2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMore Maddow Hackory
I swore I wouldn't watch her anymore (couple of times now) but again I made the mistake tonight. She had this whole segment on "Sanders party of one" where she went detail how Sanders is not raising money for anyone else but himself. Hillary on the other hand is fund raising for other Democrats, and aint it odd Sanders isn't? She played ignorant on how this could be!!!
This story perfectly illustrates how she has sold her soul to be partisan hack. I don't even care if she supports Clinton, but for someone who claims to be student of politics, and is a "journalist" who does 15 minute segments on subjects to inform her viewers, this was blatant hack job.
1) I'll give her the benefit of not investigating or informing her viewers that Clinton is basically using the DNC to get around campaign finance laws, and just having her rich donors get around the $2,700 limit by laundering the money through state level democratic parties. All the money Hillary is raising is all about Hillary. For the purposes of this thread, lets skip this for now.
2) Most important point she could have made and didn't is why is Bernie not raising for other candidates? The obvious answer not mentioned by Maddow is HOW HE IS RAISING MONEY. Typically politicians raise money by holding fundraisers with RICH DONORS. See these rich guys can donate more than the $2,700, so when these rich people go these dinner parties, they donate $2,700, and at same time chip in another $25,000 to other campaigns/state parties. This is how people like the Clinton's get power within the party. They all these rich friends who can attend these fundraisers, and not only give them money, but also money to other causes.
How does Bernie raise his money? He doesn't do these fundraisers. Even if he did, no rich person is going to be attending to give him money. He raises money online. Do you think Hillary is giving away these funds to other people? HAHA.
You can even think this system is great, and nothing wrong or corrupting about it, but don't you think Maddow could have mentioned this? Just said its difficult for Bernie to raise money for anyone else because he does not run fundraisers like other politicians.
elljay
(1,178 posts)for about two minutes, then thought better of it and switched to music. Sounds like I did the right thing. I can deal with someone supporting Hilary's policies du jour, but I am so tired of the spin. It insults the intelligence of informed people.
GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)Good lord. He is not a party of one. I was apathetic till I learned of him and started supporting him 100% and I've donated to a number of other progressives as a result of their endorsing Bernie and verifying their platforms are mostly in line with his. I'm so sick of these asshole pundits.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)She said he was -- for all the right candidates -- and that a letter had just gone out.
The DNC's problem is that many people no longer donate to them so they can decide how to disburse the money. People decide for themselves because they are very particular these days about to whom they give money. So it is DWS's job to get that money in, and she is having problems.
I think Rachel's version is not the literal truth. She is trying to embarrass the Sander's campaign.
Sam
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)Now she's *wince* church, for me.
montanacowboy
(6,053 posts)She is making a fool of herself every night. I feel sorry for her.
Yurovsky
(2,064 posts)Rachel has lost every last bit of the considerable respect I once had for her. I expected the run of the mill major media hacks to grovel at the feet of the corporate-approved candidate. They do as their corporate bosses tell them (CEOs of Disney, Universal, et al).
But I thought Rachel could approach this campaign in an objective and unbiased manner. Sadly I could not have been more wrong. She's just another corporate tool, but not just the obvious kind - kind of a "stealth" corporatist. Prance around like a progressive, spew the right rhetoric, but when the rubber meets the road, stab true progressives in the back to ensure your nest stays well-feathered.
Bye Felicia...
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Interesting and wouldn't be surprised.
And I just thought she was protecting her multi$$$$$$$ paycheck.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)She couldn't find anything else to cover, as in Bill's idiotic behavior yesterday.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Usually, they follow that, even the intelligent succumb to it... That, and power...
tokenlib
(4,186 posts)And Rachel is so blatant. It is so offensive, night after night to see this crap.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)Dem2
(8,166 posts)It's nice not having a horse in this game, it's just entertaining information to me.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Dem2
(8,166 posts)Anybody who believes otherwise is too partisan to understand what they're thinking; they've lost their mind.
carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)to have any credibility whatsoever making such an extreme and preposterous assertion
Dem2
(8,166 posts)And she's very careful to ask guests if she's explained something accurately and will correct any misstatements she's made post haste. If you know of another show host that does this, I'm all ears.
Response to Dem2 (Reply #8)
agracie This message was self-deleted by its author.
