HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » More Maddow Hackory

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:01 PM

More 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.

85 replies, 5069 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 85 replies Author Time Post
Reply More Maddow Hackory (Original post)
kcjohn1 Apr 2016 OP
elljay Apr 2016 #1
GeorgiaPeanuts Apr 2016 #2
Samantha Apr 2016 #16
JackInGreen Apr 2016 #3
montanacowboy Apr 2016 #4
Yurovsky Apr 2016 #58
Enthusiast Apr 2016 #70
Enthusiast Apr 2016 #69
Ferd Berfel Apr 2016 #78
Punkingal Apr 2016 #5
MrMickeysMom Apr 2016 #46
tokenlib Apr 2016 #6
pacalo Apr 2016 #7
Dem2 Apr 2016 #8
snowy owl Apr 2016 #31
Dem2 Apr 2016 #41
carolinayellowdog Apr 2016 #84
Dem2 Apr 2016 #85
agracie Apr 2016 #79
Dem2 Apr 2016 #80
agracie Apr 2016 #82
Dem2 Apr 2016 #83
Little_Wing Apr 2016 #9
kcjohn1 Apr 2016 #11
Little_Wing Apr 2016 #14
snowy owl Apr 2016 #33
jwirr Apr 2016 #10
snowy owl Apr 2016 #42
jwirr Apr 2016 #72
beedle Apr 2016 #12
Cali_Democrat Apr 2016 #13
SusanCalvin Apr 2016 #15
Cali_Democrat Apr 2016 #18
SusanCalvin Apr 2016 #19
snowy owl Apr 2016 #36
Bonobo Apr 2016 #17
SisterSarah Apr 2016 #20
snowy owl Apr 2016 #37
Impedimentus Apr 2016 #21
mythology Apr 2016 #22
sadoldgirl Apr 2016 #23
jillan Apr 2016 #24
GeorgeGist Apr 2016 #25
snowy owl Apr 2016 #38
Sky Masterson Apr 2016 #26
riversedge Apr 2016 #27
snowy owl Apr 2016 #30
riversedge Apr 2016 #32
snowy owl Apr 2016 #39
snowy owl Apr 2016 #28
reformist2 Apr 2016 #35
GreatGazoo Apr 2016 #29
nc4bo Apr 2016 #34
snowy owl Apr 2016 #40
jfern Apr 2016 #43
Trenzalore Apr 2016 #44
nc4bo Apr 2016 #45
Trenzalore Apr 2016 #47
nc4bo Apr 2016 #49
Trenzalore Apr 2016 #50
nc4bo Apr 2016 #53
chervilant Apr 2016 #63
JoePhilly Apr 2016 #77
Surya Gayatri Apr 2016 #48
nc4bo Apr 2016 #51
Surya Gayatri Apr 2016 #54
nc4bo Apr 2016 #55
Vinca Apr 2016 #52
Gothmog Apr 2016 #56
nc4bo Apr 2016 #59
Gothmog Apr 2016 #64
nc4bo Apr 2016 #66
Gothmog Apr 2016 #73
questionseverything Apr 2016 #75
Octafish Apr 2016 #57
GoneFishin Apr 2016 #60
SmittynMo Apr 2016 #61
wilt the stilt Apr 2016 #62
Sky Masterson Apr 2016 #65
pdsimdars Apr 2016 #67
pdsimdars Apr 2016 #68
wyldwolf Apr 2016 #71
Orsino Apr 2016 #74
Cheese Sandwich Apr 2016 #76
jillan Apr 2016 #81

Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:05 PM

1. I had he show on in the car

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:07 PM

2. Didn't Jane Sanders JUST come on her show and debunk all that nonsense...

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgiaPeanuts (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:37 PM

16. I heard Jane say that when Rachel asked her if Bernie was helping raise money for Dems down ballot

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:09 PM

3. Once she was Church for me

Now she's *wince* church, for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:10 PM

4. Maddow is auditioning for Clinton's Press Secretary

She is making a fool of herself every night. I feel sorry for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to montanacowboy (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 07:30 AM

58. Ding ding ding... Winner winner chicken dinner...

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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yurovsky (Reply #58)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 09:59 AM

70. Bye Felicia!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to montanacowboy (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 09:58 AM

69. I don't feel sorry for her. Maddow is dead to me. Matthews and Hayes too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to montanacowboy (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 03:57 PM

78. HAddn't thought of that one

Interesting and wouldn't be surprised.

