The transcript isn't available yet for tonight's show (Mon., Sept. 25th), but Keith delivered another scathing attack on George Bush, calling him a coward and worse.

I think Keith has found his groove. Wonder how long MSNBC will continue allowing him to speak his mind freely.

I saw the Keith Olbermann show tonight. Now, we have three people telling the truth: Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Keith Olbermann. All three of these men speak with such passion, and the truth is coming out. I do believe that the GOP has finally run out of steam where the American people are concerned. Joe Scarborough was stunned and did not know what to say following Keith. It is about time the media got their heads out of the sand where this administration is concerned.

Scarborough quickly segued into laughing hysterically at Clinton's performance with Wallace. He thought it was highly entertaining. And I don't know what the name of the guy was with the dark longish hair that he had on as one of the three guests, but he kept saying that Clinton lied during that interview and that the last time we saw Clinton adopt that posture and demeanor was when he was lying about Monica. Unfortunately, no one was given a chance to rebut what he said.

It's really nice to finally see some people speaking up and setting the record straight. Perhaps it'll pave the way for more of them to do it.

Wallace used that finger wag analogy in the pre-spin saturday, but by sunday am they clearly had decided they had to tread a little softly.

That clown was like one of our trolls. reciting yesterdays talking points when everyone already moved on. i dont know who that weasel was - clearly keith had no use for him. and he actually looked foolish. He was trying to claim it was not thought out, that it was a "meltdown", showing that all democrats are ceazed lunatics trying to cover their tracks. very few people with a shred of independent thinking are going to watch Clinton and think he was crazed - mad, yes. Cold, hard, fury even. Frankly, I think that guy was the "token wingnut" given his minute and nobody thought it worth commenting.


In the onslaught of :D smash mouth football :D that has hit the righties this week, I think they are all a little shellshocked. a little spluttering here and there, but mostly they sound like roseanne roseanna danna

Scarborough was actually pretty entertaing. He loved clintons onslaught. Did you see the part where wallace said he felt like a mountain was coming down on him??

I agree, except i dont think sand is where their heads are

where the heads may be, sand or elsewhere, not even the Dalai Lama knows..

but it must be a location with excellent drainage, because no information seems to stick

:tongue:

I gotta hand it to Keith he doesn't back down from his statements.

I wouldn't have wanted to have been Chris Wallace in that exchange. Any big man getting pissed off at me and in my face like that would feel threatening, but someone like Clinton? Thank you, but I'll pass on that experience.

Clinton, Gore et al represent the potential loss of power for the neo-conservative Leo Strauss agenda. If Clinton had started bombing indiscriminately during his presidency following the 1993 WTC bombing or USS Cole, the conservatives would still have complained. Clinton, Gore et al are damned if they do and damned if they don't. The neocons see themselves as the only people authorized to use force. That is the reason for the continual campaign to paint Democrats as weak and unwilling to use force.

Clinton illustrated during that interview what the performance of the job of President should really entail. Using judgment to make decisions on the use of military power instead of being merely reactionary because you have the capability to strike. Clinton listened to the uniformed military experts that we have on the payroll in the Pentagon about the difficulties of incursions into Afghanistan with a small force. The only guarantee to eliminate Bin Laden would have been to detonate a nuclear weapon and killed hundreds of thousands or to launch a full scale invasion. Should Clinton have authorized either at that time? No.

Olbermann's statement last night was incredible in its detail and facts about the neocons' influence on events during the late 90's which further served to hamstring Clinton politically, specifically the statements from Senators Gramm and Specter questioning the rationale for the missile strike authorized by Clinton in Afghanistan. (Remember Wag the Dog?) This type of detailed defense of policies advocated by Democrats when last in power is what has been missing in our public discourse for the past six years. It is more than refreshing to witness.

