Maddow tells Clinton she is casting aspersions on Bernie's

[2pooped2pop]

chatacter, and I do believe those are daggers shooting out of Hillary's eyes. I cant see the video on my phone but can't wait to check it out on my computer tomorrow, but it looks like there is a video.

Sorry but my phone does not seem to want to cut and paste paragraphs but I was able to get the addy.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/rachel-maddow-confronts-clinton-over-sanders-attack-youre-casting-aspersions-on-his-character/

[elleng]

1. THANKS!

Missed the show due to watching repugs, hoped it would rerun but it hasn't.

[elleng]

3. She said 'again,'

turning it all over to the states. (Healthcare.) True or not??? Do we know enough?

[Fawke Em]

4. The states currently administer Medicare/Medicaid.

Anyhoo.... https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1782/text

[elleng]

6. Thanks, Fawke.

Will take a while to digest.

[bornskeptic]

9. The states administer Medicaid - not Medicare.

It was not until 17 years after Medicaid was established that all states had agreed to participate. Arizona did not do so until 1982.

http://www.gomedicare.com/medicare-information/medicaid-history.html

[2pooped2pop]

5. do you mean letting the states decide

If they want to participate or not in single payer? I'm not positive but I think I saw something somewhere where he said states would not be able to prevent their people from being part of it and getting the healthcare.

Either way, much will still be needed to work out and nothing will happen immediately. I would think that he will have to explain things to the people so they can decide if they want to vote in people who will help him pass programs designed for the people. But I don't know and am just supposing.

[elleng]

7. Wondering whether hrc and chelsea's earlier statements

about what bernie's plans would mean are/might be 'turning everything over to the states,' about which they took flak, and were told they were 'lies,' were just reaffirmed in maddow's interview. Seems they were, so still an ISSUE between them.

[wilsonbooks]

8. Here is the link

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/rachel-maddow-confronts-clinton-over-sanders-attack-youre-casting-aspersions-on-his-character/

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow confronted Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton on Thursday night, accusing her of “casting aspersions” on the character of rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

Clinton accused Sanders of being the first one on the Democratic side of the aisle to “go negative” with an attack ad, which Maddow said was mild, pointing out that Clinton’s name was never mentioned in the ad.

“Anything personal, we don’t do that in our side of the debate,” Clinton said. “We engage on substantive differences.”

Clinton added that there were policy differences between the two candidates and that voters expect a “spirited debate” between them.

But Maddow insisted that the Clinton campaign was getting into the mud slinging.

“Senator Sanders is obviously your opponent,” Maddow challenged. “Nobody expects you guys to walk hand-in-hand and come to consensus on who ought to be the nominee. But he also doesn’t have an enemy in the world in the Democratic party… He’s a very well respected figure. Your campaign is essentially fighting with him now in a way that is casting aspersions on his character, calling him dishonest.”

Clinton denied that was the case and said she has nothing negative to say about him. She said the difference was over how each candidate would approach health care, and that Sanders wants to “basically start all over again” and implement a single-payer system that she believes would cost “about $15 trillion.”

She then said Sanders wasn’t providing specifics on how he would get from the current Affordable Care Act to single payer.

Watch the exchange, via MSNBC, here:

[cali]

12. Disgusting the ease with which Hillary LIES her pantsuited rear off.

[stillwaiting]

14. Hillary is lying AGAIN about the $15 trillion. Republicans throw that shit out there.

And, so does Hillary.

When you throw $15 trillion out there and don't provide the rest of the story you are lying. Period. You are PURPOSEFULLY misleading people, and you are trying to scare them.

Cut It Out Hillary!

[TexasBushwhacker]

19. The $15 Trillion is for ten years, is it not?

So that would be $1.5 Trillion per year. Guess what? Right now we're paying $3.8 Trillion per year.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/02/02/annual-u-s-healthcare-spending-hits-3-8-trillion/#2715e4857a0b159dd714313d

And Forbes is certainly not some liberal rag.

[stillwaiting]

20. It's more than that. She doesn't explain that the overall amount of money that Americans

spend on their health care would be SUBSTANTIALLY lower. The economist who came up with the $15 trillion price tag says as much in his analysis. And, she knows this.

She's not talking about the overall cost savings that average Americans would incur with Bernie's plan, and she's ONLY throwing out the $15 trillion figure which is EXTREMELY and purposefully misleading. And, it is what the Republicans and mainstream media have done with this economist's analysis. So, Hillary is behaving like a Republican on an issue that has life and death importance to American citizens. Not to mention she's obfuscating the fact that Bernie's plan would lower health care costs for average Americans. Like a Republican.

