Hillary and Chelsea on James Corden's Late Late Show

James Corden is all dressed up tonight with a three piece dark suit, blue shirt and red tie -- I think it's for Hillary and Chelsea who are his guests.

James was doing his monologue and got to a part about Trump tweeting out support for Sean Spicer on DWTS, and how politicians shouldn't do entertainment shows, when the curtains open behind him and out walk Hillary and Chelsea. Hillary had a great outfit on and she looked really, really good. Anyway, she told James that if anyone was going to do jokes about Trump, it should be her. So he turned over the stage to Hillary and Chelsea and they did stand up jokes about Trump that were funnier than I thought they'd be.

The segments will be on the Late Late Show's You Tube Channel by morning, so be sure to watch.

< OK Commutes and Frees More Than 400 Inmates | Sunday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    That was (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 06, 2019 at 09:29:00 AM EST

    Hillary must feel pretty freakin vindicated

    Caught the You Tube, (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 06, 2019 at 09:40:29 AM EST
    and, I second the Captain---it was great.  And, Secretary Clinton did look good.   Recently saw them on Colbert's and Trevor Noah's shows and Hillary and Chelsea make for a fun and charming team.

    I saw Hillary and Chelsea's book talk (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 10, 2019 at 09:32:42 AM EST
    here in Denver Monday night. They really were just as charming as that video. Chelsea told the longer story about Hillary writing the book longhand and sending pictures of the pages as attachments. It was funny.  

    And on the serious side they talked about some of the inspiring women in their book, some you expect to be there but a couple of new names to me. I have the book now, I will read it. Hillary got most fired up talking about the GOP war on science and its ramifications for the environment and public health. And of course on foreign policy.

    Hillary wore a bronze colored jacket that looked so pretty even from the back row.

    I was also happy to be back at the Paramount Theater, enjoying a 'big city' event!

    This song on (none / 0) (#3)
    by desertswine on Wed Nov 06, 2019 at 03:57:46 PM EST
    Things I never expected to say... (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 08, 2019 at 10:08:10 AM EST
    Jeff Sessions is a pretty smart politician

    You can't escape (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Nov 09, 2019 at 01:10:05 PM EST
    I was just reading about Faberge Eggs.  I can't remember why I was reading about Faberge Eggs

    Looking at prices and owners

    But guess who owns about a dozen?

    I was like, wait.  I know that name.

    Hey Russia, I looted your natural resources (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 10, 2019 at 09:10:40 AM EST
    but hey, I'm bringing these eggs 'back' to you by way of my personal fortune...

    Scary thing is how many people think this is a fine model for our country too.

    I caught up with 'Catherine the Great' yesterday. It has some brilliant moments, but didn't really hold me at the edge of my seat. I'll keep watching though. Today - His Dark Materials.


    Less romance (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 10, 2019 at 09:51:39 AM EST
    And pillow talk.   More history.  Some I watched with no sound.


    On another subject, scanning the shows the stunning thing is how completely f'ed the media coverage of this really is.

    The FOX coverage is really no more f'ed and clueless that that of NBC or ABC.

    Universally it's a partisan horse race story.  Who is ahead who is afraid who will go under the bus.

    There is no attempt to deal with the crimes committed.  None.  Once again we are going to get endless in depth reporting about process and all the other irrelevant krap with no time at all given to what happened and why it's a crime.

    The undertone feels like, ok, it's a crime.  But the real interesting question is will that rascally Trump get away with it again.

    I think social media may help save us in the regard.  


    I hadn't tried to imagine what I would know if (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 11, 2019 at 08:30:30 AM EST
    all I knew about it was from TV. You are right, it would be next to nothing. Maddow's hour a day can't hope to keep up.

    The way they get fixated on things like the one phone call, when it is the context around it that matters. I think the televised hearings will help a lot with that for that one topic. All the rest of the 3 years of corruption won't get handled though. I get Pelosi wanting to keep it simple, but it is frustrating.


    Absolutely right. There should be Articles (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Peter G on Mon Nov 11, 2019 at 09:56:51 PM EST
    of Impeachment for, at least, obstruction of justice in the Mueller investigation, for violation of the Emoluments Clauses (foreign and domestic), for campaign finance violations (Tr*mp Foundation and payoffs to women he had adulterous sex with), and for repeated interference with and threats to the free press. Any others that clearly make the cut for inclusion?

    Yes. Bribery (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by leap on Wed Nov 13, 2019 at 08:52:00 AM EST
    Bribery is in the US Constitution
    The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    Also all the public money spent at his (none / 0) (#14)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 13, 2019 at 09:04:20 PM EST
    properties...seems like there has to be a crime in there somewhere....

    And I'm sure there is perjury in his written responses to Mueller.


