General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRachel Maddow didn't ask Kirsten Gillibrand anything about Al Franken
Perhaps she thought the audience wasn't interested?
I guess now we'll be boycotting her show, right?
hlthe2b
(102,561 posts)and no, I don't think Rachel is oblivious to how much Gillibrand's fate is tied to her actions re: Franken, nor how many of her audience care and care deeply.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)to make her look good?
hlthe2b
(102,561 posts)She likewise has had REPUBLICAN candidates and commentators on in the past. Do you accuse her of wanting to make THEM look good?
I know you adore (represent?) Gillibrand, but you lose all credibility with this kind of post.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)hlthe2b
(102,561 posts)But, major fail. I don't know what your objective is, but it is questionable at best.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)With Gillibrand it was less than a day.
BTW My objective is truth and fairness.
hlthe2b
(102,561 posts)I have to wonder what your objective is, but it surely isn't going to bring anyone around to your point of view, if that is even your motive.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)And again my only motivation is truth and fairness. I dont question your motives so please dont question mine.
hlthe2b
(102,561 posts)Today's:
Wikipedia defines it as:
"a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.
Can you guess what the word is?
Have a nice day....
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)ananda
(28,914 posts)Gillibrand is dead to me..
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)I don't think so based on that.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)WeekiWater
(3,259 posts)Doesn't even seem organic.
tymorial
(3,433 posts)Please.
WeekiWater
(3,259 posts)My top three are email, text, phone.
Sinistrous
(4,249 posts)Ms Gillibrand's vote against Al Franken put her beyond the pale.
Beaverhausen
(24,476 posts)I dont recall any vote. Did I miss something?
Sinistrous
(4,249 posts)stab Franken in the back.
Jakes Progress
(11,124 posts)to the senator. She knows that Kirsten has nothing she can say about her gullibility and unbound ambition regarding that affair.
Or. Maybe KG demanded that she not be asked or she wouldn't be on the show.
Meh. We all know the story though.
brooklynite
(95,006 posts)...is using another bad conspiracy theory to explain it.
Jakes Progress
(11,124 posts)brooklynite
(95,006 posts)Jakes Progress
(11,124 posts)Are you leaping from posting to posting and getting confused?
I didn't say anything of the sort. Please read the posts and respond to them instead of something in the back of your mind.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)unbound ambition regarding that affair.?
Jakes Progress
(11,124 posts)I had no idea that you or others thought she was taking out a future opponent. I was referring to her glee in beating all the other duped Democrats to the microphone so she could get the most press. According to a Senator Hirono, the group had decided on a group press conference, but KG beat everybody back to the office and released her "shocked outrage" first.
There are several Democrats wearing this particular coat of shame. All were duped. Some climbed reluctantly on the band wagon (knowing that they had to show they stood with women), and some jumped on, eager to get the press.
Sorry. But KG wanted the "honor" of being the leader agains the terrible, terrible Al. Now she gets to have it.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)Asked what you meant and you've explained it.
But there is an error in Sen. Hirono's story. The first to go in front of the microphone and TV cameras was Kamala Harris:
Gillibrand didn't until later that day with other Senators:
mahina
(17,770 posts)At the time I guessed it was done for the Republicans or Koch/ other winger players in a quid pro quo.
I thought she was ineffective as a communicator on the show. She got swept up in her own (fine) rhetoric. She was so wound up, yikes. You could tell she was sincere but it remained not persuasive at all.
I find Amy Klobuchars style of communication engenders much more confidence. (Perhaps Amy is more comfortable because shes been on Rachels show so frequently.) Shes levelheaded and direct.
Its possible Rachel had intended to ask her and she couldnt get a breath in to stop the rant.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)reliably posting condescending snark might be even worse.
brooklynite
(95,006 posts)...but I don't bring it out if someone else doesn't start things.
Franken left the Senate a year ago, but I can reliably count on at least one "I blame Gillibrand" thread each month.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)brooklynite
(95,006 posts)....of the multiple "I hate Gillibrand and I won't watch her" threads that popped up first.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Were you.
brooklynite
(95,006 posts)I provided a new (snarky) thread in response to several others.
dem4decades
(11,322 posts)jcgoldie
(11,662 posts)Pretty sure it has more to do with giving a platform to democratic candidates and now is not the time to throw their dirty laundry in their faces. For a great number of Maddow's viewers Franken is the elephant in the room when it comes to Gillibrand so its ridiculous to say the audience would not be interested.
USALiberal
(10,877 posts)I assume it is because he wouldn't meet with you and your wife at some donor party? Or didn't call you back?
Weird deal for sure.
brooklynite
(95,006 posts)I was a strong supporter of Franken. But I don't automatically discount accusations of sexual harassment simply because the subject is on our side, and I respect the judgement of virtually the entire Democratic Caucus, INCLUDING his co-Senator Amy Klobuchar.
What I REALLY don't like though, is the continued attacks on Gillibrand when every other Democrat that folks here claim to admire said the same thing.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)If we are going to take back the Senate.
a kennedy
(29,779 posts)what was it, 3 weeks??? IM STILL SICK OVER WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO HIM. UGH...... and ms Gillibrand was huge in that happening. If by chance she is the Democratic nominee I will hold my nose and vote for her......BUT I WILL NEVER FORGIVE HER FOR HER VOICE AGAINST SENATOR FRANKEN.
