Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jillan

(39,451 posts)
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 04:37 PM Feb 2016

Rachel Maddow. My rant continues....

Last week when I caught a couple of her shows one of the things she ranted about was how devastating it would for Bernie to lose Massachusetts because it is a white, liberal state that borders with his state of Vermont.

I have heard that Rachel is a Rhodes scholar. I would think a Rhodes scholar would know that the Senator from NY's state also borders Mass. So if this is the case, wouldn't it be just as devastating for Hillary to lose Mass?


-------------------------------
And then there is this..... Rachel has been whining
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/28/respected-liberal-journalists-issue-important-warning-democrats.html

This article, fluff piece, piece of crap that was written by someone named rmuse, whose twitter page is nothing more than an attack on Bernie & the repugs, actually lumps Capehart & Maddow for their concerns. Of course! Capehart spews vitriol, what else would we expect...
But Rachel is still pointing fingers at Bernie supporters for the Dems lower turnout-

She said that “the rhetoric of a mass movement on the Democratic side and the lack of voter enthusiasm is not a good thing for the Democratic Party this year. In the case of Clinton v Sanders, this is probative (establishes proof of her point).”


Oh Rachel, this is a democracy and we have every right to want to change the way things are. When else other than a Presidential election will our voices be heard? Please stop pointing fingers at those of us that have had ENOUGH!



Count me in as someone that has had it with the propaganda of today's mainstream media.

39 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Rachel Maddow. My rant continues.... (Original Post) jillan Feb 2016 OP
We all know Hillary isn't from NY. She just grabbed that Senate post because it was available, thereismore Feb 2016 #1
Actually she never left NY since she ran for senate. She's been there a while. jillan Feb 2016 #3
Fair enough, but she isn't from there. nt thereismore Feb 2016 #5
I know what your saying. But she has lived there for a little over 15 years. That's more jillan Feb 2016 #7
She already had the connections in the first place. TTUBatfan2008 Feb 2016 #8
She grabbed that senate seat so she could quid pro quo with the big banks. TryLogic Feb 2016 #18
"paracaidismo" in Spanish MisterP Feb 2016 #20
I never knew anyone who voted based on a candidate's geographic proximity anyway. arcane1 Feb 2016 #2
That was the msm's explanation for why Bernie won NH in a landslide. jillan Feb 2016 #4
God forbid they would say he won it on merit MissDeeds Feb 2016 #6
The "neighboring state" thing is mostly based on having higher name recognition than your opponent. thesquanderer Feb 2016 #22
I used to like Rachel MissDeeds Feb 2016 #9
I hate the way she lectures, too. Blue_In_AK Feb 2016 #14
I got that lecture feeling from Rachel's first few shows... Contrary1 Feb 2016 #24
Like her? I used to love her. farleftlib Feb 2016 #28
Maybe Rachel doesn't want her taxes to go up n2doc Feb 2016 #10
Count me in as someone that has had it with Rachel Maddow and MSNBC. Enthusiast Feb 2016 #11
She, just like all the other talking heads, is an overpaid hack. Nyan Feb 2016 #12
Rachael showed her true colors when Keith was booted and she bbgrunt Feb 2016 #13
MSNBC is a market researcher olddots Feb 2016 #15
You're right of course, but you have to understand the New Yorker mindset Mufaddal Feb 2016 #16
That's a ridiculous comment Depaysement Feb 2016 #32
I totally understand. I am from Chicago. Being from Chicago is nothing like being from any other jillan Feb 2016 #37
MSNBC, hence Rachel, are now owned by Comcast, a crappy right wing media corporation. TryLogic Feb 2016 #17
As a New Yorker HillareeeHillaraah Feb 2016 #19
I know you downstate folk think you own the bragging rights dragonfly301 Feb 2016 #30
Wow, that's kind of a terse response HillareeeHillaraah Feb 2016 #31
The propaganda is truly overwhelming, some get lots more than others Land Shark Feb 2016 #21
not watching TV for the last 8 years is one of the best decisions I've ever made. NRaleighLiberal Feb 2016 #23
I see. in_cog_ni_to Feb 2016 #25
Oh - I have some info about SC & why the turnout was so low. jillan Feb 2016 #26
Oh no. in_cog_ni_to Feb 2016 #29
It wasn't just Bernie's problem that he couldn't connect. A lot of voters were remembering 2008 jillan Feb 2016 #34
I wrote a short OP about three weeks back saying she was a sellout, I was attacked by a lot of folks onecaliberal Feb 2016 #27
Yeah. I'm not watching her as much either because she Cleita Feb 2016 #33
Subversive Super-Delegates? Sweetearth Feb 2016 #35
What? Did she say Subversive Super-Delegates? jillan Feb 2016 #36
Sorry about that Sweetearth Mar 2016 #38
Sorry I misunderstood :) jillan Mar 2016 #39