    As frustrating (none / 0) (#18)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 14, 2019 at 01:18:35 PM EST
    as it is to me, especially since I numbered among those who believed the a Mueller Report provided a compelling case for impeachment, it is now pragmatic to narrow the scope and focus on the Ukraine wrongs.. In  great measure, Trump's wrong doings in Ukraine are not only egregious in their own right, but also, representative  of his reign of abuse and misuse of power.  It is almost all there and what is missing is compensated for by the clear-cut and flat-out Constitutionally named impeachable offense of bribery.

    And, too, the Mueller findings and the Ukraine debacle are a continuum of  campaign finance violations, obstruction of justice, and counter-intelligence.  Trump's obsession with Biden should not be allowed to eclipse the Russian aspect of Trump's dirty work. Pulling back on political support and military aid to the beleaguered ally helps Russia and sounds like a response to some yet unknown Trump deal where Putin says, I need a favor, though.

    A Ukrainian focus may seem like getting Al Capone on tax evasion.  But the goal is to get Trump out of there fast.


    I agree (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 14, 2019 at 05:46:03 PM EST
    Any detours a likely to be dead ends.

    The republicans will do every thing they can to complicate the situation.   Complicated makes people lose interest.  It was a big problem with Mueller

    Keep it simple and explainable in one sentence.


    Yes, it is best. We'll have to leave the full (none / 0) (#20)
    by ruffian on Fri Nov 15, 2019 at 10:07:31 PM EST
    story for the books, and maybe post office prosecutions.

    And yeah (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 10, 2019 at 09:55:49 AM EST
    Not just eggs the most of the best and coolest ones.

    Like (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 10, 2019 at 10:03:03 AM EST
    Nice! (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 13, 2019 at 09:05:23 PM EST
    I used to go down rabbit holes about the eggs too. I went through a big Russian history phase at one point.

    It's good to be king. (none / 0) (#16)
    by desertswine on Thu Nov 14, 2019 at 10:26:39 AM EST
    I was looking for inspiration (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 14, 2019 at 12:14:04 PM EST
    There is a spring show here called EGGSHIBITION in Little Rock

    I have participated before

    This year I was thinking something like this.  Today's news does not discourage me in this


    This is kind of open (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 08:52:39 AM EST
    I think

    Polls polls polls

    Yeah, not that significant.  Except for indicating trends.

    If this is a trend it's significant.

    Buttigieg surges ahead of Democratic rivals in Iowa: poll

    I'm taking a new look at Pete.  He definitely has that political thing.  Charisma.  Whatever.  People are liking it up close.

    I have recently said he was not ready.  I would like to revise and extend those remarks.
    As far as I am concerned "ready" in this case means able to beat Trump.
    And I note I was saying similar things about Obama at about this time in 08.

    There is an argument he is the perfect candidate if you accept change elections are about opposites.  There is no more opposite candidate from Trump than a young boring married gay veteran who exudes empathy.

    I can totally see enough of the country, after the embarrassing dark ages of Trump, wanting to make a statement to the world by electing that guy.

    I still think Warren would be a great candidate and better president.  

    But I do not think exploding a healthcare system that's beginning to works is either smart or good.

    I get going big.  And I remember Icarus.

    I have seen (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 03:56:44 PM EST
    very interesting commentary about this Iowa poll.

    Some are saying that it helps Biden but that I do not see. Biden's whole shtick is that he's the best to go against Trump but if he can't beat Pete in IA what does that say?

    As far as the gay thing, I don't know that it's that big of deal but maybe since I'm the same religion as Pete and we've dealt with this years ago I might be out of the loop on that. From my experience the people that would not vote for Pete are basically the same people that would not vote for any D. He will have defections though like a female candidate would because there are some that only think straight white males should be president.

    I also think there are a lot of moderates like myself that have been left out of the primary conversation so far that are looking for an alternative to Biden. Apparently Pete is making that sale in Iowa but my preference would be for Klobuchar who did go up a good number of points in that poll.

    Warren really messed up when she raised her hand to banning private insurance. I don't know how she recovers from that. Bernie never was going to be the nominee. We're not going to nominate an elderly cardiac patient.


    I get nervous (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by KeysDan on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 05:02:52 PM EST
    about Mayor Pete.  Such a roll of the dice, especially given the stakes.  Maybe, the primary process will be clarifying.  My worries are not his experience or AA voters.  I do not think concern for experience will broadly register--- more that he stands up so well against Democratic contenders, including a former Vice President and distinguished US senators.  AA voters seem to look to familiarity and track records.  And, AA voters are pragmatic.  

    My worry is his being gay.  Despite the dramatic gains in recent times,  it will be a tough row to hoe.  The general will be different than that seen by liberal Iowa voters.  But,  maybe it could work----on a new, young strategy.  Not comparing with any Democratic competitor, but with a Trump.   A Pete/Stacey
    ticket, for example.


