Letterman was a washout. watched it and was disappointed.

[oregonindy]

60 percent of what you say is crap. great line but no substance to back it up. Come on Dave theres so much crap from O'lielly you could have grabbed one thing before coming on the show.

sigh....

emotional bullshit segment.

[MrSlayer]

1. I agree.

He had a few good lines but he had no ammo at all to fight with. He needs to read a little bit and get up to date on how all this shit happened. It's not like it's hard to find out.

[Susang]

41. Oh please

What ammo do you think he lacked? He told O'Reilly that he had no right to speak or judge Cindy Sheehan, since he had never lost a child in war? What more do you need from the guy? He's said more to O'Reilly in those five minutes than any single interviewer, including John Stewart, so I think he's doing alright.

Letterman's a comedian and entertainer, not a political commentator. Perhaps you might want to get a little up to date on modern popular culture, so you might know what better to expect from someone like Letterman in the future. That way you will avoid disappointment when a comedian doesn't live up do your expectations.

[MrSlayer]

60. I thought he lacked even basic knowledge of how we got into Iraq.

Things that anyone should know by now. But you can go ahead and praise him and act like he "nailed" O'Reilly when he really didn't. I just feel that if you are going to bring a jackass like that on the show you better know at least a little bit about what you are going to discuss. He didn't. Simply praising Sheehan isn't enough, especially if you're going to let O'Reilly respond by cutting her down without a response.

I don't need to be updated on popular culture, Letterman does.

[Susang]

62. What could Letterman have said that could have made you think that?

I get the feeling from what you write that you didn't actually watch the interview, just the small clip provided on the CBS website. Letterman, besides mentioning Sheehan, mentioned the flawed intelligence and that we went into Iraq illegally. All O'Reilly could come back with was how he supports the troops because they are doing "noble work", as well as trying to say that other countries had the same intelligence, so it wasn't really our fault.

Let me ask you this, assuming that you actually did see the interview; if Letterman didn't upset O'Reilly with what he said, why did his voice shake when he responded to him and why the damage control by Juan Williams and Jeanne Wolf (seen here at salon.com) http://www.salon.com/ent/video_dog/ ?

Popular culture and political culture are two entirely different things. I think you probably do know quite about one, but need a refresher on the other.

[pinto]

2. It's a TV entertainment show. Nothing more nor less.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

3. I read the threads and comments on this here..

..and then I watched it, prepared to be dissapointed.

And I wasn't.

There was more to the interview than just the one line.

[oregonindy]

5. why werent you disappointed?

[SeveneightyWhoa]

7. Because it was entertaining.

And fun to see O'Reilly getting "nailed" instead of having him "slamming" someone else. He was uncomfortable. He had to answer tough questions.

Letterman got real, questioned O'Reilly on his b.s., which is something most of the media won't do these days.

Its just rare to see such a thing these days.

[oregonindy]

11. I guess I dont see it.

what tough questions?

how was he nailed?

dave did the emotional zings with cindy but had no facts, no figures. Did ask him why he still supports bush even though he said he wouldnt if no WMD's were found.

I think I'm just grumpy and tired. :)

[SeveneightyWhoa]

14. Okay, so what did you expect?

I'm curious as what you wanted Letterman to do. He's not a journalist, nor a liberal spokesperson. He's a COMEDIAN. You can't even expect him to go as far as Jon Stewart does (as far as getting "political" and knowledgeable in his questioning) because he's not even on that level.

[oregonindy]

15. yeah you're right. I just expected more from all of the over enthusiastic

posts from people saying o'lielly got "slammed" or "punked".

[SeveneightyWhoa]

27. Well, its my personal opinion..

..that he DID get "slammed" AND "punked".

Clearly you don't see it that way, though. Which is a shame, because some people expect too much from comedians (a la Jon Stewart; I'm sure you've seen the dissapointment here when he doesn't "perform" up to expectations) -- which is a sad statement on the mainstream news media and "liberal" punditry.

