don't whine to your audience. And if you can't take more time off? Well, that's how it is for most people, so again: I don't want to hear about it.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

9 hours ago, possibilities said:

I've had major candidate fatigue, and I just feel like there are way too many running. But at the same time, some of them are really interesting, and I would like to hear more from them even if not in the context of them being candidates for the presidency.

I have about 5 or 6 of them that I try to keep up with but you're right--there are TOO many.

I heard no NPR that with Bennett running they've exceeded the size of the debate stage (even with the 2 night thing) so if everyone qualifies, I am not sure what they do.

I did not really get much out of the interview with Kamala Harris --so maybe it is too early for them to be publishing their platform?  I don't know how that works---and Warren is just early?   I feel like after "She persisted" Warren just sat down and decided she would run and spent the next year or so planning on what she was going to do.

And I think Rachel is probably tired because the past few weeks we've had major news drop at 4 or 5 pm and I would imagine when that happens she has to junk a lot of what they've done for that night's show so essentially they're doing 2 shows--one with a time crunch.    Since a lot of the shows have a panel, they can have a lot of their panelists just comment on whatever the breaking story is--but Rachel's show rests mostly on her shoulders--and she prides herself on being prepared so I would imagine having to scramble is stressful.

At this point you'd think she'd have an A team and a B team that comes in later so if they have to scramble she has the people ready to go to pull it together quick.    I think I would have such anxiety if I was in her time slot.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, car54 said:

I heard no NPR that with Bennett running they've exceeded the size of the debate stage (even with the 2 night thing) so if everyone qualifies, I am not sure what they do.

https://democrats.org/press/dnc-announces-details-for-the-first-two-presidential-primary-debates/

Quote

If more than 20 candidates qualify for the debate, the top 20 candidates will be selected using a methodology that gives primacy to candidates meeting both thresholds, followed by the highest polling average, followed by the most unique donors.

6 hours ago, car54 said:

At this point you'd think she'd have an A team and a B team that comes in later so if they have to scramble she has the people ready to go to pull it together quick. 

I don't know if she needs an A and a B team, but she definitely needs a contingency plan for those nights when the script is thrown out the window.  And maybe that includes having a reliable stable of guests who can comment from afar on most topics on short notice. 

Am I the only one who's starting to feel like Rachel reading transcripts is getting overdone?  That she either enjoys the reading too much, or that it's become filler, or both?  The odds are that if one is watching TRMS, one can read, and the producers always put what Rachel's reading on the screen.  There have been times when she reads the transcripts in such detail that she includes, "Good morning, Your Honor...Good morning, Mr. Lawyer," and similar wasted space.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/4/2019 at 7:38 PM, meowmommy said:

she definitely needs a contingency plan for those nights when the script is thrown out the window.  And maybe that includes having a reliable stable of guests who can comment from afar on most topics on short notice. 

This is pretty much what she's been doing IMO.  It should certainly no longer be a shock to them that late breaking news might change the direction of that night's program, and it's happened often enough in the last 2 years.  They should be able to shift on the fly with ease by now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

This is pretty much what she's been doing IMO.  It should certainly no longer be a shock to them that late breaking news might change the direction of that night's program, and it's happened often enough in the last 2 years.  They should be able to shift on the fly with ease by now.

Yeah, I assume that's why we see Joyce Vance, Chuck Rosenberg, and/or Barb McQuade any time there is late-breaking legal news and Michael Beschloss if there's some other big event that she doesn't have time to get in-depth on. And it's probably the best possible solution. Maybe she could expand that stable a little bit more into topics other than the legal field? I would think that would help take some of the burden off.

One thing I have always liked about Rachel's show is that she makes an effort to have actual experts on to explain things instead of just a panel of people yelling. I think it's what sets her show apart from most other cable news programs and I am certain she is fighting as hard as she can not to lose that, but it does probably make her show significantly more difficult to do, given the breakneck pace of the news these days.

Honestly, if it were me, I'd have stopped bothering to come into work before like, noon. But that she doesn't is why Rachel is Rachel and I'm not.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, BabyVegas said:

One thing I have always liked about Rachel's show is that she makes an effort to have actual experts on to explain things instead of just a panel of people yelling.

