Glad to see other Americans that are not afraid of scary words like "socialist". Time we grow up politically and exercise the freedom of speech we're so proud of, instead of trying to find reasons to be and vote democratic.

Glad to see other Americans that are not afraid of scary words like "socialist". Time we grow up politically and exercise the freedom of speech we're so proud of, instead of trying to find reasons to affiliate and vote for the Democratic party.

Is Greenwald saying O'Donnell favors conservatives? Well, that's daft. I like Greenwald but I don't think he's looking at things very realistically if he thinks more liberal candidates would have fared better. Those Blue Dogs were probably lucky to get any votes at all.

Bill Clinton predicted or made an assessment as he was leaving the presidency that there was a worldwide movement towards fundamentalism. The same characteristic of human intolerance for different ideas just manifests itself in different ways in different cultures. Intolerance fuels Al Qeda, American right-wingers, and all sorts of conflicts throughout the world. I think it's the advances made in communication technology that is the culprit. The internet allows for instant, cheap, widely available dissemination of information. The proliferation of cable TV channels allowed the rise of Fox. As the leading artists in music have gone from, say, Duke Ellington or Leonard Bernstein to today's Brittney Spears et al, so has the quality of public political discourse followed the unfortunate side effects of democratization of the mass media.

Fox has taken advantage of this to sway/brainwash the public into simultaneously holding contrary views and vote against their best interests, kind of a two-sided coin that O'Donnell and Greenwald are arguing over, in my view. They're both right, Greenwald arguing that when asked about specific points, people choose liberal, but O'Donnell is also right when he points out the reality that people don't understand what they're really voting for and, so, unfortuately, vote for those who don't really represent their best interests. And they do so with gusto!

I have a lot of respect for L O'Donnell, but not when he lectures to a colleague, and talks over him. He is disrespectful and that wears thin, quickly.

Caught a snippet of Countdown. Wasn't that Ronald Reagan's tax guy, David Stockman shredding that fool Mike Pence from Indiana regarding tax breaks for the wealthy? It's ABOUT TIME!!!

Yes, sometimes Mr. O'Donnell is an excitable boy but he's smart and usually right. He's one of the good guys.

L. O'Donell, your comments and declaration of being a 'socialist' is an embarrassment to the msnbc team.

O'Donnell's exact words:

Tomorrow night...I’ll also rejoin, for real, political blogger Glenn Greenwald. He’ll explain why living in Brazil gives him a better perspective on the midterm elections than those of us who are stuck living somewhere in the fifty United States. And he’ll tell you why he really REALLY hates me.

GG's not really American, he lives in Brazil. Classy.

(BTW, for those of you who don't know (LO?) he lives there part-time because his marriage to his same-sex partner isn't recognized in the US--you know, the land of the free and the pursuit of happiness).

I won't weigh in on your argument with Greenwald (I didn't get to see MSNBC's election night coverage), but I congratulate you Lawrence for expressing your personal views about the role of government so boldly. After viewing your experimental deficit reduction panel episode, I wrote you off as a corporate shill who ascribes to the ever more rightward drifting centrist view and I resented you for it. I see now that I was mistaken.

J'accuse myself of leaping to false conclusions.

I hope in the future you continue to assert your views from time to time on issues like Medicare as you did so admirably in this disscusion. I think it is important that people hear them regardless of the political realities which may make them presently unachievable.

I am also interested in polling data on these issues, and how the wording of questions effects the results as well as how the questions themselves frame the issues. I believe there should be more polls asking questions such as "Do you support making Medicare available for all?"..."Would you support raising the FICA cap to make Social Security solvent and decrease the national debt?"..."Would you support imposing selective tariffs on goods imported to the US in order to create and save jobs?"..."Do you have any idea what the hell is going on in Afghanistan?"...etc.

Your revelation has brightened my day, Thanks Lawrence!!!