And I just thought she was protecting her multi$$$$$$$ paycheck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:12 PM

5. Why did she even do that story?

She couldn't find anything else to cover, as in Bill's idiotic behavior yesterday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Punkingal (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 07:00 AM

46. Could it be money?

Usually, they follow that, even the intelligent succumb to it... That, and power...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:14 PM

6. MSNBC has really become unwatchable...

And Rachel is so blatant. It is so offensive, night after night to see this crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:16 PM

7. She's still trying to get Bernie's money?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:16 PM

8. I watch her all the time

It's nice not having a horse in this game, it's just entertaining information to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Reply #8)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 05:57 AM

31. Entertainment over truth...that's hardly "information"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #31)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 06:49 AM

41. Are you kidding me, there's no more truthful reporter in the entire world

Anybody who believes otherwise is too partisan to understand what they're thinking; they've lost their mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Reply #41)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 04:17 PM

84. you'd have to speak over a hundred languages and follow the media in as many countries

to have any credibility whatsoever making such an extreme and preposterous assertion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to carolinayellowdog (Reply #84)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 04:18 PM

85. I said truthful

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Reply #8)


Response to agracie (Reply #79)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 03:59 PM

80. Are you kidding me, there's no more truthful reporter in the entire world

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Reply #80)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 04:11 PM

82. You haven't noticed how biased she (and the rest of MSNBC) is toward Hillary ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to agracie (Reply #82)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 04:14 PM

83. What does that have to do with false information?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:17 PM

9. And need we bring up "all" the Dems who have come out in support of Bernie?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Little_Wing (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:22 PM

11. This is not what this is about

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Reply #11)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:31 PM

14. I totally agree-she has lost her integrity

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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Reply #11)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 06:01 AM

33. You say that but PROVE it. 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

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:20 PM

10. Many of us are donating to the down ticket. This month I

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #10)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 06:51 AM

42. Me too: Grayson, Feingod, Edwards and Canova! We think for ourselves and select carefully!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #42)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 10:25 AM

72. Exactly. For too long we have let the DNC, DSCC, DCCC and

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:25 PM

12. I was watching and had the EXACT same

 

"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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:26 PM

13. Rachel Maddow is one of the best progressive voices out there.

 

She's amazing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:36 PM

15. She used to be. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SusanCalvin (Reply #15)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:44 PM

18. ..still is! She's a rock!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #18)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:45 PM

19. Obviously we disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #18)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 06:02 AM

36. Loyalty is not going to get you good journalism or keep you informed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:37 PM

17. I was listening to Rachel when she was Bill Dwight's sidekick in Northampton.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:55 PM

20. Don't cry for me Argentina

 

Rachael has enough cash stashed for her Early retirement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SisterSarah (Reply #20)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 06:02 AM

37. I wish she'd retire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 10:19 PM

21. Rachel who ? Once I ghost someone it's forever.

FEEL THE BERN - 2016

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 10:27 PM

22. Yep, somebody doesn't fawn over Sanders, and they must be a hack

 

It's really silly how predictable this is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #22)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 10:39 PM

23. No, once they fawn over any person in

particular, they have lost perspective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 11:06 PM

24. I saw that! After watching her last nite to watch her interview with Jane I decided to watch tonite.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 05:31 AM

25. How many times did she say then same thing ...

in different words to sound wonky? It bores the hell outta me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #25)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 06:04 AM

38. Repeats and repeats and repeats...I guess those who still listen need repeating!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 05:41 AM

26. She puts out at least 2 facebook post a day that elevate Hill and demean Bernie

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 05:41 AM

27. Her topic was fund raising for the Dems down-ticket--NOT how Bernie is raising

funds for his own campaign. Distracting from the her topic to whine is not cool. and it will not work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #27)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 05:55 AM

30. Are you saying she never mentioned Bernie or Hillary???

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #30)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 05:59 AM

32. Maddow's focus was on he promise Sanders made to fund raise, which he has NOT kept-that is the

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #32)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 06:09 AM

39. So she did do a hack job? You're easy. Who has Hillary helped? You don't know, do you?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 05:54 AM

28. RM=huge ego. Upstart who made it big...but her #s are erratic. Low impact on voters.See Ratings here

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #28)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 06:02 AM

35. MSNBC is viewed by older, Establishment Dems. Their talking heads tell them what they want to hear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 05:55 AM

29. The Hill campaign wants to spin to make her mega-donors good and Bernie's broad support bad

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 06:01 AM

34. She did have on a reporter (embedded? ) in Sander's campaign and she brought up the DSCC. Maddow

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nc4bo (Reply #34)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 06:16 AM

