So Keith, Rachel and Thom all think that Obama's speech was weak..

[Stuart G]

Given what has happened in the last year or so, in terms of our aganda, and what has been accomplished....and this event, and what has been done....
Do you trust Keith ,Rachel and Thom, who have one view on this speech, or Obama? and the White House?
.. Think it over.
.Yea, it is important, and the three above are not the only ones..

[LaurenG]

1. Just because they think his speech was weak doesn't men they don't support

what hes trying to do. Big deal, his speech was weak, one weak speech doesn't define him. :shrug:

[dionysus]

16. i disagree with them about the speech,but why everyone is getting so worked up about it is beyond me

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. If Obama speech had included everything he wanted to say.....

his speech would have lasted all night and the next day. There's only so much you can fit into one slot.

[MadHound]

3. Well, given that I watched the speech, didn't listen to the pundritry, and can think for myself

I personally found the speech itself week. I wasn't expecting fire and brimstone, but I was expecting some more specifics and didn't get them. I also find myself horribly cynical when Obama was speaking about presidents had talked a good green energy game before, but never followed through. Sadly, my thought is that this is simply what Obama is doing. I'm waiting, perhaps in vain, for another president to surpass Nixon as our environmental president.

[WeDidIt]

4. I stopped listening to Hartmann ages ago

I stopped watching Keith and Rachel much more recently.

[Kalyke]

14. Why?

[WeDidIt]

15. After Tuesday night, I n longer have any reason to watch Keith or Rachel n/t

[HughMoran]

18. Oh c'mon

They periodically 'go off' on Obama, along with Big Ed. They inevitably get over themselves and get back to 'normal'.

I think you're seriously overreacting here.

[WeDidIt]

19. I've no reason t turn them on

I can get my news without spin on the internet.

I seriously have no reason to watch Keith or Rachel ever again.

[HughMoran]

20. Suit yourself

I just think that having a bad day isn't reason to turn on someone. I actually like the fact that Olbermann occasionally gets a bit cranky with Democrats, it shows that our side can be self-reflective when necessary. This is a good thing.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raineyb]

28. Because he only want to hear from people who validate his preconceived notions

and prejudices.

Liberals who think for themselves and don't merely repeat the party line are not for him.

[treestar]

5. I watch the speeches myself

and decide for myself; I could not care less what entertainers think.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

6. I thought the speech was so-so.

I guess I'm waiting to see the actions that follow.

[DrDan]

7. yes I trust them . . . they are allowed their opinions . . . and I hardly think

there is a conspiracy behind their views.


They do not work for faux, after all.

[Stuart G]

12. I trust them because in the past, their views reflect mine.

Rachel's take on Obama's speech being played in the Videos Forum is so exact and correct. It just feels right. Exactly what needed to be said.

I look back on Olbermann's first special comment on Donald Rumsfield's speech in August of 2006, it too was perfect.

http://crooksandliars.com/2006/08/30/keith-olbermann-delivers-one-hell-of-a-commentary-on-rumsfeld

Or at you tube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r98BByBrhdA

I trust these people and their views..

[deacon]

8. The GOP wanted the taxpayers to foot the bill. Thats something they should be talking about. n/t

[Stuart G]

9. I believe that the speech was weak too, but are Obama's actions

weak? That is one part, and more important, what will his actions be in the future? Has his past actions warranted this criticism?

In six months or so, we will be able to better say if Obama was correct on this. Given the last 59 days, there is plenty of doubt.

[wizstars]

31. "Let Obama be Obama" n/t

[rocktivity]

10. I don't believe they were wrong to say the speech was weak--I thought it was, too

If that was all Obama had intended to say, he SHOULDN'T have said it on national prime-time TV from the Oval Office.

Yes, we're all looking a little sheepish now that he's immediately followed up with a strong, substantial press statement that delivered everything we've been wishing for (and Keith, to his credit, admitted as much last night). But there must have been a reason why Obama took the route that he did--to spare BP further public embarrassment, perhaps? On the other hand, if his ulterior motive was to embarrass the media, then I have to say "Well played!"

But aside from that, always keep in mind that Keith, Rachel, Thom, Randi, and Malloy ARE members of the corporate national media, and there ARE lines they wont be allowed to cross. For instance, remember that Keith had very little to say about Jon Stewart's evisceration of Jim Cramer, or Tweety's "I forgot Obama was black for an hour" remarks--they're NBC "family."

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Arkansas Granny]

11. Obama's speech was weak. It has nothing to do with trusting Keith, Rachel and Thom.

It has to do with trusting my own judgment. I don't need the opinions of the pundits and commentators to make up my mind on a subject. I listen to them, and others, to get another point of view.

[Uzybone]

34. well said

[samplegirl]

13. Sadly

Could you ever imagine Sean Hannity or anyone ever dogging Bush for one of his
lame speeches?

[HughMoran]

17. Oh dear fucking god, who cares

[Tailormyst]

21. I don't base my opinions on pundits NOR do I trust politicians and their staff to be objective.

If people would start thinking for themselves we would be better off.

[zipplewrath]

22. It was a weak speech.

I haven't listened to any of the TV punditry. But even I thought it was a weak speech. It wasn't a BAD speech. It wasn't a GREAT speech. It was weak speech. But he didn't need a strong speech because he wasn't actually trying to do anything. He wasn't proposing a new program. He wasn't announcing anything of substance that we didn't already know. It was a summary of information that was already available. Now, if he HAD wanted to announce some new, bold initiative, it would have been a HORRIBLE speech.

It was what it was and what it needed to be.

[DirkGently]

23. The speech was weak, and the actions inconsistent

It's nice that BP has been wrestled into the harsh step of not paying *DIVIDENDS* this year, and has been put on an installment plan to pay a few billion per year. What we're are explicitly NOT hearing is that the administration will even slow down its frenetic granting of oil leases, which GUARANTEE this will happen again.

Keith and Rachel, et al, gave an honest, logical reaction to the speech, and do a service for all of us by not being the partisan mouthpieces we criticize the boobs on Fox for being.

[grahamhgreen]

24. Obama is still advocating for offshore drilling, nuclear power and another disaster, so I'm with

the other three.

However, 20 billion is a good start, but the HCR is a joke and offshore drilling is not cost effective.

[avaistheone1]

26. You are correct.

[Berry Cool]

25. I don't have to take sides. Only children think it's necessary to choose one side

and abandon the other in this kind of situation.

But that's typical childish thinking. "Either you're with us (in everything) or you're against us (in everything)."

[EFerrari]

29. I'm fine with those three telling Obama they want more from him

and telling him what that "more" is. I don't need to agree with them or disagree with them.

[NJmaverick]

30. OK what has been accomplished

President Obama- $20 Billion of Gulf Oil Disaster, Saved Economy from Complete Meltdown, Passed Historic Health Care Reform, Enacted Hospital Visitation Rights for same sex couples, ended ban on Stem Cell research, spent Billions on green energy initiatives, Restored US reputation around the world, Spent Billions on mass transit and energy conservation, raised CAFE standards, Kept our nation safe from terrorists,..., ... ,...


Keith, Rachel and Thom- ummm... hmmmm.... ummm... well all three made money doing entertainment/news programs. Beyond that I can't think of any actual accomplishments.

[joeybee12]

32. What the knee-jerkers don't realize is that Keith and Rachel are STRONG Obama supporters...

maybe they're trying to get a message to him...maybe one that he needs?

[Uzybone]

33. Co Presidents Olberman, Maddow and Hartman

what did YOU think about the speech? The left shouldn't turn into dittoheads and start parroting the opinions of pundits.