O'Donnell behaved like a typical elite press child. He uses 'pulling rank' and character assassination rather than dealing with Greenwald's arguments, which are actually quite straight forward. Greenwald gets this all the time from primido One can make an intelligent argument against Greenwald's, but it's not:

O'Donnell: "You're only a buck private liberal blogger. I'm a five star general socialist! So I outrank you and therefore everything I say is wise and right and everything you say is wrong. And, although I am a card carrying, proud, five star socialist who would absolutely like to turn America into a true socialist state, I am also a Serious Mature Wise Commentator who recognizes that everything I really believe in as a five star licensed ordained socialist can never come to pass in this country and therefore, despite my impeccable credentials as a socialist I recognize that we must abandon every facet of a socialist agenda and veer even further to the right and outflank the republicans on their right. And as a Serious Wise Person I have on this scrap of paper in my hand the results of one exit poll which prove this. Therefore whatever you say is wrong. And I am right. And I say this as both a licensed clinical socialist and a serious person. That is all."

How does a multi-millionaire like O'Donnell get away with claiming to be a socialist? His definition must explain why he thinks the country needs to move to the right to win voters rather than explaining the consequences of Republican policies.

Dems lost because they abandoned the rule of law (mortgage fraud, banking fraud, renditions, torture, illegal wars, war crimes, need I go on?).

Lawrence O'Donnell: You run a great show! But, your two polls require you to think further. Those were EXIT polls, and in some counties, Democrats had 40% less turnout than Republicans. Do you understand how that affects the results of those exit polls?

Basically, assume 20% less turnout, a middle and probably reasonable figure. So if 56 out of 100 polled said "government should do less", and 39 out of 100 polled said "government should do more", now consider those extra 20 (% of) Democrats not represented: Add 20, or near enough, to the "government should do more" side.

That makes it 59-56, or near enough even when you normalize that to 100%.

And Greenwald is right: on the issues, the polls were MORE in favor of government intervention. We all want to SAY we can do without government, generally, but not specifically.

The same logic must be applied to your 21% liberals, 39% independent, 40% conservative.

If you compensate for repressed Democrat turnout, you get even numbers on all those. If you then compensate for "liberal" being a dirty word, you find the truth (as shown in other polls): America is a center-LEFT country.

So, if you really are a "socialist" as you said, and good on you for that, take heart. This country is actually on your side. But will the government ever be?

-Aaron

"Tomorrow night...I’ll also rejoin, for real, political blogger Glenn Greenwald. He’ll explain why living in Brazil gives him a better perspective on the midterm elections than those of us who are stuck living somewhere in the fifty United States. And he’ll tell you why he really REALLY hates me." Lawrence O'Donnell

Where to start? Mr. Greenwald does not live in this country because his husband cannot immigrate here. And why can't a person living outside the country understand what is going on? Seems to me they might see more than we do since the American news/entertainment industry fails to inform the citizenry as they should. Mr. O'Donnell, you are an arrogant, small minded person trapped in an ever constricting bubble.

Pop.

I just finished watching the segment where Lawrence had written a part for Jimmy Smits. I try my best to believe in exactly what Jimmy (Lawrence) said in that clip. I have started to wear the label "Liberal" in spite of my job security, loss of my friends.....

I came across a definition of Liberal that I have made into a plastized card and I carry with me everywhere:

"....but if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

That was said JFK in 1960
I don't know of a better way to state why I label myself a Liberal.

Sorry Lawrence, I gotta agree with Mr. Greenwald on this one. I really liked the clip of The West Wing with Jimmy Smitts defending the merits of liberals throughout our history. I agree with what he said 100%. I also liked your monologue at the end of your show about socialism! Again, I agree 100%!

Great show tonight! I particularly enjoyed the civil exchange between Glenn and yourself, displaying that all Americans can have differing opinions and still have respectful discussions. Listening and sharing of ideas/opinions are how solutions are arrived at and I hope the entire Congress tuned into your show this evening. I was very pleased with you for pointing out that liberal and socialism are not words to be offended by. Our nation is always the first to reach out to other countries at times of crisis and concern for each of our citizens should always be a priority for the people elected to the presidency and congress to serve ALL citizens, not just the ones who they percieve to have elected them - something I think both parties tend to forget once elected.

I believe that the last time we could as a nation discuss rationally what liberal meant was prior to the death of the last American Socialist to be taken seriously, Norman Thomas. With no spokesman for socialism, the development of conservative think tanks financed by a few wealthy individuals shifted the conservation from the progressive as the center and moved the whole spectrum rightward by eliminating the left extreme.