Over at AG.org, we're being criticized from the top for all this applause of Clinton's behavior in that interview. The reasoning is that we're supposed to be supporting Gore, and that supporting Clinton only gives Hillary a boost. I don't think I buy that argument. First of all, for many of us, it just felt really good to see the right-wing get slammed by someone of Clinton's stature. And I think a lot of us also feel that a defense by/of Clinton is a defense of Gore, since he was so instrumental in policy-making during his time as veep.

I think most of us are reacting to the fact that it just plain feels good to see the liars put in their place and to have the record publicly corrected. And who better to do that than the person whose record is being questioned? It's fine for Clinton to say, "Just read Richard Clark's book." But most people won't. So let the ex-Big-Guy-in-Chief set the record straight. I see no harm in doing that.

Just another possible demonstration of Democrats organizing a circular firing squad.

Bill Clinton as ex-President (D) makes statements in defense of his administration. These statements should and do transcend political posturing for 2008, and comments by Democrats anywhere condemning support of Clinton are ruinous and internecine in nature.

I love Al Gore with all my heart, but he has not given any indication that he is planning or thinking of running for office in 2008. As Democrats, it supports all that we are trying to accomplish for the country and the world for Mr. Clinton to forcefully explain and buttress decisions he made for the good of the country as a whole not just for a privilaged few who own Haliburton or Exxon stock. Do we really think that any Democratic nominee will be spared the inevitable charges from the neocon minions of weakness and frailty in regard to national security issues?

Democrats are more hardheaded in regard to national defense than the Republicans because we attempt to employ intelligent use of ALL means of foreign policy with force as the last resort, not the first. We as Democrats must begin talking to the American people about the correct uses of intelligence and the military. None of which has been done in the last six years.

I must vigorously stand in support of Mr. Clinton in this regard and will continue to do so.

I have to agree with you, Nicholus. Whether Hillary runs or not, and whether Gore runs or not, I think it's important for Clinton to stand up and set the record straight in no uncertain terms. And I don't think saying that Clinton may have prodded some complacent Dems. to get up off their butts and help set the record straight is going against working for a Gore candidacy. If Hillary does decide to get in (and James has written on AG.org that she's telling her advisors and financial backers that she's NOT running), Bill will obviously support her. But if she doesn't, and Gore does (and again, we have no indication that he will), having Clinton help to set the record straight will be a plus for Gore.

BTW, do people think we're far enough away from Monicagate for Gore to accept campagin support from Clinton this time around (if he runs)?

Depends. If Gore gets into a position where he becomes the prohibitive front runner, then I think Clinton might or definitely if he wins the nomination. The press will place too much pressure on Bill for him to do otherwise.

If a strong alternative to Gore develops, outside of Hill I cannot imagine who that might be, then I think Bill could fence sit for awhile watching things develop. Of course that would depend upon who that alternative might be. For instance, Wes Clark. I think because of the Arkansas ties and all, Clinton would be more likely to watch things develop before supporting Gore.

I think the question was not will Clinton but should Al accept it. My answer to the latter is an emphatic yes. Clinton has 60% positive, 37 negative in polls. Any indication of snubbing him would be folly.

Secondly, if what you speculate about waiting to see who emerges were true, it would demonstrate how much better a man of conviction is Gore. Gore came out early for Dean, based on positions on important issues, before it was clear he was a strong front runner. Personally, I would expect no less from Clinton. Just as he commended Al for the GW efforts and says he encouraged him to make another movie, I would expect him, if Al said, "I think I'll run" to say"I'm in, let's knock 'em dead". Assuming, of course, that Hilary had already demurred. And I would expect her to be right there too. Just as Al remarked the other day "this is like old times", I would expect a "bury the hatchet" that would make your head spin. (probably done already in their minds). I think all three are professionals and patriots. Maybe I have too many stars in my eyes, and lord knows there are a lot of self-serving glory seekers (does the name Nader come to mind) who would put their agenda ahead of the country. I have a VERY good feeling about all the events of the past couple of weeks.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/#060911b