Dem2
(8,166 posts)She always asks her guests if she's said anything incorrect and ALWAYS corrects any mistakes she makes.
Anybody who believes otherwise is too partisan to understand what they're thinking; they've lost their mind.
agracie
(950 posts)Dem2
(8,166 posts)See what I mean about so biased one loses their perspective?
But yes, some days Hillary appears to get the better treatment in a story, other days Bernie gets better treatment. Both sides say (on the internet) that she's shit and biased, so that right there tells me she's neither and that people are just expressing their biases.
Little_Wing
(417 posts)oh yeah, why isn't he beating the bushes to help out all the party standard bearers who have voiced their full-throated endorsement of Clinton? Give me a break. When they make some effort on his behalf, we'll make some effort on theirs.
Not shedding any tears for everyone on the Clinton choo-choo. You ride that train to hell town, as far as l'm concerned.
kcjohn1
(751 posts)She can support Clinton all she wants. She could have even made the case Bernie is not helping other democrats and has not in the past as much as someone like the Clintons. This is very true. Clinton's fund raise for lots of democrats.
My issue is she is not being honest on why. This is the big elephant in the room. She made no mention of it like its not known to everyone, especially those who follow politics. Hell I think Bernie probably wouldn't raise money for majority of democrats given their politics.
I would expect this from Fox News. But for her to blatantly withhold the reason why he is not fundraising for others is unforgivable and she should lose ANY credible she has left.
Little_Wing
(417 posts)I used to be a huge fangirl...she used to cover so many important stories. I miss that Rachel. It is like she is punching a time clock, and it is embarrassing to even turn her show on.
The question remains, why? Wouldn't you rather quit than be so dishonest? I would, especially if I'd been pulling in is rumored to be $7mil a year for quite a while...
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Also, her "victory fund" is posting numerous petitions on change.org - how is that helping down-ticket dems? Is her victory fund helping Tim Canova against Wasserman Schultz? I wonder how much you really know about this?
jwirr
(39,215 posts)gave to Tim Canova, Russ Feingold, Alan Grayson, Donna Edwards, Tulsi Gabbard, and Keith Ellison.
And that is just the beginning of my list. One think I make sure is that they are real progressives. I will let DWS donate to the establishment players.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)other groups select our candidates for us. Think Rahm. It should come as no surprise that we have so many 3rd Way representatives in the House and Senate today.
beedle
(1,235 posts)"rage issues".
Man I really wish Cenk was sitting across from the table with her to explain to her IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS exactly how Hillary so easily 'funds other democrats".
Putting aside the loophole that allows the elite to buy off politicians through the state parties .. the Democrats are not only criminals (if it weren't for a law created so the could legally money launder) but even ignoring that crime, they take that money and unfairly distribute it to the 'Hillary Liberty Fund" ... why do they not take half of that money and call it the "Sanders Liberty Fund"? It's not the state "Hillary party' that is sending in the money, it the state 'Democratic Party' that sends the fund.
She should really stop pretending she is excited when she has Bernie 'dignitary' on the show .. it looks phoney .. which it obviously is.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)She's amazing.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)She has turned to the dark side of political footsie.
She is a big disappointment.
I wish she cared about policy as much as she loves politics.
I wish her partisanship was not so influenced by ambition.
SisterSarah
(30 posts)Rachael has enough cash stashed for her Early retirement.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Impedimentus
(898 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)It's really silly how predictable this is.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)particular, they have lost perspective.
jillan
(39,451 posts)I cannot add anything to what you already posted.
I was appalled! Even the women she was interviewing seemed like she was in disbelief of the spin Rachel was putting on this.
I turned it off after that. And will keep it that way until she interviews Bernie or Jane again but hopefully neither of them will agree to go back on her show.
GeorgeGist
(25,294 posts)in different words to sound wonky? It bores the hell outta me.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Sky Masterson
(5,240 posts)She has this thing where she will interview a person and ask them a question she knows the answer for so she can twist it to imply what she wants it to. Bernie was on several weeks ago and as soon as his segment was over she invited Chris Hays on to trash Bernie with her for about 10 minutes.
She has reported good things in the past but I can't forgive her hackery.
riversedge
(69,727 posts)funds for his own campaign. Distracting from the her topic to whine is not cool. and it will not work.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)You know, Hillary's Victopry Fund is posting all sorts of petitions on change.org. I call that campaigning for Hillary and not down-ticket people Besides, is Wasserman Schultz sharing with Canova?
riversedge
(69,727 posts)focus. And her nytimes reporter--who follows the Sanders campaign said the camp might focus on it in the fall. Now you know the focus.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Did Wasserman Schultz send money to Canova?
Her Victory Fund is posting petitions at change.ord. You are so uninformed. It's too bad really.
Hillary's $18 Million "Victory Fund" could be spent helping her campaign
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/3/1465719/-Hillary-s-18-Million-Victory-Fund-could-be-spent-helping-her-campaign
I don't care of you are informed. I'm sorry you trust a TV hack without doing your homework. Rachel currently is as bad as Fox News - which I watch sometimes. Do you get around? Do you just trust MSNBC and Maddow for everything? I fear that's what Clinton supporters do. I think you are more loyal than informed.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)She is a shill. She's proven that big time recently. Thing is, not that many watch her. See the day-by-day ratings here:
http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/category/ratings
MSNBC isn't doing all that well. And their recent chaotic and repetitive politics nation or whatever isn't even interesting anymore.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)So they say "look how much money she is raising!" and not "look who she is raising it from!"
Between WaPo, Maddow and BNR it is easy to tell what the Hillary campaign's meme of the day is.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Pretended she had no idea what that was since the initials of DSCC don't spell DNC. Made Maddow look dumb.
Reporter said he does help worthy Democrats or something like that.
Maddow was neither amused or impressed. Reporter made Maddow look disengenuous. I bet it'll be the last time she's asked to be on the show.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Rachel has a silly show anyway. She can take five minutes just getting to the topic. I'm gone by then. Yes, I try the first five minutes sometimes but I never stay unless Bernie or Jane. I'm a sucker for punishment. Then I vent on DU. Will try Hayes sometimes...nobody else. Actually, quite a few people who've been the victims of her gotcha routine have out-performed her. She frequently comes away the loser.
Love Shep Smith on Fox. I wonder how many MSNBC loyalists will berate me for that? Don't have a favorite on CNN but watch it most now. I get more neutrality there. Not much Bernie or Hillary. Anyone disagree?
jfern
(5,204 posts)It's amazing how Hillary supporters say he hasn't been vetted. The media has never been this much against their candidate. Hillary would be destroyed with this level of vendetta.
Trenzalore
(2,331 posts)and Bernie supporters want to burn her as a witch for doing so.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Trenzalore
(2,331 posts)and from what I watched it was a very nice interview.
She's done stories that are negative to Hillary. I don't cry every time it happens.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Clearly not interested in doing any real journalism on these 2 Dem candidates.
It was obvious.
That's my beef.
Trenzalore
(2,331 posts)Whether his fundraising model can raise money for down ticket democrats.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)And I think that's a very fair question for Ms. Maddow.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)Hyperbole much?
Thank goodness for IL.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Democratic Party, and has frankly admitted that he is exploiting its infrastructure for his own political ambitions.
Hope she continues the investigation of his finances.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Both of them. Of course that would mean real journalism, something she's really not interested in doing.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Manure is good for growing things.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Literally and figuratively.
Clinton, Inc. Just keeps a flinging.
Vinca
(50,170 posts)For starters, he doesn't broadcast to the world what he's doing. Just like he never broadcast the good works he's done in and out of Congress. In that respect, I guess he's kind of a lousy politician. It's difficult to be both humble and a politician. I wish Rachel would give equal time to the $325,000 a couple fundraisers that only a few of the elite are able to attend.
Gothmog
(144,005 posts)Sanders is not raising money for down ballot candidate which will hurt him with super delegates http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/clinton-sanders-differ-down-ballot-democrats
Hillary Clinton raised about $29.5 million for her primary campaign during March. That amount brings the first quarter total to nearly $75 million raised for the primary, beating the campaigns goal of $50 million by about 50 percent. [Hillary For America] begins April with nearly $29 million on hand.
Clinton raised an additional $6.1 million for the DNC and state parties during the month of March, bringing the total for the quarter to about $15 million [emphasis added].
