Olbermann just needs to go that extra yard to full "Network". However I find it disturbing how partisan he is. I would have thought he was aware the only difference between the reps and the dems is their support base. What on Earth makes him think Obama wants free healthcare for all? Do you think a man like Obama would back down from taking something he really wanted? I think Obama is some kind of band-aid to convince Americans and the rest of the world that the USA isn't the no. 1 threat to our planet

I'm just glad he didn't use any voices.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

He's a preachy self-righteous blowhard, but he's right.

Let it go to a vote and fail- and then throw the objectionist fuckheads out in the next election- every last one of them, starting with Droopy Dog.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

And *quality commentary (even if he is a blowhard)

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by dag.

I will refrain from any commentary on the video as I am trying to cut down on talking about such things on the internets...but I think the part around 8 mins is kind of funny. "Since they are calling you something, you might as well do it!", I find that logic HILARIOUS! Quick, someone call Olbermann a martian I want to see what he does!

(btw, the title made me laugh, I clicked cause I thought it was some kill bill clip hehehe)

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I will refrain from any commentary on the video as I am trying to cut down on talking about such things on the internets...

But..... Someone could be wrong! On the Internet!!!

^HAHAHA exactly the kind of thing I seek to repress in myself!

I'm not a huge fan of Olbermann, but this is probably one of his best rants I've seen in a long time.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
"Since they are calling you something, you might as well do it!", I find that logic HILARIOUS! Quick, someone call Olbermann a martian I want to see what he does!


Someone is wrong on the Internet. Or, at least, doesn't understand that the point was that you really shouldn't spend much time trying to appease the demands of your competitors in life.

Apparently you think he meant the opposite -- that you should slavishly adopt the caricature that people who hate you are trying to paint you with.

> ^acidSpine:
What on Earth makes him think Obama wants free healthcare for all? Do you think a man like Obama would back down from taking something he really wanted?




Obama has voiced support for a single-payer system in the past, but that isn't exactly "free". It doesn't matter how much he wants it though, he can't force congress to pass it.

It's not about free healthcare, since there is no such thing. Healthcare reform means reducing the profit motive, by either increasing competition or removing the profiteers completely (i.e. Single Payer). I think anyone with a brain understands that the real death panels are in the insurance companies, and I want that to stop. That's the only "liberal agenda".

You can say what you like about Olbermann, but at least he puts his money where his mouth is, literally. Charity donations for Bill O to live up to his BS on air, and now, a promise of civil disobedience. And -this- is one reason I laugh at those who claim he's just like the Faux News creeps but for the other side.

I agree that this is one of Olbermann's best rants, and I agree with just about every word of it. I think he's speaking to the wrong person though. It sure seems like Obama sold us out a while ago, and he will do nothing. Unfortunately I don't know of anyone who can actually step in to effect change now -- Obama was our best hope, and it turned out to be a completely false hope.

Technically I haven't yet passed judgment. There's still time to turn the Health Care train around, but if *meaningful* reform isn't passed, then the federal Democratic party in its current form loses my vote in perpetuity.

^ What's your definition of "meaningful", and does this mean you'll be voting Republican from here on out?

>> ^NetRunner:
^ What's your definition of "meaningful", and does this mean you'll be voting Republican from here on out?


Meaningful means (roughly) lower costs and better coverage. Fewer uninsured at prices that won't break the bank, and better care in general, instead of a system that focuses solely on catastrophic health problems. I'm not saying that Congress has the get there in one leap, but they do have to get a fair deal closer. From everything I've read this bill is literally driving more people into a broken system, and does nothing to improve it or control costs. Instead of even making incremental improvements, we're moving in the wrong direction again.

This is my complaint with Obama and the Democratic party in general. They have a chance to improve things, but time and time again they decide to take that energy and use it to push our country even further in the wrong direction. We could have fixed the banks, but instead we handed them more power and things have gotten even worse. We could have a more transparent government, but the Obama Administration is still extending Bush's court cases and blocking FOIA requests. We could have better health care, but Democrats are more interested in racking up campaign dollars and selling out the poor -- you know, everyone who makes less than $5 million.

In response to your second question, goodness no. To extend a recent trend, I would give current the Obama Administration a D+ and the federal Democratic party in general an F. Unfortunately for the Republicans, they flunked out of class years ago. I will likely be voting "third party" in the future -- I'd like to vote Green, but they don't make it to the national stage too often, so it looks like I may be writing candidates in for a while.

Also note that while I'm not comfortable with the national parties, local and State elections are a different story. Last election I cast votes across all three parties (I'm in Illinois, so there's always Greens on the ballot).

The senate should be floated on the stockmarket, with everyone able to buy shares in the senators, at least then you would see those who are being bought by companies rather than voters.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by ctrlaltbleach.

*notdead

This dead video has been deemed functional; it must have been accidentally declared dead - declared notdead by mintbbb.