She skews very much toward lawyers, reporters and elected officials.  She avoids talking heads, surrogates, editorial writers, and pundits, even if they're smart pundits who would support her position.  She almost never has more than one guest at the same time, unless they come as a package or it's a special team (like when she convenes her legal dream team 'seminars'), which differentiates her from about 99% of the shows out there.  And mercifully, she doesn't start the next question until the guest has finished answering the first question.  

This, as much as anything she says or thinks, is a huge secret to her success, and her uniqueness.

  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/6/2019 at 11:48 AM, BabyVegas said:

Honestly, if it were me, I'd have stopped bothering to come into work before like, noon. But that she doesn't is why Rachel is Rachel and I'm not.

This is why I don't mind when she takes the occasional 3 day weekend to go fishing.  She doesn't have the typical 9-5 office job you or I might have.  She's probably "working" every hour she isn't sleeping, especially in today's news environment. Even when she's in the middle of a trout stream she comes out if there's breaking news.  And at the end of her day she hosts a 1 hour show in front of millions of people where she is the primary talking head. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

On 5/6/2019 at 2:36 PM, meowmommy said:

She skews very much toward lawyers, reporters and elected officials.  She avoids talking heads, surrogates, editorial writers, and pundits, even if they're smart pundits who would support her position.  She almost never has more than one guest at the same time, unless they come as a package or it's a special team (like when she convenes her legal dream team 'seminars'), which differentiates her from about 99% of the shows out there.  And mercifully, she doesn't start the next question until the guest has finished answering the first question.  

This, as much as anything she says or thinks, is a huge secret to her success, and her uniqueness.

The fact that she doesn't do those lineups of talking heads is what I like most about Rachel.  She's at her best one on one, and usually asks really good follow-up questions, which doesn't often happen on other shows.  

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calvada said:

The fact that she doesn't do those lineups of talking heads is what I like most about Rachel.  She's at her best one on one, and usually asks really good follow-up questions, which doesn't often happen on other shows.  

Yes, it's all in follow-up questions. 

Share this post


Link to post

I also really appreciate that she sticks with substance and tries to have a serious conversation, and not let her show devolve into shouting and fluff.

I don't begrudge her any time off, I just don't want to hear her complain about how hard she works.

She seemed uncharacteristically gleeful tonight. It almost made me wonder if she has some info she's not sharing, which is making her suddenly optimistic. It's not like we haven't had bombshell news days before, and most of the time it just adds to the outrage and horror and general fatigue of "more!?!?!?!" Maybe I'm reading her wrong, but she actually seemed upbeat tonight, despite it all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I laughed out loud last night when Rachel.....who is usually pretty prim and proper--led with the story about the Jerry Falwell pictures!   

And as usual, she was way ahead of me---I had not really thought about his endorsement being a "thing of value" and that Cohen's fixing might be campaign finance report.   

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, possibilities said:

I also really appreciate that she sticks with substance and tries to have a serious conversation, and not let her show devolve into shouting and fluff.

I don't begrudge her any time off, I just don't want to hear her complain about how hard she works.

She seemed uncharacteristically gleeful tonight. It almost made me wonder if she has some info she's not sharing, which is making her suddenly optimistic. It's not like we haven't had bombshell news days before, and most of the time it just adds to the outrage and horror and general fatigue of "more!?!?!?!" Maybe I'm reading her wrong, but she actually seemed upbeat tonight, despite it all.

I think Rachel is like me, and delights in these holier than thou types being shown to be a sinner just like the rest of us mopes. 

  • Like 4
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

But last nite Rachel didn’t even get into any details about the “racy” Falwell Jr. thing.  That’s cuz last nite it seemed like yet another Michael Cohen trying-to-get-publicity story.  Yawn.  I barely paid attention & wondered why Rach was yammering about It.

As noted above, Rachel has been giddy as hell the last few nites.  And it was really annoying me, given how Trump has been thumbing his nose at Dems in Congress & getting away with everything.  Ah, but tonite I enjoyed Rach!

First, Hayes ended his show with the totally bizarre twist that Falwell Jr. funded some extremely handsome “pool boy” with millions.  Uh, what?  Oh man, Rachel’s WTF look to start her show gave me a giggle.

But what Rachel said tonite was so dead-on right — that these zillions of battles between Dems and Trump (& his supporters) are really only one battle — it’s all about suppressing Mueller.  Well said, Rach!