Letterman could've said nothing, and gone through the interview merrily playing to O'Reilly. He didn't. He "stood up" to the guy, and it was nice to see the pompous douchebag squirm for once. That's what put a smile on my face.

[Susang]

44. What I enjoyed the most

Was the fact that he couldn't storm off stage or make a stink like he usually does if any interviewer challenges him. If you make a stink on Letterman's show, you basically blacklist yourself from a whole lot of network tv and O'Reilly knows it. To watch him sit there and have to listen to Lettermans's comments in a relatively civil manner was brilliant to me. He felt angry and trapped, you could see it in his eyes and that's what made me the happiest about the interview; O'Reilly's discomfiture. The look on his face when Dave asked him if he had lost a son in combat was worth it's weight in gold!

[SeveneightyWhoa]

46. Yeah, how could I forget that?

It was great.

The DU'ers unhappy with the interview expected more of an intellectual political debate, which is weird considering the two people we're talking about here.

[sam sarrha]

4. you are supprised he isnt funny... never has been.....i'm still waiting

[SeveneightyWhoa]

8. O'Reilly?

Yeah, of course he isn't funny. He's "independent", not "funny".

Letterman, on the other hand, is HILARIOUS. And politically liberal, which is rare for a big-name media figure (even if he is a comedian).

[MichaelHarris]

6. because

60% of America knows Oreilly and knows Dave has no reason to back up his statement. Dave didn't want a debate, he wanted to mock that turnip headed bastard Oreilly. Dave accomplished his mission, his mission to show his disdain and his feelings on Fox lies.

[silverweb]

9. Letterman did very well.

Considering the type of show and the short time allotted for the segment, Letterman could not possibly have gone in depth to confront all of O'Reilly's lies. Given the constraints of the venue, I think he did very, very well. Plus, he's a gentleman. As the host, he would not be as rude to a guest as O'Reilly is to his.

O'Reilly was seething, but it wasn't his show so he couldn't pull his usual crap of shouting down his challenger and yelling to "shut up."

[U4ikLefty]

10. Dave did very well while still playing to his audience

the best of both worlds. The Late Show is not CSPAN2...it is a comedy show meant to get cheap laughs from the audience.

Dave did good by mocking O'Lielly in public & giving us a good chuclke at Loofah-Man's expense.

[Syrinx]

12. maybe you wouldn't have been disappointed...

If you hadn't read all the earlier hype here on DU. It was a memorable TV moment, but not that big of a deal.

Regarding other peoples' comments in this thread... I don't see Dave as particularly liberal. But I do think he hates demagogues and can see through bullshit. He's a little bit like a mature Holden Caulfield.

[mattclearing]

57. Dave is definitely liberal.

He was the only person to seriously question Bush during the 2000 campaign. That was exciting TV right there.

And Dave does Halliburton jokes, and never passes up an opportunity to knock Bush. I've seen Dave monologues where I was shocked at the topics he would bring up...stuff that is way off the corporate news radar.

[Appalachian_American]

13. I agree on the emotional slant of it,

but I don't think that's a bad thing.

Dave always uses that "I'm not smart enough" line with non-entertainment type interviewees and it's not true. I'm certain that he could take on Mr. Sex Kitten point by point on real issues. One would have to be obsessed with O'Reilly to be prepared to argue the frivolous points that he trumps up into so-called stories or "news." I wonder if that's why Dave pointed out that he doesn't watch Bill's show? I use to check in and see what he was ranting about, but it became so pointless. He distorts everything to fit into what he wants to rant about. Examples being the Silent Night situation and the Cindy Sheehan/freedom fighters stuff. Those were deliberate distortions to rile up the uninformed.

O'Reilly will never have an honest discussion about anything. And he was trying desperately to talk over Dave. It would have been impossible to have an honest debate and discussion. The emotional response was just the right touch in this situation. imho.