thereismore

(13,326 posts)
1. We all know Hillary isn't from NY. She just grabbed that Senate post because it was available,
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 04:40 PM
Feb 2016

on her way to higher places.

jillan

(39,451 posts)
7. I know what your saying. But she has lived there for a little over 15 years. That's more
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 04:55 PM
Feb 2016

than enough time for a savvy politician to make connections.

TTUBatfan2008

(3,623 posts)
8. She already had the connections in the first place.
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 05:00 PM
Feb 2016

Wall Street has been friendly with the Clintons for a long, long time.

 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
2. I never knew anyone who voted based on a candidate's geographic proximity anyway.
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 04:41 PM
Feb 2016

Who are these idiots?

thesquanderer

(11,972 posts)
22. The "neighboring state" thing is mostly based on having higher name recognition than your opponent.
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 07:26 PM
Feb 2016

And it's a false premise if your opponent is named Hillary Clinton.

 

MissDeeds

(7,499 posts)
9. I used to like Rachel
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 05:03 PM
Feb 2016

Now I regard her as just another corporate sell out who will spew M$M talking points for the almighty dollar.

I hate the way she lectures and speaks down to her viewers as if they are incapable of forming their own opinions without her incredibly insightful guidance and input.

I'll never watch her again.

Blue_In_AK

(46,436 posts)
14. I hate the way she lectures, too.
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 06:19 PM
Feb 2016

Saying the same thing four or five times, merely changing a word or two, doesn't make it any more meaningful. I got it the first time. I guess she just needs to fill up her hour with words even if they're the same words over and over.

Contrary1

(12,629 posts)
24. I got that lecture feeling from Rachel's first few shows...
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 07:33 PM
Feb 2016

I quit watching a long time ago. Their main goal these days is to cater to the Conservatives ala Fox.

 

farleftlib

(2,125 posts)
28. Like her? I used to love her.
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 07:57 PM
Feb 2016

When Rachel had a show on Air America Radio after the sElection 2000 and 9/11 I used to think it was a pipe dream that she would one day go mainstream. Her show used to air at like 5:00 AM or something like that but you could stream it any time. She kept me sane during that insane time. Now she has her own primetime show on a major network and I wish she would just go away. She is the last person on earth who I would've thought would sell out. But that's exactly what she did. I hope it was worth it.

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
10. Maybe Rachel doesn't want her taxes to go up
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 05:06 PM
Feb 2016

That is usually what I think of when these well-paid media personalities go off on Sanders.

Enthusiast

(50,983 posts)
11. Count me in as someone that has had it with Rachel Maddow and MSNBC.
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 05:26 PM
Feb 2016

And the entire MSM. All they do is mislead the viewers.

Nyan

(1,192 posts)
12. She, just like all the other talking heads, is an overpaid hack.
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 05:33 PM
Feb 2016

It's time we stopped paying attention to her.

bbgrunt

(5,281 posts)
13. Rachael showed her true colors when Keith was booted and she
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 05:42 PM
Feb 2016

didn't even bother to give him a phone call.

