Rachel Maddow didn't ask Kirsten Gillibrand anything about Al Franken

[brooklynite]

Perhaps she thought the audience wasn't interested?

I guess now we'll be boycotting her show, right?

[hlthe2b]

1. I think it is too painful/uncomfortable for Rachel. She was close to Franken from their AAR days.

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]

35. So Maddox gave Gillibrand a platform

to make her look good?

[hlthe2b]

53. Geebus--where do you get this crap? Maddox is a professional and will have all candidates on

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]

55. Has she Tulsi Gabbard on yet?

[hlthe2b]

57. Having been less than a week, I don't know what you ridiculously think that proves.

But, major fail. I don't know what your objective is, but it is questionable at best.

[Trumpocalypse]

58. Has she had Castro on yet?

With Gillibrand it was less than a day.

BTW My objective is truth and fairness.

[hlthe2b]

60. three days. This is idiotic. One has to schedule these things around the bombardment of other news

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]

61. Is that a yes or a no?

And again my only motivation is truth and fairness. I don’t question your motives so please don’t question mine.

[hlthe2b]

62. I love getting the word of the day and always look forward to them each morning

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]

75. Still not a yes or a no.

[Scurrilous]

2. Maybe the need to obsessively bash Gillibrand over Franken is a DU thing.

[ananda]

46. No it's a very real ugly thing

Gillibrand is dead to me..

[Drahthaardogs]

54. Have you seen her FB page?

I don't think so based on that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. You don't say.

[WeekiWater]

73. Does seem to be an online thing.

Doesn't even seem organic.

[tymorial]

80. Because the vast communication today isnt online.

Please.

[WeekiWater]

81. Probably by way of email and text when talking about communication.

My top three are email, text, phone.

[Sinistrous]

3. I will be staying with Ms Maddow, but

Ms Gillibrand's vote against Al Franken put her beyond the pale.

[Beaverhausen]

32. What vote?

I don’t recall any vote. Did I miss something?

[Sinistrous]

41. Oooooh! You are so correct. Gillebrand was just first in line to

stab Franken in the back.

[Jakes Progress]

4. Rachel knows. She was just being nice

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]

5. The only thing worse than a bad conspiracy theory...

...is using another bad conspiracy theory to explain it.

[Jakes Progress]

11. What conspiracy?

[brooklynite]

15. That Gillibrand's criticism of Franken was a cynical ploy to get him out of the Presidential race.

[Jakes Progress]

22. You are the only one to talk about that.

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]

40. Then what did you mean by

“unbound ambition regarding that affair.”?

[Jakes Progress]

74. Funny you went there.

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]

77. Didn't go anywhere

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]

47. Maybe, or maybe it was done for someone else.

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 Klobuchar’s style of communication engenders much more confidence. (Perhaps Amy is more comfortable because she’s been on Rachel’s show so frequently.) She’s levelheaded and direct.

It’s possible Rachel had intended to ask her and she couldn’t get a breath in to stop the rant.

[Atticus]

25. Oh, I dunno---

reliably posting condescending snark might be even worse.

[brooklynite]

30. I don't deny that my style is snarky (you should see my Twitter feed)

...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]

31. Please---you opened this thread with snark: "I guess we'll be boycotting her show now, right?" nt

[brooklynite]

34. And I opened the thread because....

....of the multiple "I hate Gillibrand and I won't watch her" threads that popped up first.

[cwydro]

48. Then you weren't quite honest about when you "brought out the snark" in this thread.

Were you.

[brooklynite]

49. I don't think of the world one thread at a time.

I provided a new (snarky) thread in response to several others.

[dem4decades]

6. Boycott Rachel? I just did.

[jcgoldie]

7. lol nice try

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]

8. I wonder why you hate Franken so much.....

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]

13. No, no, we chatted many times, and I supported him with a lot of campaign funds

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]

21. I love Al, I miss Al but Al blew it. We have to be smarter and better

If we are going to take back the Senate.

