Great interview with Bill Maher. Awesome show !!!! Danny in Beaverton, OR

I agree with your re-write, mostly. My one addition would be that the seemingly insensitive attitude of the commercials could easily have been nullified with a mention or even a tag line encouraging a donation to the cause with all that you can save by using Groupon.

On the surface of it, your analysis seems valid. Unfortunately, you probably overestimated the intelligence of the half-drunk Superbowl viewers who saw these ads. In the minds of most of the viewers, I'm sure the jump to something trivial and silly actually nullified the first half of the ads. In other words, the average viewer probably felt since part two was a joke, part one must be also.

Love your show!

You could argue that they nobly gave away half their advertising money to good causes if and only if their brand wasn't being forwarded as a solution to these problems at the same time. If I'm not mistaken, the whole ad was dedicated to bringing traffic to Groupon's site, and if they mentioned a "worthy cause" they did so only to exploit that cause for profit. They did it to make money and bring in new customers.--obviously.

This is cultural capitalism at its most blatant: exploit a horrible situation in order to bring people into your consumer base by promising that further consumption of the very things that are causing the horrible situation in the first place, but this time from us, cause we will make it better. Buying stuff or throwing money at stuff is never really going to fix any of these problems, is it? And as someone who claims to be a socialist, Lawrence, you should not pretend that getting people to "talk" about an issue for two days is neither a) getting us any closer to solving the issue or b) praiseworthy enough to excuse what is otherwise exploitation for profit.

I think you and your staff are capable of much deeper analysis on this one.

I am usually 100% in agreement with your Rewrites. Tonight however, I can't agree. Upon seeing the Tibetan commerical, I contacted Groupon to express my displeasure with the perceived insensitivity of the commercial. The response I received (and would be happy to forward to you) was that the goal was to, your point, increase awareness and drive consumers to groupon.com to make donations. There was nothing in any of the commercials to support this. Had Groupon.com add ".org" to the "save the money" tag line, we would not be discussing this two days later.

Groupon attempted to join the "shock-value" advertising of the Superbowl bandwagon (those used in your Rewrite) on an intellectual level. Unfortunately they failed.

I was not one of the intoxicated, rabid football fans. I was just a girl who was looking forward to the commercials.

Just saw your analysis of the Groupon spots. Sorry, but I think you are giving Groupon and Super Bowl fans way too much credit. Reader comments on various new sites are a perfect case in point. Most comments in favor of the ads are more about calling people out for being whining PC elitists. I seriously doubt these ads will cause any football fan who can't find Tibet on a map (nor care to) to actually act in support of Tibet. Yes, they talk about these issues for the better part of the ad but the turn is so harsh that it trivializes what was previously said. And yes, we are still talking about these ads days after the Super Bowl and that was the intent, to keep the ball rolling. But it is to keep the name Groupon on the front pages NOT to rally around Tibet or the rainforest. Their ad agency's (Crispin Porter + Bogusky) mission statement is: To Make our Clients Famous. See, it's about making Groupon a household name and creating press, good or bad. But again, for Groupon. Not Tibet.

I recognize Lawrence O'Donnell doesn't care for football, but just because somebody watches football does not make them any more unlikely to have failed to heard about, cared about, or acted on behalf of the people of Tibet or rainforests than any other American. I have watched literally every Super Bowl since I was born (yes this does mean I was propped in front of a TV as a baby when football was on, my father has priorities and teaching me about football was one of them). I happen to enjoy watching sports like football because as a liberal, I think competition for basics like food and shelter is morally repugnant. Competition over a Super Bowl ring is fun and not as morally bankrupt as the rigged competitions for survival that capitalism itself ensures are ongoing all around me every day. I don't need a smug ad, which I personally found far less original and clever than its writers apparently found it, to introduce me to the suffering of Tibetans; I have been a vocal advocate for Tibet for 16 years.