Mufaddal

(1,021 posts)
16. You're right of course, but you have to understand the New Yorker mindset
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 06:28 PM
Feb 2016
I would think a Rhodes scholar would know that the Senator from NY's state also borders Mass.


I lived in NYC for years. When people found out I was from Vermont, half the time they didn't know where it was. Someone being a New Yorker (as in NYC) is different from being a New Yorker (as in NYS).

Depaysement

(1,835 posts)
32. That's a ridiculous comment
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 08:36 PM
Feb 2016

She was making a political point for her chosen candidate.

She once did lived in Western Mass and that's pretty much equidistant from tthe Vermont and NY State borders.

jillan

(39,451 posts)
37. I totally understand. I am from Chicago. Being from Chicago is nothing like being from any other
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 11:15 PM
Feb 2016

part of Illinois.

 

HillareeeHillaraah

(685 posts)
19. As a New Yorker
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 07:23 PM
Feb 2016

We consider our borders to be tri- state. We're the NY-NJ-CT section of the country.

Mass and Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, New Hampshire even parts of Northern Connecticut, we call that New England and it's really seen as a separate grouping.

Just saying...

dragonfly301

(399 posts)
30. I know you downstate folk think you own the bragging rights
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 08:11 PM
Feb 2016

but I grew up in Albany, you know the capital, and we were about a 30 minute drive from Massachusetts. My high school skied at Jiminy Peak every Friday night in the winter, my dad had season tix to the minor league team in Pittsfield when the Red Sox had the franchise. And if we're being totally ridiculous about neighboring state favored son/daughter isn't Iowa next to Illinois where Hillary spent her first 18 years?

 

HillareeeHillaraah

(685 posts)
31. Wow, that's kind of a terse response
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 08:29 PM
Feb 2016

Wasn't bragging about anything, I was just mentioning that in this area - the area the Clintons have called home for the past 16 years - we go by the nickname The Tri State Area. Further, around here, we call everything from around Norwalk and up "New England". But I notice now the group name, I'll leave you be.

Have a good evening.






Land Shark

(6,346 posts)
21. The propaganda is truly overwhelming, some get lots more than others
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 07:26 PM
Feb 2016

Positive MSM bias in favor of rubio and clinton (for now). Negative MSM bias against Trump and Sanders. I don't need to support or oppose someone to see the unfairness or favor toward someone....

in_cog_ni_to

(41,600 posts)
25. I see.
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 07:47 PM
Feb 2016

Rachel's head was so far up Clinton's arse she must have completely missed Iowa and New Hampshire! Now SC is what we measure election turnout by? I don't think so.

Shove off, Rach...you've sold your soul to the devil.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

jillan

(39,451 posts)
26. Oh - I have some info about SC & why the turnout was so low.
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 07:50 PM
Feb 2016

Will post later.

I guess we should be happy tho because it could've been worse for Bernie.

jillan

(39,451 posts)
34. It wasn't just Bernie's problem that he couldn't connect. A lot of voters were remembering 2008
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 10:34 PM
Feb 2016

12% turnout - that's the yuuuuuge win! Like I said, if more did vote it probably would've been more votes for her.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511376449

onecaliberal

(32,777 posts)
27. I wrote a short OP about three weeks back saying she was a sellout, I was attacked by a lot of folks
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 07:52 PM
Feb 2016

Maddow is the worst. She should know better. The saddest thing, if Hillary had her way, Rachel would be considered a second class citizen and NOT have the ability to marry the person she loves.

Cleita

(75,480 posts)
33. Yeah. I'm not watching her as much either because she
Mon Feb 29, 2016, 09:53 PM
Feb 2016

is no longer informative like she was a few years ago. At least we still have Amy Goodman for complete and factual coverage of current events.

Sweetearth

(7 posts)
38. Sorry about that
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 12:13 AM
Mar 2016

...maybe that post was a little obscure. What I was trying to say was it seemed silly to me that Rachael who's very high profile -- Hillary? needs to post in a group that calls itself "underground." I mean, "subversive" was supposed to be funny

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Bernie Sanders»Rachel Maddow. My rant c...