Edited by ScoobieDoobs
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Why the heck is she so damn giddy lately?  I mean, I guess it’s way better than watching someone gloomy.  It’s just that her sunny/optimistic shtick is so opposite to what’s happening to Dems now.  They’re losing at every turn — consistently & badly.  It’s depressing as shit.  And yet there’s Rach, smiling & jokey & giggling.  I kinda don’t get her attitude.

I like Neal Katyal.  But Rach has him on all the time & he seems a bit useless.  Sure, he’s clearly knowledgeable but useless.  He seems nice enough, but I can’t help thinking that if he had done a better job of setting up the special council rules we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in now.  I’d rather see Chuck, Joyce or Barb.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't like her giddiness.  There is nothing to be giddy about.  And I think her being giddy takes away from the gravity of the destruction of our democracy that she is reporting on every day.  We need serious journalists reporting seriously on extremely serious problems.

Share this post


Link to post

According to Tom Arnold (!!!) Cohen has one of the Falwell pictures he kept after fixing the problem, so stay tuned!

I feel like Rachel is a little pumped up (as is Lawrence) because we've been talking daily about all this Russia/Trump stuff and now things are actually starting to happen---after a long lead up.   

All of them are all excited about having Neal Katyal but what I'd like someone to ask him about is since the rules he wrote for the Special Counsel role kind of ended up ham-stringing Mueller because of who his bosses ended up being (not Neal's fault) would he change anything now knowing how some of the investigation was limited by the rules.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/8/2019 at 6:26 PM, Calvada said:

I think Rachel is like me, and delights in these holier than thou types being shown to be a sinner just like the rest of us mopes. 

Actually they're usually worse!

  • Like 7
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

I get that this James Baker is an important guy, and that he has a lot to say, but I think this is the second time Rachel's had him on, and each time the buildup has been like the Second Coming.  There was nothing really new and different elicited in the interview than Andrew McCabe or James Comey or Chuck Rosenberg has been saying all along, yet this interview lasted almost the full hour, and with the buildup, it was the full hour.  

I really wanted to hear more about this horrible scary story that 45 is openly pushing the Justice Department to investigate his enemies, while Ruuuuudy is openly asking yet another foreign government to collude in plain sight, and what the hell we're going to do about it.  

Oh, and one more thing, Rachel.  Do not whine about TGIF.  TGIF is not the same, and is not meant to be the same, as taking the day off.  When you are in the news business, news happens when it happens.  If you don't want to work Fridays because they are too busy, get it written into your contract so they can hire someone else to work, but stop bitching.  The little people, of course, don't get that option.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I got nothing from that Baker interview -- or the dramatic buildup to it.  C'mon, Rach, there's too much going on now to waste all that show time. 

No mention of Rudy & the Ukraine shit?  Really?

OK, so ya finally got Beto on Monday, Rach.  Except Hayes had him on a week ago.  Ho-hum & yawn.  I was bored stiff after 2 minutes of his interview with Hayes.  If Rachel is just gonna share some yucks with Beto cuz he doesn't have much else to offer, I sure hope she doesn't waste a whole hour on him.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

I get that this James Baker is an important guy, and that he has a lot to say, but I think this is the second time Rachel's had him on, and each time the buildup has been like the Second Coming.  There was nothing really new and different elicited in the interview than Andrew McCabe or James Comey or Chuck Rosenberg has been saying all along, yet this interview lasted almost the full hour, and with the buildup, it was the full hour.  

Her buildup bore me so much that by the time she got to the actual interview I started hearing the Charlie Brown voice not long into it. Seriously though I really did get distracted from the show not long after she started talking to James Baker and by the time I looked at the clock again the show was just about over.

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

Oh, and one more thing, Rachel.  Do not whine about TGIF.  TGIF is not the same, and is not meant to be the same, as taking the day off.  When you are in the news business, news happens when it happens.  If you don't want to work Fridays because they are too busy, get it written into your contract so they can hire someone else to work, but stop bitching.  The little people, of course, don't get that option.

I'm getting sick and tired of all this thinly veiled whining about having to work on Fridays. I'm sure she gets paid enough to work five days a week. I agree with you that she needs something written into her next contract that she'll only work for the first four days of the week since working all five bothers her so much.

There was a time when Rachel's show was just about the only one I watched on MSNBC. I started watching the whole channel more after last years elections and her show is one that I've gotten to the point where I don't care if I miss it or not usually. That fact makes me kinda sad because of how enjoyable she can be more times then not.

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