[a kennedy]

26. Ya know.....I was thinking today how really fast Senator Franken left Congress.....

what was it, 3 weeks??? I’M 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]

42. The straw that broke this camel's back was actually not from the Senate

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. The Democratic caucus, rather than let the process play out,

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]

38. Maybe the right wing trap

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]

33. I'm with you .....

it's like a mob mentality and it ain't a good look.

[Trumpocalypse]

51. Yes it is

A liberals/progressives I thought we had open minds. I’m 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]

70. It's the sheer joy of heaping hate on a woman

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, we’ll be stuck with President Trump for another four years.

[dflprincess]

82. Or perhaps it's supporting a senator who had been

A reliable progressive over one whose positions seem based in expedience

[Scurrilous]

66. Yep.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

9. Was a missed opportunity for KG to splain herself.

[lordsummerisle]

10. I would never ever vote for her for what she did on the Frankin matter

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]

71. Good luck surviving another four years of President Trump.

It’s 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 it’s going to hurt us again in 2020.

[lordsummerisle]

85. I should have qualified that

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]

12. The fact that Maddow did not address Franken reflects poorly

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]

14. Boy, you just love to stir things up, don't you? n/t

[brooklynite]

18. Check how many "I won't watch Gillibrand tonight" posts there are tonight, and get back to me...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211681711
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211681743
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211681649

[BlueStater]

20. That doesn't change what I said.

You specifically created this thread to irritate people. Just admit it.

[wellst0nev0ter]

16. Are you a walking tu quoque argument?

Serious question.

[Bradshaw3]

39. Learned a new phrase tonight

Thanks.

[Raven123]

17. I suspect that every Dem who declares will get an interview.

[oasis]

19. Good interview. To my surprise, I was mildly impressed.

[earthshine]

23. I boycott Rachel's show because she talks in circles all too frequently.

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. Same here.

I call her, "Land the plane, Rachel". It's as if she thinks we can't keep up.

[Trumpocalypse]

36. I'll give you that

Many nights by about 10 minutes in I’m shouting at the screen ‘get to the damn point ‘.

[Raine]

43. Me too

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]

24. Rachel got in some snark on her program the other night

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]

29. Didn't ask about income inequality or how she'll deal with Wall Street either.

[Trumpocalypse]

37. But Gillibrand didn't cause those

or maybe, is not blamed for causing them.

[zonkers]

44. Rachel, love her or not, is so often a transparent suck up.

[OnDoutside]

45. I won't be watching that part of her show, as I didn't watch Colbert's either. Maddow is a decent

person.

[ecstatic]

50. Interesting. Definitely won't boycott, but I'm not going to finish that episode.

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]

52. I always watch Rachel, but I changed the channel after the first couple of minutes of

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]

56. I prefer someone else, who also called on Franken to resign. I like Gillibrand....

and couldn't care less about Franken. I am willing to bet most do not.

[MrsMatt]

83. You would lose that bet.

At least in Minnesota.

[LexVegas]

84. ...

[dsc]

59. I think a more general question should have been asked

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]

63. not surprise maddow provided cover for Gillibrand

[stonecutter357]

64. Cool Story, Bro , !

[MoonRiver]

65. I didn't watch the Gillibrand segment, cause, Gillibrand.

I will switch channels whenever she is on. Can't speak for Rachel, but I still care and won't forget.

[jalan48]

68. I prefer Amy Goodman.

[Paladin]

69. I'd love to see the ratings for Rachel's show, last night.

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]

72. I've heard Maddow is extremely smart and solidly on the left.

Sounds like Gillibrand. I imagine they like each other.

[emulatorloo]

76. Have you ever considered writing a positive OP extolling the virtues and qualifications Gillibrand

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]

78. I thought the interview was excellent

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]

79. She didn't ask Gillibrand YET...

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.