DFW
(54,506 posts)Al only threw in the towel when the governor of Minnesota picked his successor before he had even decided to leave. That was what pushed him to leave. He knew better than anyone that the "charges" against him were bogus. He just never figured so many prominent Democrats would fall for them. Those same Democrats wouldn't have surprised him more if they had started to get out of town because the weather channel had reported Oobleck for the following day.
dflprincess
(28,095 posts)walked into a right wing trap in an effort to prove they're better than Republicans. It was the same logic that kept them from holding Bush accountable for his crimes.
I have no doubt that Amy-kins wouldn't hesitate to throw a friend under the bus if she thought it would help her own ambitions. She kept her chat(s) with Al private because she knew jumping on the public bandwagon wouldn't play well in Minnesota.
Strange how all the allegations faded away after Al resigned.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)was to have an ethics committee hearing where the republicans on the ethics committee would use it to humiliate Franken and paint any democrat who defended him as a hypocrite.
UniteFightBack
(8,231 posts)it's like a mob mentality and it ain't a good look.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)A liberals/progressives I thought we had open minds. Im not sure if it is just blind devotion to a white guy celebrity or the need to have an issue to be outraged about.
athena
(4,187 posts)while lionizing a man. Unfortunately, both women and men are susceptible to it. We saw it demonstrated during the 2016 primaries on DU. Thanks to those haters, who bought the Russian propaganda hook, line and sinker because it just felt too good to get together with like-minded haters to destroy a woman, we now have President Trump. And if they have their way, well be stuck with President Trump for another four years.
dflprincess
(28,095 posts)A reliable progressive over one whose positions seem based in expedience
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,126 posts)lordsummerisle
(4,651 posts)having said that, she is in the news at the moment and Rachel acknowledged this and had her on.
I think boycotting her show over this is kinda extreme...
athena
(4,187 posts)Its precisely this attitude that gave us Trump in the first place.
But go right ahead. Better President Trump than President Gillibrand, eh?
During the 2016 primaries, I tried to remind DUers that liberal purity had given us W. I was loudly shouted down. And now, people are all too happy to repeat the same mistake, attacking Democrats instead of Republicans.
DU should really stop letting people attack Democrats here. It hurt us last time, and its going to hurt us again in 2020.
lordsummerisle
(4,651 posts)I wouldn't vote for her in the primary. Obviously if she were the candidate against Trump I would have to vote for her...
PufPuf23
(8,858 posts)on both Maddow and Gillibrand.
I have always held high regard for Rachel Maddow but not to the degree of the past.
Even Maddow has sideboards on what she is allowed to and willing to cover.
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)brooklynite
(95,006 posts)BlueStater
(7,596 posts)You specifically created this thread to irritate people. Just admit it.
wellst0nev0ter
(7,509 posts)Serious question.
Bradshaw3
(7,553 posts)Thanks.
Raven123
(4,937 posts)oasis
(49,490 posts)earthshine
(1,642 posts)I just don't have the patience for her.
I used to listen to her every day on Air America. She was the most informative host, and a very straight talker. But, not anymore.
LisaM
(27,863 posts)I call her, "Land the plane, Rachel". It's as if she thinks we can't keep up.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)Many nights by about 10 minutes in Im shouting at the screen get to the damn point .
she takes way too long to get to the point I haven't got the patience to have her on more then a short time. I know where she's heading and I don't need her to go round and round before making the point. I had her on tonight when I heard Gillibrand was going to be on, after the interview I turned Rachel off.
Merlot
(9,696 posts)Mentioned a vote in the senate that all the democrats voted yes on, except Gilibrand who was "on Colbert announcing her presidential run."
Kind of suprised me, Rachel saves most of her snark for the republicans.
Power 2 the People
(2,437 posts)Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)or maybe, is not blamed for causing them.
zonkers
(5,865 posts)OnDoutside
(19,987 posts)person.
ecstatic
(32,798 posts)I appreciate what Rachel's trying to do--give a platform to candidates who have officially announced without injecting negativity into the situation. We already know what we don't like about Gillibrand, Warren, Gabbard, etc., and maybe Rachel wants the audience to learn good things we may not be aware of. At least that was my takeaway from her interview with Warren. Mission not accomplished, but I respect the strategy.
Vinca
(50,334 posts)Gillibrand. She might as well wear a "phony politician" sign around her neck. I really hope I don't have to vote for her.
LexVegas
(6,121 posts)and couldn't care less about Franken. I am willing to bet most do not.
MrsMatt
(1,660 posts)At least in Minnesota.
dsc
(52,173 posts)at what point is it OK to overturn elections? While blaming only her for this is unfair the fact is that Minnesota has their votes overturned. That isn't right or fair without any investigation. Even if Senator Smith turns out to be wonderful they lost the 8 years of seniority that Franken had built up. They also lost his committee assignments.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)stonecutter357
(12,699 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)I will switch channels whenever she is on. Can't speak for Rachel, but I still care and won't forget.
jalan48
(13,916 posts)Paladin
(28,287 posts)Once I heard Gillibrand was a guest, I found an old movie to watch, instead. I figured KG would come on with a tiresome justification attempt regarding Franken, and I didn't want to hear it. I've got a feeling a lot of other Democrats felt the same way.
WeekiWater
(3,259 posts)Sounds like Gillibrand. I imagine they like each other.
emulatorloo
(44,274 posts)would bring to the Office of the President?
I would be very interested in reading such a positive OP. Substance is always better than snark.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)especially in Maddow's evolution of Gillibrand's thinking. When Gillibrand described her evolution on immigration, I was hoping she would talk about her own family's immigrant history. I think it was a missed opportunity.
revmclaren
(2,579 posts)Give it time. The question will come up in the future. Have no fear. Primary season is just beginning and the vetting will be intense this time.
ONLY! 2019 and beyond.