No complaints about the plethora of ads objectifying women? I complain about them every year!! Guess what! I don't have my own MSNBC show! I don't even have my own column on the Huffington Post, so I guess that doesn't count. Lawrence may not realize this, since he doesn't appear to be a fan, but extremely few female football fans have any place on the TV discussing the sport they enjoy watching and analyzing. Sports commentators are invariably male, and sports commentators specifically called on to talk about the Super Bowl on TV are 110% male. I dare you to find me a female one among them. Because you won't. Maybe Lawrence O'Donnell could step up on this though and actually complain about the atrocious Super Bowl ads--this year was a lot better than last year, let me tell you, the Bridgestone ad last year took the cake--instead of complaining about people not liking a Groupon ad with a pathetic excuse for a plot twist. If you want a plot twist in a Superbowl ad, going with, "Actually we're just trying to sell you something," is not what I would recommend.

I also don't need a smug Lawrence O'Donnell lecture with the implication that football fans are just too stupid to understand that the Groupon ad was a public service announcement that bettered our understanding of the world.

I am a football fan. I am also a fan of the show. I am not the caricature of a football fan Lawrence relied on during the Re Write tonight, and hey, I'd just appreciate it if he'd go back to talking about people like me without the utterly irrelevant disdain of somebody who doesn't understand who he is talking to or what he is talking about.

Lawrence, you're brilliant. However, if a commercial/ad makes people have a negative gut reaction to your product, and not want to buy, then it's ineffective as what it purports to be, a commercial. Noble motives are irrelevant to actual effectiveness.

If the main purpose of the commercial was to get the word out to millions about the plight of the Tibetan people, and the Brazilian rain forest then that mission was accomplished. But hmm...something was missing. What is the target "football fan" audience supposed to do with this touching information? No solution was given; nothing was asked of them. Are you thinking they'll charge to the rescue like your audience did by sending in money for school desks? Don't forget, you gave them the solution to your touching story. Also, don't you think maybe your target audience is more likely inclined to be "activist?"

On the other hand, if Groupon sales go up, and/or Superbowl fans charge to the rescue of the rain forest (without being asked); I'll stand corrected.

I m in Montreal on a visit right now,where Im always delightfully astonished ,at how the news in my "Other Country"(Im a dual citizen born to a French Canadian Father and an Irish American Mother) is more varried on the other cultures of the World.The Superbowl add ,was nothing "new" to me,or my College age Children.I teach French In St Paul,MN,where unfortunately ,I still find schools lack "WORLD "Culture.(I went to an all girl school there to learn English in the very early 80"s)Nothing much has changed.I compare what I learned in an American School,to what my Children learned in their High School,and unfortunately,it is not comparible.(They went to a school in Montreal) Never the less,I am getting on that plane tomorrow evening,as I am attached to those "kids".(as hard as it will be,to say Good-Bye to my own)Speaking of Canada,Lawrence,PLS do not let go on the issue of GUNS~~!!!I do not get that 2 amendment~!Or rather,the "love of it! "By the way,I have not MISSED a show since it"s debut on Sept.26!Love it!I never know what Im going to get,which is very refreshing!Congrats!Thanks for the lesson on "Sports socialism",even Quebec does not have that!(But are socialist enough:)

Loved having "Bill"at the beginning of the show.Hope you go back to REALTIME soon.

Sarah Palin,I thought it was because English was my second language,Im very happy you have a SP"translator"on the show.Why does it seem only America has the crazies????Elections last WAY to long in this Country.They should last 6 weeks like other Western Countries!!!!! They are all working find,and arent spending money,that otherwise go to UNIVERSAL HC,LOW TUITION,(College and Private Schools) Public options on Meds,the list goes on.OK Im going off subject here.Sorry!

I disagree with your defense of the Groupon superbowl ads. Yes, they brought up some serious problems, but then they trivialized them by contrasting them to great Groupon deals. Anyone not already familiar with the serious situations in Tibet and the Amazon wouldn't have been very informed by these commercials. In fact, they entrenched typical America-think about any problem outside our country.

Would you say, "school kids in Africa desperately need desks, but you can go to Groupon.com and get a great deal on kids furniture at IKEA"? I don't think so.

Groupon was wrong, and you were reaching to go against the grain in defending them.

these ads are in such bad taste they're funny, have to admit I enjoy them, in a satirical way of course

I refuse to be shocked that a commercial would be used to promote a company's product. I'm also not exactly bowled over that an Internet website company wouldn't want to send people to another website.

As to the references to the global issues, I don't know marketing but I do know teaching. The teaching I know even includes specifically teaching completely ignorant students about global issues. Many of my college freshmen students can't find England on a map, let alone Tibet.