[KharmaTrain]

16. So Letterman Was To Be A Prosecutor?

I predicted Dave would slowly skewer this bastard, and he did it to perfection and then some. Letterman made O'Reilly look like a fool and let the viewer decide...Dave knows his audience can put 2 + 2 together and not have to use their toes and bipods. He didn't need examples...a vast majority of us who were tuned in know them chapter and verse...Dave just stated publicly what many of us feel and I applaud him for doing that.

Despite O'Reilly wanting to get some cheap PR (and surely he'll try to milk this incident on his radio and TV treehouses), he was Letterman's guest and, just like Jon Stewart, he has some class...he didn't need to humiliate his guest, just take a shot where he could...and he did. It'd be another story if Dave were on O'Reilly's set (which would NEVER happen), then...just like how Stewart went after Bowtie Boy on Crossfire, it's on a different turf and all rules are off.

So you don't think the bullshit O'Reilly plays with is strictly emotional? It sure isn't based on fact, and millions tune in and suck up his crap nightly. There's a reason...it's all "feel-good" stuff. It's an hour where Joe Sixpack can sit down and pretend he's superior to everyone and anyone without any real basis other than the shit O'Reilly spews. Dave was being kind when he said 60%.

I've been noting here for well over a year how Letterman has turned against this regime and how his contempt has grown as he see the extent of the lying and corruption. His turning point was when the White House went after him for showing that kid twitching at a fukstick rally last year and the White House claim Letterman edited the video...it's been downhill ever since.

[lpbk2713]

17. And Dumbya using one of Dave's staffers

sweaters to wipe his glasses on didn't help a whole lot either. Dave didn't like that at all.


Such a dipshit.

[Roland99]

19. Exactly. Dave doesn't have the audience Jon Stewart does.

He can't go for the jugular in a few moments' time.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

28. "I predicted Dave would slowly skewer this bastard, and he did it to...

...perfection."

Indeed. I'm getting the impression from DU'ers that they thought Letterman wasn't informed enough, or even too "mean" to the pompous douchebag O'Reilly. My question is, when has O'Reilly ever treated one of his own non-Republican-Bushbot guests with as much respect as Letterman gave him? How informed do you have to be to tear up O'Reilly's idiocy?

Just simple, subtle statements from Letterman like referring to O'Reilly's "friends in the Bush administration" (paraphrased) had O'Reilly denying, backtracking and denying.

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. Uh....he's a COMEDIAN. Remember?

He was AWESOME! He made O'LIElly look like a complete ASS. That works for me.:)

[blm]

20. I think that Letterman was devastating to O'Reilly in many ways - First

off, to O'Reilly's fragile ego.

Second, he kept it simple for ANY audience - He thinks O'Reilly is full of shit and he let the audience AND O'Reilly know it.

[Cooley Hurd]

21. I disagree... it was a memorable TV moment...

Dave didn't need a point-by-point rebuttal against O'Reilly to effectively stuff his ass. I guess some are very easily disappointed.:shrug:

[ComerPerro]

22. Why waste time providing examples of Bill's lies?

We've all seen it being done before, and we all know how OhReally reacts:

He says he was misquoted, taken out of context, or he just outright claims that what he said is true.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

29. Yeah, thats how O'Reilly operates.

Letterman makes the obviously true statement that O'Reilly isn't actually fair and balanced -- and O'Reilly expects Letterman to provide specific examples, which he can refute one by one. It's as if he can explain away single incidents of his Republican bias in order to prove that he's "fair and balanced". Such is the methodology of a pompous disinformer.

[mattomjoe]

23. I thought Letterman did a better job of ripping O'Reilly than Stewart

did on TDS.

[mondo joe]

24. I guess you forgot that "emotional bullshit" works.

And you might have ignored the applause from the audience.