Honestly, she deserves to lose the nomination for THIS alone. It's such a big issue and she's clearly fighting for Wall Street's interests over average Americans' interests.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/9/16/1421895/-Hey-WSJ-Bernie-s-Plan-SAVES-the-US-5-081-Trillion-on-Health-Care

[DisgustipatedinCA]

22. Time to STOP the lies, Hillary. They're not permitted, and we'll nail you on them every time.

Nice job, Rachel Maddow.

[madokie]

10. Word salad sara

ain't got shit on tRump. Geeze how in the hell does he even still have a buck to his name? Most incoherent asshole I've listened to in a long time. People like him, or her for that matter, I simply tune out

[Kentonio]

11. That bit about how the Iranians should have used prisoners as propaganda was interesting.

I seem to remember plenty of press footage of Iraqi and Taliban prisoners on the TV. So it's ok if we do it, but a terrible act if other people do?

[daybranch]

13. A pitiable interview. I guess she just wanted to give Hillary another 30 minutes of Airtime.

Lets Hillary off the hook so many times, it is embarrassing that someone as intellectually gifted as Rachel lets Hillary avoid direct answers by so called parsing of words which if actually analyzed do not support the character attacks she and her campaign is making. For example she says Bernie is not leveling with the people about his plans for Health Care and how much it costs. She then goes on to say we would have to pay $15 billion in new taxes without mentioning how much getting rid of the insurance markets and their premiums would save all of us. Studies to date by the CBO and economists, as well as our own common sense tells us that eliminating the unproductive health insurance industry will reduce our costs overall by eliminating premiums paid. The ACA was a first step but any success it has had was inn reducing the amounts spent on advertising etc. So yes, We might spend $15 trillion on Health Care but we will spend far more by keeping Health Insurance companies afloat with our premiums. So when we hear Hillary accuse someone of not leveling, we should remember , she is not leveling and is well aware how she can use this PR trick. But it will not work anymore, her term parsing will go down as talking around the statements made rather than actually addressing them. We should always remember that always turning the discussion away from the question asked is the refusal to answer because it would be hurtful to provide the truth in the campaign on the questions asked.
But heck, Rachel got a few more viewers in the short term but she seems to have toned down the very analytic conclusions which established her credibility in the first place. MSNBC supported it's owners candidate, and Hillary got more free airtime whereas Bernie got none for rebuttal. It is too bad Rachel is playing along with the establishment and the oligarchy that owns her and main stream media who fired Ed based on his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Treaty. Does Rachel feel the threat over possibly embarrassing the candidate who the oligarchy see as stopping Bernie? I begin to wonder about it. Maybe we should bring back the fairness doctrine or maybe we should break up the oligopolies who own Main Stream Media as well as the banks which are too big to fail. If interviews like this continue Rachel will lose viewers to Democracy Now or Real Time News or to the New Ed Show.

[JudyM]

21. This is the first time I've been disappointed with Rachel.

I so admire and appreciate her. Her questions about specific character slur language was excellently crafted but she let Hillary slip right away from answering -- let her shift into an unrelated topic! It seems that Rachel was more interested in being courteous than in being a good journalist.

I understand that she wants Hillary to come back again but .... Wow, just disappointed. She just kept smiling and nodding at her. This was potentially a turning point in the tone of the campaign, none of us wants the rhetoric to devolve and she had the chance to potentially nip it in the bud by requiring Hillary to answer the point. Ugh, Rachel. Really?

[seabeyond]

15. You can not see the video, but she is shooting daggers from her eyes?

[2pooped2pop]

17. yeah, I van see the picture though

And it sure as hell looks like a pissed but trying to hide it look to me lol

[Vinca]

16. That was an interesting interview.

I wonder if it clicked for Hillary that when they make up stupid issues about Bernie it annoys us to the point of sending him more money.

[Motown_Johnny]

18. The other questions were softballs.

What do you think of our sailors being videotaped by Iran? ( it is a bad thing)

What do you think of children in Lansing being poisoned with lead? (it is a bad thing)



I was a little disappointed by the interview. Even the actual question just let her repeat the lie that Bernie wants to turn health care over to red state governors.


I would have preffered that her high net negative approval rating was discussed, as Rachel did with JEB's much lower one a few days ago.







updated yesterday