40. Thanks. People forgive RM her dishonesty. It is all about loyalty regardless of honesty.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 06:51 AM

43. The media has a fucking vendetta against Bernie

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 06:55 AM

44. Once again Maddow does a true story

and Bernie supporters want to burn her as a witch for doing so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trenzalore (Reply #44)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 06:58 AM

45. A not completely true story. That's called being disengenuous. It's not journalism but propaganda.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nc4bo (Reply #45)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 07:04 AM

47. She had his wife on last night

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trenzalore (Reply #47)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 07:08 AM

49. This is specifically addressing Sanders not raising for down ticket Dems. Maddow pushing propaganda

Clearly not interested in doing any real journalism on these 2 Dem candidates.

It was obvious.

That's my beef.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nc4bo (Reply #49)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 07:09 AM

50. I think it is a fair question

Whether his fundraising model can raise money for down ticket democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trenzalore (Reply #50)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 07:13 AM

53. So if she's this great journalist she thinks she is, why hasn't she done it?

And I think that's a very fair question for Ms. Maddow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trenzalore (Reply #44)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 07:42 AM

63. "...burn her as a witch"?!?

Hyperbole much?

Thank goodness for IL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trenzalore (Reply #44)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 03:54 PM

77. Worship Bernie or Bern!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 07:07 AM

48. Party of one, indeed. Well said, Rachel. Sanders overtly scorns the

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #48)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 07:11 AM

51. Which is a whole dump truck full of manure. She should do an investigation on ALL candidates $$.

Both of them. Of course that would mean real journalism, something she's really not interested in doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nc4bo (Reply #51)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 07:14 AM

54. I hope it landed on your lawn...

 



Manure is good for growing things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #54)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 07:17 AM

55. I'm a treehugging fucking Liberal so recycling shit as garden fertilizer is what we do.

Literally and figuratively.

Clinton, Inc. Just keeps a flinging.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 07:13 AM

52. Bernie does fund raising differently.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 07:19 AM

56. Facts really scare you-that is sad

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

Yesterday afternoon, meanwhile, Hillary Clintonís campaign announced its fundraising tally over the same period, and though Sanders hasnít matched his rival in votes or wins, we were reminded once more that heís easily defeating her when it comes to dollars in the bank. But the Clinton campaignís press release added something Sandersí did not:

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 campaignís 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 Sandersí fundraising juggernaut is eclipsing Clintonís operation, but itís 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 doesnít know or care about candidatesí 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:

ďIím also a Democrat and have been a proud Democrat all my adult life. I think thatís kind of important if weíre selecting somebody to be the Democratic nominee of the Democratic Party.

ďBut 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.Ē

The message wasnít subtle: Clinton is a Democrat and Sanders isnít; Clinton is working to help Democrats up and down the ballot and Sanders isnít.

Super Delegates will be taking this difference into account in deciding which candidate is best for the party

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #56)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 07:33 AM

59. You guys forgot he's trying to win the 2016 Presidential election. Kinda takes a little money to do

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nc4bo (Reply #59)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 07:55 AM

64. Do you really believe that this explanation will help with super delegates?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #64)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 08:00 AM

66. There are TWO sets of facts.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nc4bo (Reply #66)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 11:45 AM

73. Good luck selling that weak but funny explanation to super delegates

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #56)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 03:44 PM

75. congrats, you have proven the superdelegates are bought and paid for

that our democratic pols do not consider policy when choosing a candidate , only the bribes they bring

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 07:22 AM

57. Think of the ratings!

Trump vs Clinton! Horserace City! Money!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 07:33 AM

60. She's a hack. She has alienated a huge chunk of her potential audience forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 07:37 AM

61. I too swore

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 07:42 AM

62. If you want to be a member of a party

 

you need to help it. If you don't run as an independent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 07:58 AM

65. I try to make a habit to bring up her Hackery on every facebook post TRMS post.

I think the word "HILL SHILL" should become a thing.
She has to know that what she is doing isn't going unnoticed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 08:11 AM

67. He has been raising money for the Democrats in the usual way every other year

 

but he is not doing it WHILE HE IS RUNNING.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 08:29 AM

68. Super delegates

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 10:00 AM

71. I'm going to start calling these posts "Voices From Under The Bus."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 12:02 PM

74. There was a good point to be made in the story , but Maddow didn't make it.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 03:47 PM

76. Rachel is bullying Bernie to give his money to the DNC

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcjohn1 (Original post)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 04:02 PM

81. I don't know why Hillary supporters like her either. From what I've seen, she never promotes

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread