I wish Axelrod had won the "debate"

[fadedrose]

It would mean we knew how the President felt and could agree with him.

He was pathetic. After Rachel telling him everything we all think, he came back and said the same things about research, education, and everything he said before they started.

Rachel said he was "a good sport." Normally you say that after someone was willing to be embarrassed. He may have started out willing, but somewhere along the way was getting annoyed....

Rachel for President.

[Lifelong Protester]

1. She really gave it to him.

I really agreed with her thoughts on the 'if this thing passes, the President will feel the earth under him collapse' (I am not sure if that is an exact quote) and it will not go well for Dems in 2014 or 2016.

He truly WAS pathetic, I thought.

[Awknid]

2. Here Here!

Rachel was fantastic with Ax. I agree with you, I was wishing Ax would tell us something good. But he was pitiful. He didn't even try.

[forestpath]

3. What debate?

[fadedrose]

4. On Rachel's show tonight. - Catch the replay

or find it online. Axelrod was a guest - he was the last thing on the program..

[forestpath]

6. Oh, thanks!

[cthulu2016]

5. "good sport" means you realize somebody was forced to sound like an ass

When somebody is there to spout talking points the host realizes that the guest is fighting with a hand tied behind his back.

And they admire someone being a good soldier and throwing themselves on the hand-grenade of a terrible top-down dictated argument.

Axlerod was being a good soldier and Rachel knew that.

[fadedrose]

7. He totally rejected her suggestion about raising the salary SS is deducted from payroll

and said "Let's change the subject" and went to Medicare.

It could have been a more graceful departure than telling about all the programs that Obama could now afford - but Rachel didn't see why old people on the lowest part of the income level should have to pay for this stuff.

He was pitiful because he thought she would go easy on him because she is a fellow democrat. He misjudged her just as they are misjudging the public's response to cuts in SS...

I'd say he was surprised and wonder if he'll come back unless he has better news.

[Dragonfli]

8. He was just parroting the third way just like Obama does

"telling about all the programs that Obama could now afford - but Rachel didn't see why old people on the lowest part of the income level should have to pay for this stuff. "

The idea of trading entitlement cuts for spending on other programs is classic 3rd way spin
The argument doesn't make much sense as they are separate issues, that's why he didn't have much of an argument. He is just using the talking points provided for centrists like him and Obama.

Public investments and entitlements are on a collision course.

Since the 1960s, LBJ’s Great Society and JFK’s New Frontier have competed for federal dollars. And as the cost of entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security has skyrocketed, we’ve spent less and less of our budget educating kids, building roads, and curing disease.

In this report, we argue that the only way for Democrats to save progressive priorities like NASA, highway funding, and clean energy research is to reform entitlements...

Note how they manage a lie right off the bat by Implying that entitlements are part of the budget
And as the cost of entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security has skyrocketed, we’ve spent less and less of our budget educating kids

http://www.thirdway.org/subjects/131/publications/564
This is not that recent, as with all things DLC/3rd Way
Their conservative think tank provides the talking points as that are simply repeated by all centrists, Obama included