    Well (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 06:01:48 PM EST
    Pete definitely would be a stark contrast to a wheezing elderly Trump for sure. I understand your concerns especially since I never thought being a woman was going to be that big of a problem in 2016. There's always the people who will say publicly that they are fine with a gay candidate and then go in the privacy of the voting booth and vote for the other candidate. Pete's problem seems to be that while doing well in IA and NH he can't seem to make inroads into more diverse states.

    I like him (none / 0) (#22)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 09:22:26 AM EST
    I think Warren and Sanders are going to present major issues going into the GE.  Any Democratic candidate is going to get smeared as a "Socialist!", but I think it will be more effective against them.  They'll also take major hits on healthcare with a mandatory, Medicare-for-all plan, whether or not there's any kind of transition period.

    My only concerns with Buttigieg are:  1) Can he get out the AA vote and 2) How many people will vote against him simply because he's gay.  It's hard to believe in 2019, but there are a significant number of Independent and Democratic voters who say they aren't ready for a gay/lesbian POTUS.  Plus, I wish he had more experience.


    All true (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 09:58:14 AM EST
    All also true you could change name and minority groups and have an Obama conversation from days gone by.

    That's sort of my point.  A lot of us thought they might not vote for a black man.  And then the country came out and elected one.  Twice.  And I think the days of W had a lot to do with that.

    He was the anti W.  I think Pete could be the anti Trump.  And trust me growing gay here and living here now I know some won't vote for him because he is gay.  I optimistically think it's not 51% on that issue.  

    I honestly even think it might in some ways and some quarters help him.  Like it helped Obama to have some "otherness".  It's very uncool to be anti gay.  Even here.  Even with older people.


    I hope you're right (none / 0) (#33)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 01:59:06 PM EST
    I think you're right in some ways about Obama's victories.  There were a lot of people who were tired after 8 years of W, an unpopular war and (even more importantly) an economy in freefall.  He also benefited from historic AA turnout in the first GE with an AA candidate.  My fear is that there are enough people on the Ind/Dem side who aren't ready for a gay POTUS, which is IMO probably an even heavier lift than a female or AA candidate.  The last numbers I saw were 32% for Ind and 22% for Dem voters who said they weren't ready for a gay POTUS, as compared to 15%/8% for a female POTUS. - I was shocked the numbers were that high.  Definitely not in the 51% range even when including Republicans, but I don't think it has to be over 50% for Trump to eek out a win.  My hope is that, when confronted with the possibility of another 4 years of Trump, that 32%/22% number will do the smart thing and get over their issues.

    About the POC thing (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 10:02:32 AM EST
    The question IMO is if he wins the nomination will they stay home. Maybe some will.  I absolutely think most will not because they understand better than most what is at stake.

    Sometimes people "support" who the think will win.


    And PS (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 10:32:47 AM EST
    That little "insertion" by Obama (google is our friend) seems oddly timed with this poll to ever so subtly suggest Pete (or at least his approach) is worthy of his mantle

    I didn't (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 03:43:16 PM EST
    see that so much about helping Pete as much as being anti Warren and Sanders and to warn those who played footsie with Sanders that they were going to get burned by doing so.

    About the POC thing (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 10:02:45 AM EST
    The question IMO is if he wins the nomination will they stay home. Maybe some will.  I absolutely think most will not because they understand better than most what is at stake.

    Sometimes people "support" who the think will win.


    Yes, for sure. (none / 0) (#36)
    by KeysDan on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 03:44:08 PM EST
    Senator Warren will take big hits on her Medicare for All plan, even more so than Bernie since she has given details such as facts and figures.  Even in cases where criticisms are fair (which, of course, would not be the case with Republicans), they are debatable.  Her details add up, the issue, primarily, is in the reordering of health care delivery and its political and economic impact on 18 per cent of the GNP.  

    Warren's plan is inspirational and aspirational showing that heath care can be better for Americans.  She has recently attempted to attenuate its scariness by suggesting a long term transition, beginning with the relative baby steps of Medicare eligibility as of age 50 and the familiar public option.  Putting her more aligned with other Democrats.  

    I believe the winning strategy for Warren or whomever is the Democratic candidate, is to compare their "Trotskyism "  to  the Republicans---a goal of health care for all v efforts toward health care for none.


    The problem (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 03:51:11 PM EST
    Is getting that on a bumper sticker

    We will (none / 0) (#42)
    by KeysDan on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 04:35:01 PM EST
    have to start a bigger bumper movement, because the voters need to realize the difference.  No matter the Democrat candidate's plan it is to make things better, Republicans to make them worse.  And, the candidate needs to underscore that the Republican plan is not just aspirational, but active and concerted efforts, from the DoJ positions in the Courts to the Congress.  Maybe, Something v Nothing works, or Live or Die.

