Democrats are losing. And im noticing that the dems are under increasing pressure, including from members of the media to explain their mixed messaging and their failure to communicate. Wherever impeachment is in the air, there are stories about the process, stories about the substance. Process on one hand, substance on the other. This is actually true in all sorts of political coverage. With nixon, the substance is about crimes and coverups. With clinton, its about lying under oath and obstructing justice. With trump, journalists keep uncovering allegations of corruption and obstruction. The list of potentially impeachable conduct grows longer every week, but the political coverage is usually about the process, not the substance, the process. Which democrats support an impeachment inquiry. Which dont . Will they impeach . Wont they . And to be fair to the reporters chasing the story every day, they are covering the story, because the process is a mess. The mixed messages have become t
cnn s daniel dale found in three tweets, the president made three false claims while arguing that he shouldn t be kbeechimpeached. he s making up all of this stuff, lying constantly, yet he s winning the messaging war. it s a remarkable situation to see that in september of 2019, that this is the conversation about what the democrats may or may not do as they inch their way toward impeachment. so let s talk more about this with our panel that s with me here in new york today. joining me to discuss this is executive director for justice democrats and cnn commentator, zander rojas, dahlia, and susan glasser. thank you all for being here. i m fascinated by this daily coverage of this story. susan, this impeachment debate or maybe the lack of a debate is something that s confusing in washington, and i think, all across the country. confusing? i mean, that s right! i have no idea how to explain this. and you know, we re supposed to be following it. and so, brian, i think you really hit on
at tonight, but i mean wednesday night and extrapolate all that much. but i do think the governor is right about this. if you re joe biden, and let s say marianne williamson attacks you, there is no profit, although donald trump would probably attack back. but there is no profit politically speaking in attacking people who benefit from attacking you. the president went at the lead scorer of the u.s. women s soccer team today. he attacked rand paul during the 2016 debates. rand paul was at 2% and he shot at rand paul. the president gets a pass. nobody on the stage tonight or tomorrow night. totally different animal. alexandria, give me your take yes, go ahead, gov. i m sorry to interrupt. but i just think that marianne williamson and yang both had great tweets tonight in response to the debate. both of them freaking out a little bit because they don t speak spanish. they were playing in as well as trump playing in. you get a translator. let s do this. i don t want to rus
should repeal this section. this is an issue that we should and could be talking about for a long time. now let that be a little window into the reality of politics. you can kumbahyah all you want. you can my friend and with all due respect, and i m not going to come after, even if the media wants me to. taking shots distinguishes people in debates, okay. now, let s bring in zander rojas, jennifer granholm, who knows a little something about debate prep i m told when it comes to the former vp joe biden, and mr. chris cillizza. cillizza, you always like to disagree. hello. but admit i m right. when it comes to debating on a big stage with a lot of people, this whole idea of i m going to be positive and i m going to win with my niceness never works. you pop by giving somebody a good pop in the nose. and that s what julian castro did tonight. yeah, i didn t like to do it.