Lawrence O'Donnell: I know I talked over you last time, so I wanted to have you back on to ask you some smug "gotcha" questions. Since I cannot speak for myself, I will use up the rest of your airtime with this fake speech by some TV actors.
- tom moody 11-10-2010 7:09 pm

last time they were both "guests" on morning joe.

yes, the west wing filibuster to prove o'donnell's liberal bona fides was quite rich especially considering one of greenwalds main points was that running on values and accomplishments and not labels was what motivates voters or in this case was the way to keep seats in the democrats column. o'donnell had no interest in debating the merits of the argument just in getting back some imagined credibility with the audience.
- dave 11-10-2010 7:28 pm

Sorry, I forgot the the previous "debate" wasn't on his show.
The last time I paid any attention to this self-important loudmouth was when a swift boater got the better of him and he went into an imperial rage.
Greenwald at least got in some reminders of how shitty the health care bill is and a zinger about "listening to Dick Morris."
- tom moody 11-10-2010 9:49 pm

Greenwald, in the comments to his Salon blog:

That was what was strange about his showing that clip: it contradicted everything else he was saying. That clip was a way of saying: here's what unapologetic liberals can and should say to convince Americans to vote for them. But O'Donnell's whole point last night and on Friday was that liberals can't convince many Americans to vote for them, can't win, and hence Dems need Blue Dogs. Had he asked me to comment on that clip, that's what I was going to say.

I think the real purpose of showing that clip was to assure MSNBC viewers that, contrary to what it looked like on Friday, he's not some liberal-bashing DLC Blue Dog corporatist, but rather loves liberals and has long been their champion.