Lawrence O'Donnell: I can sign up under most of what you say, but let's be more meticulous with words. By definition: Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.(Wikipedia) Colling you a socialist is a stretch. You advocate only allocation of resources and some state regulation of business. But it is the list part of socialism. Socialist China practically dropped most of social programs, remaining socialist state almost until now. Sweden,home of the happiest people on earth, is a state with well advanced social programs without been a socialist state. I was broad up in classical socialist country of the Soviet Union. Nothing good about it.

I wold be rather be called a liberal or progressive.

I look forward to this episode (I watch on the net not on television). I really enjoyed the original MJ debate and hated that it was cut short even though I saw the extended version. I mean -cut short- as in I wanted to see more time dedicated to it but I understand that MJ is not their debate platform. Appropriately masterful to add it to The Last Word show!

Also enjoyed everyone's especially Joe's reactions in the background as it went on.

If Glenn Greenwald thinks he got it right, (appearing on the Last Word) check out the results from the Arkansas primary. The Tea Party no more elected Republicans than the left elected Obama. Moderates and the center elect candidates.

Mr O'Donnell,

re: Glen Greenwald controversy

The reason I don't watch your show after I've watched both Keith and Rachel is your own blue-doggyness. I get really tired of having everything I believe, and every virtue that I honor be treated with disrespect and inundated by false Republican talking points.

You may not realize it, but those ARE two things that you do. I won't listen to it.

I used to like Lawrence O'Donnell.

Let's now take him apart point-by-point.

First, assigning oneself a more ridiculous label ("socialist" v. "progressive") when we should be attempting to move beyond such infantile associations is mistake numer one.

Second, assuming that since your label is more meaningful than the one you assign to your rival somehow makes you the only person who can make a valid argument, and are thus, beyond reproach from those whose labels exist only in Mr. O'Donnell's own mind, and as such, have some hierarchical value (i.e. You don't even have a right to confront me because I'm more left than you'll ever be sonny!--I'm paraphrasing of course which only Mr. O'Donnell is allowed to do), is again, ridiculous.

You like labels? Become a Republican. Under that philosophy you will be able to call people Hitler, Stalinists, Jihadists, terrorists, etc., and it largely works. Ignoratne people are moved by tone, volume, and fear. And in the case of labels, the crazier and more incompetent the argument is, the better the label that does along with it (family values, fiscal conservative, strict constitutionalist, etc.). Is it any wonder why much of the country that is reasonable and compassionate would just assume do away with them?

Third, and along the lines mentioned above, to use promos (see earlier comments in thread) in order to call out an openly gay man who lives in Brazil only because his marriage is not recognized in this country, is about as right-wing lunatic a move as one could make. I don't believe Mr. O'Donnell to be as such, but there is a point to made here.

Not unlike Juan Williams at NPR, there is a journalistic responsibility to mind one's tone (at least as far as the so-called liberal media is concerned) so as not to excite the ignorant ideologies of what one might know to be inflammatory in a potentially hostile environment. Is it okay for a journalist as a private citizen to have concerns about a muslim on a plane? Perhaps. However, that same journalist, after arriving safely at their destination should then have a chance to ponder their own fears internally and attempt to rationalize themselves away from such understandings, not go on the airwaves to inflame the base instincts of the masses. Failure to do so, especially as a journalist, does reflect deep, internal, and yes, racist views regardless of the color of one's skin or how many books one might write about civil rights. Racism is exposed through spontaneous thoughts and actions, not through the carefully considered written words that are put together in the form of a book.

Mr. O'Donnell's promos of his Glenn Greenwald interview exposes again, his penchance for right-wing ideology at least as far as attack politics is concerned. The idea here is that if he doesn't live here he's somehow not American and shouldn't be critical of those of us who are, and never takes into consideration why that might be--the fact that we are a country that openly discriminates against homosexuals. When Mr. O'Donnell decides to veer right (as he claims all liberal politicians should do in order to win) when attacking Mr. Greenwald, he gains nothing. Instead, he opens himself up to being a McCarthyite-like figure, questioning peoples' American-ness, and also a homophobe for attacking a gay man forced to live where he is not discriminated against. I wasn't aware socialists hated "the gay" so much.