The first step is always simple awareness, just having heard something for the first time. With over an hour, I can get students independently interested in learning more about a topic. Someday, some of them might even become interested in doing something about it.

What exactly do you expect from a few seconds of commercial? Simply having heard a subject before makes people more open to future information.

Bill O' was on too much adderol. People should disclose when they're using that prescribed drug. It gives them a medical advantage over the other person.

Monday ratings trailed Nancy Grace again. When the Tuesday's come out today my hunch is the result will be the same. It is sad that MSNBC 8pm is sinking. No juice.

You have it so right Lawrence - as usual. People are hypersensitive and need to get over themselves. These ads were smart, funny, had both environmental and corporate messages (hello this is America, that's actually a leg up) and still have people still talking.

the grouppon ads were insulting, egregious and in poor (at best) taste. lawrence? i heartily disagree with you on this.

I am normally a fan of Lawrence O'Donnell, but he lost most of his credibility with me with his convoluted analysis of the Groupon ads. I was so appalled that I had to turn it off. With such bad logic and taste, I had to wonder: could he have some financial interest in Groupon? I will have a hard time watching him after this. I am afraid it is back to Amy Goodman.

Oh, George, give Lawrence another chance. This is a one off, I'm sure. He can't be right all the time; that would get boring!

Pointing out that football is socialism is right on target, calling out that Americans do favor socialisms ( the military complex, USPS, ETC).

 Nice job on the rewrite on the socialism of football Lawrence.  I saw the original air, and although and I didn't give it a lot of thought later, at the time I thought it was a bit rough on the players.  However, I appreciate the information regarding the tax support of the stadiums.  Good stuff to know....

Dear Lawrence,

I am so very, very sorry you felt it necessary to apologize for you comments regarding brain damage that is the result of football injuries. Football like the boxing/kicking sports on TV only add to the celebration of violence in the USA.

I love football, but even I admit that things are getting out of hand. A seat to watch Auburn and Oregon play for the national championship cost something like $4,000; yet a kid, and they are kids, who scalps a ticket so that he can dress nice on campus or take his girl out for pizza, has his name stained by the NCAA forever as a greedy ingrate. Everyone around the game gets rich, and the kids don't even get a degree most of the time, and if they do get a degree, it's usually a joke of a degree. Kirk Herbstreet, who's paid pretty well by ESPN I would imagine, ripped Terrell Pryor and his four teammates for selling - What was it? - a few rings and some jerseys, and said that Ohio State would survive their heinous offenses and get back to its unsullied traditions. Pardon me? I love the Big Ten, and I love the spectacle of the Buckeyes in the Horseshoe, but Maurice Clarett, Art Schlichter and Woody Hayes punching some kid on the sideline are not really the Holy Trinity of Sports. What to do? I'm not sure. It's hard to say that you should pay these kids. It's not hard to say that the ridiculous schedules of 14 and even 15 games (at the FCS level) should be cut back to 10 games, tops. It's not hard to say that a young man who meets his obligations should receive all the academic support necessary and be given FOREVER to earn a decent and respectable college degree. The NCAA is both great, giving scholarships, for example, to impoverished women of color to run track, or impoverished white women, for that matter, to play soccer, which no one goes to see, or pays to see at least; but is also blatantly ridiculous in its exploitation of male football and basketball players, flying them all over the country in the middle of night for Tuesday night and Thursday night and Friday night games on ESPN, and expecting the majority of them to thrive academically amidst all the weight training and film watching and practices and media requests and photo shoots and... for God's sake, don't take a free lunch, you conniving bastard! Don't you appreciate your destroyed knees and your 79 credits in Sports Information Philosophy? It's beyond ridiculous, and I haven't even mentioned the NCAA turning its head as basketball is perverted into some weird indoor football game in short pants with everyone running around with the ball on the palm of their hand.... Enough already, I think I'll just root for the Brown Bears next year. Go Ivy League! They seem to respect their kids, and good for them. Good night.

i usually like watching you, but your talk on subsidizing football stadiums was not convincing. maybe a study on dollars brought into the sponsoring city would of been nice to include. just to see how that effects the balance sheet.

I agree with Larry's analysis completely! Let's get real. Groupon is a great idea. It's capitalism that needs some re-visioning!