The first part matters, of course, to the extent that Sanders fundraising juggernaut is eclipsing Clintons operation, but its the second part that stands out. How much money did Sanders raise for the DNC and state parties in March? Actually, zero. For the quarter, the total was also zero.
And while the typical voter probably doesnt know or care about candidates work on behalf of down-ballot allies, this speaks to a key difference between Sanders and Clinton: the former is positioning himself as the leader of a revolution; the latter is positioning herself as the leader of the Democratic Party. For Sanders, it means raising amazing amounts of money to advance his ambitions; for Clinton, it means also raising money to help other Democratic candidates.
As Rachel noted on the show last night, the former Secretary of State has begun emphasizing this angle while speaking to voters on the campaign trail. Here, for example, is Clinton addressing a Wisconsin audience over the weekend:
Im also a Democrat and have been a proud Democrat all my adult life. I think thats kind of important if were selecting somebody to be the Democratic nominee of the Democratic Party.
But what it also means is that I know how important to elect state legislatures, to elect Democratic governors, to elect a Democratic Senate and House of Representatives.
The message wasnt subtle: Clinton is a Democrat and Sanders isnt; Clinton is working to help Democrats up and down the ballot and Sanders isnt.
Super Delegates will be taking this difference into account in deciding which candidate is best for the party
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)He raised money through the DSCC NOT the DNC (I could be wrong). In addition, on the grassroots level, Sanders supporters donate to individual candidates...this is easy enough to validate.
I don't think it's fair to ask HIS small dollar supporters to donate to a national level where the DNC are the ones who decide who is deemed worthy to receive $$ when change actually begins on the smaller local level where individuals can decide for themselves who is worthy of support and who is not.
Gothmog
(144,005 posts)Clinton is directly raising money for down ballot candidates and Sanders is not. Super delegates will take this into account.
Maddow's segment was correct. Facts are good things and your disapproval of these facts do not mean that such facts are not true.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)1 where it makes a great meme to say that Sanders doesn't give a fug about other Democrats because....words.
Then there's the 2nd (which smashes meme 1) that he does indeed help support Democrats but through an alternate tool, cue Clinton, Inc. Collective amnesia.
Gothmog
(144,005 posts)questionseverything
(9,631 posts)that our democratic pols do not consider policy when choosing a candidate , only the bribes they bring
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Trump vs Clinton! Horserace City! Money!
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)I wouldn't watch her again. Then she interviewed Jane Sanders. I had to watch. It went quite well. I was surprised Maddow didn't throw her into and under the bus. My question is why? Why did she interview Jane when it is quite clear she is against the Sanders campaign. Her action is the past 2-3 weeks has proven so.
So, yes, I'm done with Maddow too, except for special occasions. She is not to be trusted. Her goal is to protect her paycheck and say what the oligarchs want her to say.
wilt the stilt
(4,528 posts)you need to help it. If you don't run as an independent.
Sky Masterson
(5,240 posts)I think the word "HILL SHILL" should become a thing.
She has to know that what she is doing isn't going unnoticed.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)but he is not doing it WHILE HE IS RUNNING.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Many comments have been about the Super delegates and Bernie not doing traditional fundraising might hurt him with the Super delegates, who see it as not supporting down ticket candidates, or some such argument.
I think the Super Delegates should be mostly concerned with who has the best chance to win the General Election. Selecting a candidate to run in the General Election IS THEIR JOB. THAT is what they are super delegates for.
Or is everyone uninformed and the real job of a super delegate is to decide who is the best fund raiser for the party?
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)Yes, distributing money to other candidates is one way party members support one another.
However, that practice in recent years is funded in large part by the dirtier money that Sanders swore off in order to run a new kind of campaign. Rather than funding other candidacies, Sanders is showing candidates how they, too, could earn donations without relying on corporate largesse.
But the party is still suffering from Citizens United Syndrome, so the suggestions that Sanders play that game are not entirely without merit.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)What if Bernie donors don't want to give their money, or their names and info, over to the DNC because it so corrupt and right wing?
jillan
(39,451 posts)Hillary. All she says is Math - which is the same exact thing Trump surrogates say!
Msnbc has become the Trump v Cruz station with a little dash of Hillary and a bigger dash of Bernie bashing.
It's BIZARRE!