Here's the thing--and again, I know Mr. O'Donnell is far from being a Republican--when you decide to adopt the Republican playbook (shouting down those that attempt to make a well-reasoned argument against you, questioning their patriotism in coded language, and doubling-down on the ugliness at every turn when outsmarted), you become one of "them." And believe me when I say this Mr. O'Donnell, as somone that used to, and still wants deeply to, admire and respect your tenacity in seeing to it that the media gets it right, rather than succumbing to the noise and pundit-like blather that fills the airwaves, the LAST thing you want to do is become one of them. Not unlike the recent election, which you still don't seem to understand despite Mr. Greenwald's patience with you, we are not Republicans. We don't follow the ideology. We follow the message. And we will leave your viewership and/or sit-out elections if we feel as if the effort is not sincere.

When you're fighting the ideolgogues on the right, such neanderthal tactics are always permissible (I don't ever recall a bully ceasing such activity due to a polite and well-reasoned argument against such actions), but Mr. Greenwald is not THEM. He caught you being sloppy in your reasoning and all the videos show you to be condescending and belligerent when called out.

Perhaps there was a day when authoritarianism ruled the media, where your years of experience would easily be able to silence the opinions of those that had not traveled your path. However, we can no longer hold back the tide. There are some of us, mostly those of us that lean left (whatever that means), that care more about truth than we do about establishment.

Right now, at this current time, Glenn Greenwald is doing more valuable and prescient journalism than you are, Mr. O'Donnell. Perhaps this is what has gotten under your skin. Nobody likes a smart, young up-start that doesn't know his place.

Review your approach. Review all the evidence that supports what Mr. Greenwald is saying and destroys your credibility in the process, and issue an apology.

It should go something like this.

"After much reflection, I would like to publicly apologize for the grandstanding I did in regard to a disagreement I had with Mr. Glenn Greenwald. He is an excellent reporter and journalist who cares deeply about the American people, and after further consideration, his interpretation was clearly more meaningful than my own. I am sorry If I have behaved badly to someone I view as a colleague, and in this instance, a mentor. Perhaps together we can continue to work to shed light on the issues that are most important to ALL Americans. After all, what purpose do labels serve when such labels force everyday Americans to vote in favor of policies that are against their own interests? We need to get beyond "left" and "right" in this country, and again, Mr. Greenwald was correct in the assessment that knee-jerk associations with one party or another close us off from reasoning and polite debate. I fell into that trap myself...and for that, I am deeply sorry."

Sounded like guest was sayin people don't like politicians who paint in pastels.

Sounded like host was saying at least they're paintin.

Dear Lawrence,

I was impressed with your succinct and eloquent rebuke of the Tea Party types in explaining the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. Quoting Jefferson's letter to the Baptists of Danbury CT left no wiggle room. Only an agenda driven ideologue would continue to argue.

On Nov. 5th,.however, you showed an appalling disregard for the Bill of Rights in a discussion you had with Glenn Greenwald. The discussion led to you asserting that you were to the left of Liberals and were actually a Socialists. No problem — as you've said, we're all Socialists. I think single payer was tho only way to go on health care so that makes me one. It's when you listed your views that define you as a Socialist and started with " I would ban all guns in America..." that I was stunned. The implication is that dismissing the Second Amendment is somehow naturally connected with being a Socialist but it is not. It may be part of the assumed "liberal agenda" but it has no inherent connection to Socialism.

Allow me to explain the Second Amendment because, like the Establishment Clause, it is often misunderstood'

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

27 words — the first 13 are a statement of philosophy. It tersely explains why the amendment is necessary. The next 14 are a clear, unambiguous statement of policy.

The Second Amendment was never intended to protect hunters rights or even the right of personal defense — these rights were a given. It's purpose was to give the citizenry the capacity to defend itself against tyrannical forces both from outside and within the State.

Militias organically arise out of necessity as they did with our own revolution where the State was our opponent, not our regulator. The weapons of a militia are the weapons of war intended to bring a credible threat of death to those who would threaten our liberty. As with nuclear weapons, it is the credible threat that minimizes the probability of there use.

Cambodia, Rwanda and Darfur are only recent examples of populations who had in common their inability to defend themselves. There is no fundamental difference between these people and the people of the United States. Our only difference is the system of checks and balances by which we govern ourselves. The genuine threat of a motivated citizenry in possession of massive decentralized deadly force is a crucial element in maintaining our freedom.

If you remain unconvinced, allow me to quote Jefferson.

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press."

Sincerely,
Jeff Hill