Honestly, I don't know what more anyone could want out of a comedy show - do you think a 90 minute analysis of O'reilly's shit would have been more powerful?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

25. I was disappointed. Like Bill Maher, Letterman didn't have one percent

of the knowledge that most DUers have, and because of that, he couldn't make his point against O'Reilly. Especially since we all know that 100% of what O'Reilly has to say is crap.

[jim3775]

26. People here do not realize the info bubble we live in

Letterman doesn't have access to the info we have. He can't argue point for point, he doesn't read blogs on a daily basis, he doesn't read media matters on a daily basis.

We are privileged to live in an online world where O'Liely's bullshit gets refuted on a nightly basis. If you aren't plugged into that world of course you wouldn't have the "substance to back it up".

[rman]

30. I think Letterman does have access to the info we have,

he just doesn't know it's there.

[FlaGranny]

36. I didn't see the show,

but I'm always disappointed when people don't know all the facts. The trouble is, that applies to the great majority. I personally don't personally know one person who is as informed as I am. Our little enclave is probably one of the best informed groups in the country. Hundreds of people here together have spent 1000s of hours to gather facts for the rest of us and the rest of us spend several hours a day benefitting from all that research. The best thing to do is just keep passing on what we know and try to encourage others to learn also.

[dflprincess]

31. I really thought Letterman was reining himself in

and had the feeling he had a lot more he wanted to say but, for some reason, held back.(network concerns or losing it and pounding O'Lielly to a pulp?)

[Susang]

39. He definitely was reining himself in

If you understand how Letterman works, he takes his inspiration from Johnny Carson. Now if you ever watched Carson, Johnny never insulted a guest or made them feel uncomfortable. Letterman used to operated that way, but since Carson's retirement, he has tried to emulate Carson's interview style and has much kinder to his guests, even to the ones that he visibly doesn't like. It was quite obvious to anyone who knows how his show operates, that he was definitely holding back as much as possible, even trying to give O'Reilly opportunities to change the subject. O'Reilly did change the subject, unfortunately he chose to change it to the war in Iraq and Cindy Sheehan, a subject that obviously set Dave off.

What was truly telling was the insult at the very end of the show, when Dave said "I would like to thank SOME of the people who were on the show tonight". Then he added more insult to injury by naming Eric Bana before O'Reilly, both slams clever and subtle, but obvious to anyone left listening. I guarantee that either he or Paul will mention the dust-up tonight in some way. That's just what they do.

[Cooley Hurd]

40. In this full clip of the interview, they show Dave sticking his pencil...

...in O'Reilly's water. Dave was ready for him!!!:D:thumbsup:

Here's the full clip (QT) -->>> http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/

[Susang]

45. It's a beautiful think, isn't it?

Something we may never get to see again. I can't believe O'Reilly will make the mistake of being on Letterman again. :-(

[Karenina]

50. I. JUST. ROLLED!!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

"Is this my coffee?" Didja notice how Dave had moved his own out of reach??? :rofl:

SMACKDOWN!

[Cooley Hurd]

53. The audience remembered and laughed when O drank it!

For me, that was an "Ed-Ames-on-Carson" moment!:spray:

[SeveneightyWhoa]

47. Haha, wow!

I didn't see the end of the show, so I didn't catch that last part. That's just awesome..!

[dogday]

32. Letterman said more truth in those few minutes

than most have said for years about this war and our politics. Letterman was not a washout, he said quite a few things to Bill, one of them being he should feel nothing but compassion for Cindy Sheehan....

[Lex]

34. Why would people expect Letterman to be a knight in shining armor

anyway?

Letterman did very well, but he can't single-handedly take down O'Reilly.

At the heart of it, Letterman is a comedian and entertainer.

He did well, imho.

[WI_DEM]

33. I thought he was wonderful

it's a shame we have to try and tear down someone who actually does give it to O' Reilly especially on an entertainment show.

[CarolNYC]

37. Yep,

I thought Letterman was perfect....