    The Democratic governor of Louisiana was re-elected,despite Trump,, and one of the things Bell did was to expand Medicaid.  And, LSU beat Alabama so no need to change governors---a real Southern factor, I think.


    my suspicions (none / 0) (#28)
    by leap on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 10:51:40 AM EST
    are that he is getting lots of GOoPer money and poll support. 'Cause he won't prevail over a Thug nominee. That's my opinion.

    Another (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 10:55:25 AM EST
    Obama trope

    Sorry (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 10:59:01 AM EST
    But it is

    imagine electing a GAY man who is actually a leader we can be proud of.  That our allies would venerate.

    Go big.  Or go home.


    And who would (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 11:03:19 AM EST
    Absolutely make Trump supporters heads f'ing explode.

    But of course that's not a consideration.


    One other thing (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 11:31:29 AM EST
    Try to imagine a Trump campaign against a gay man.

    Go on.  Try.

    I see lots of Pride Parade footage with G strings and jock straps

    Good luck with that.


    Buttigieg? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 02:02:10 PM EST
    GOP money and poll support???

    Without any evidence, that's Alex Jones/"false flag" territory.


    While I was impressed with Pete when he first (none / 0) (#50)
    by vml68 on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 06:41:53 PM EST
    started, Warren has grown on me more since then. I would take Pete over Biden or Sanders, though.

    I saw my first Marianne Williamson poster a week ago. It was taped to the inside of a car window.

    And, today, while driving, I saw a bunch of Tr*mp 2020 signs by the side of the road leading up to a small pop-up camper selling MAGA merchandise. Ugh!


    Oh, we had (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 07:36:12 PM EST
    one of those campers with MAGA garbage on the highway to the main shopping center in my town. They also had all the little MAGA signs alongside the road. I wonder if this is a campaign thing or if someone has figured out MAGAs are good marks for grifters. I drove by twice coming and going and I only saw one person there looking over the merchandise.

    Fun watching republicans (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 10:19:27 AM EST
    Like the always entertaining RoJo wheedle and sputter and twist themselves into balloon animals  and making Lomo Saltado

    Trump was taken (none / 0) (#39)
    by KeysDan on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 04:05:00 PM EST
    to Walter Reed Hospital for an unscheduled "half physical exam", or so the story goes.  My guess is that he was having chest pains and needed to be taken to a facility that had Cath Lab capabilities so as to take a look at his cardio-vascular system.  Probably not a Bernie weekend, with angioplasty and stent, but surely a shot across his expansive bow.

    Trump,if smart (I know, I know) should skip the hamberders and get out of his golf cart and consider walking, a little.  In any event, thoughts and prayers,

    Well, (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 04:17:25 PM EST
    it definitely was not a "physical exam" because no one at Walter Reed was notified ahead of time and also presidents don't go there for physicals nor do they break physicals into parts. It was definitely to be treated or diagnosed with some equipment they do not have at the white house for sure. For all we know it could be a Bernie weekend. It's not like the white house is going to tell us the truth.

    Considering some of the comments regarding (none / 0) (#41)
    by vml68 on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 04:27:03 PM EST
    Tr*mp's health from his doctors...

    "the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency"

    "Overall, he has very, very good health. Excellent health ... incredible cardiac fitness ... He has incredible genes ... He has incredibly good genes, and it's just the way God made him."

    "in very good health and I anticipate he will remain so for the duration of his Presidency, and beyond."

    I would expect his health to be "Perfecto"!


    Maybe, a (none / 0) (#43)
    by KeysDan on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 04:39:17 PM EST
    Colonoscopy.  Gym Jordan and Lindsey were too lodged in that area.

    No colonoscopy jokes please (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 04:43:02 PM EST
    I just scheduled one

    Exercise (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 04:45:43 PM EST
    Not sure if you know this but Trump holds the ancient mystical beliefs that we are only born with so much energy (and presumably precious bodily fluids) and exercise only uses this energy up.

    I swear to god.  This is what he thinks

    Google it.


    CNN (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 04:47:15 PM EST
    (CNN)President Donald Trump has a number of unorthodox theories about politics. But his theory of why exercise is bad for you is the strangest I've heard yet.

    "Other than golf, he considers exercise misguided, arguing that a person, like a battery, is born with a finite amount of energy," writes Evan Osnos in a piece entitled "How Trump Could Get Fired" that appears in the May 8, edition of the New Yorker.

    I'm surprised (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 04:55:26 PM EST
    he plays golf with those beliefs but then he does use a cart so not much exercise.