[pointblank]

35. I for one

enjoyed watching Dave make a fool out of Billy Boy. could he have been more harsh and more prepared? Sure, but would him being prepared have made any difference? I don't think so. oreilley will never back down or change his beliefs and besides, like others have pointed out, that is not Dave's style.

I have a new respect for Dave after watching this.

I would love to see him take on some more of these freeptard talking heads...like Hannity. That would be good.

[951-Riverside]

38. Looks like the republican propagandists are in repair mode on this forum

I've seen alot of unfair topic about how David was bad or David didn't know the facts, you know what people David was great and he didn't brown nose.

[earth mom]

42. DISAGREE! Dave couldn't and wouldn't get all nasty and ugly like O'Lielly

does. That's not his style. Dave does NOT need to sink as low as O'Lielly does to get his point across.

Dave skewered O'Lielly with humor, style, grace and compassion-all qualites O'Lielly does NOT possess or understand.

IT WAS BEAUTIFUL and I LOVE DAVE ALL THE MORE FOR IT! :loveya:

[Jara sang]

43. How was there actual applause for Bin'Reilly?

I smell a rat, I mean a falafel. they definitely stacked the audience. Bin'Reilly knew Letterman hated his guts.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

48. Huh?

You expect the audience to boo and jeer, even when the "applause" light goes on? They certainly applauded Letterman more than bin'Reilly.

[Jara sang]

52. Yeah, I guess I was expecting 'The Daily Show' audience.

They don't hold any punches. They would have had Bin'Reilly cowering in the corner.

[question everything]

49. Agree. The least Letterman should have done was watch a few

shows and then give "for example."

And if O'Reilly is correct and Sheehan does refer to the insurgents in Iraq as "freedom fighters" then she should just be pitied for losing any sense of facts, in addition to her son, and let her descend the stage of history.

As Washburn stated http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2348597

the towns we haven’t bombed into hummus yet are overrun with murderous cops, Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish death squads, terrorists, god-addled jihadists and corporate hired goons from the unfettered killing fields of South Africa and Central America

[flvegan]

51. How far over the heads of his audience should he have shot?

I thought it was funny, and that's his job. At the same time he made good points. "60% of what you say is crap." is geared right at the chest of much of his audience. So, he could've gone heavy handed and lost much of his audience, or gone for the throat his own way, and maybe somebody learned something.

[Ksec]

54. Substance shmubstance

Anything Letterman would have used would have been spun. Dave wasnt playing. I think he did exactly what he should have. He reduced Oreally to foolish.

[Thtwudbeme]

55. I hate it for you

I only got to read about it; sounded pretty good to hear the old jackass get slammed--

[im10ashus]

56. Why do people start these threads?

It only seems like flame-bait. Feeling lonely? Geez! Get over it. So he didn't' lynch O'Leilly in public. Who else has stood up to the jerk like Letterman did?

[SoCalDem]

58. First of all, Dave is an ENTERTAINER/INTERVIEWER

he is NOT a prosecutor or a "journalist".

He has people on his show who are "in the news". He is not there to humiliate them or to :start some shit".

Dave has a clever cynical wit about him, and can do more with a look..a raised eyebrow, than a hundred Tucker Carlsons or Wolf Blitzers.
\

Dave is the facilitator...he lays it out there and the "guest" digs his/her own grave..

Dave will not be deliberately or obviously rude to anyone...the guests are invited (they do not "crash the show")..

Dave is content to sit back and let them make fools of themselves..That's why he's the KING !

[underseasurveyor]

59. Well said my friend.

The op is but one small shining sample on how the obvious escapes many :dunce:

Dave is King :applause:

[bpilgrim]

61. i always shake my head when folks attack comedians or entertainers

for not being 'strong' enough :eyes:

well said :toast:

peace

[Swede]

63. Letterman is not a pundit.

He just knows he disagrees with right wingers.