Daily Show billboard welcoming Republicans to their convention in the Twin Cities

Last week, the New York Times ran a giant article on The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart under the banner headline “Is John Stewart the Most Trusted Man in America?”. While some may say that a comedian hosting a fake news show on basic cable can’t possibly be that influential, The Times backed it up with some research:

When Americans were asked in a 2007 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press to name the journalist they most admired, Mr. Stewart, the fake news anchor, came in at No. 4, tied with the real news anchors Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw of NBC, Dan Rather of CBS and Anderson Cooper of CNN. And a study this year from the center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism concluded that “ ‘The Daily Show’ is clearly impacting American dialogue” and “getting people to think critically about the public square.”

Stewart is in Denver this week for the Democratic National Convention (he’ll be in the Minnesota next week for the Republicans) and sat down for a breakfast on Monday with many important members of the television and print media for a round table interview and preceded to criticize basically everyone in the room:

Comedian Jon Stewart had some very unfunny words for the media on Monday, calling cable news networks “a giant monster” and urging newspaper reporters not to fall prey to the 24-hour news cycle.

He urged the print media not to buy into television and campaign spin and to dig deep into stories, even if it means burning bridges with sources and not giving readers exactly what they want. “I think my audience would like to see a naked woman smoking crack… but you’ve got to draw the line,” he said.

He called Fox News’ fake news coverage a “the biggest ‘fuck you’ to people with brains.”

And the best part is they actually listen because they understand his influence almost more than he does. They were watching three years ago when he almost single handedly caused the cancellation of CNN’s Crossfire. He famously went on the show for what the producers thought would be a funny, light hearted interview. Instead, he proclaimed Crossfire was “bad” and “hurting America” and calling the hosts (to their faces!) “partisan hacks” in a sarcastic tone that denoted an underlying seriousness. When the show was axed three months later, CNN chief executive Jonathan Klien commented on the cancellation:

“I guess I come down more firmly in the Jon Stewart camp.”

Here’s the original video which includes some hilarious insults and debate with host Tucker Carlson which ended with Stewart calling him a “dick” on national television:

This week Stewart and the Daily Show continued its assault on the mainstream media tackling stories with a bluntness that no one else does. While many in cable television and print write and report with concern that Clinton diehards who say they will vote for John McCain are a thorn in the side of Barack Obama, Stewart and his team of “reporters” speak the actual truth: those people are just fucking nuts. Watch:

And that was just the first night. They still have three more to go and then they’re off the Minnesota where their targets have been fairly warned by the incoming billboard that they are probably in deep, deep trouble.

In fact, the Vice Presidential debate will probably be one of the highlights of the remainder of the campaign because Biden has the potential to all out embarrass whoever the poor Republican nominee is, with his breadth of knowledge and ability to completely dismantle his adversary’s arguments.

Two great videos show Joe at his best, ridiculing Rudy Guiliani during the Democratic Primary.

This first one, the more famous of the two, shows Biden savagely ripping Guiliani’s penchant for weaving in a reference to 9/11 no matter what he’s talking about:

This one, though, is my favorite. After his “noun, verb, and 9/11″ quip made headlines, Biden threw out this gem while talking to reporters during his short lived campaign in Iowa. The appropriate condescension in his voice is biting, but the look on his face after he says it in the last half second of the video is absolutely priceless:

That’s the reason virtually every Democrat was rooting for Biden in these final days, and why Republicans supporting John McCain were hoping for anyone else, as MSNBC’s First Read explains:

“On the Democratic side, it was a collective ‘phew.’ As the days got nearer for the pick, it was hard to find a Democrat — even savvy Clintonites — who weren’t hoping it would be Biden. Only the most strident Hillary supporters appear to be upset this morning. On the GOP side, the sound you heard was disappointed silence. Of everyone on the short list, the candidate many Republicans least wanted to see Obama pick was Biden.”

(videos via dailykos)

BARACK OBAMA
1. Ready or Not Fugees
2. What’s Going On Marvin Gaye
3. I’m On Fire Bruce Spingsteen
4. Gimme Shelter Rolling Stones
5. Sinnerman Nina Simone
6. Touch the Sky Kanye West
7. You’d Be So Easy to Love Frank Sinatra
8. Think Aretha Franklin
9. City of Blinding Lights U2
10. Yes We Can

JOHN McCAIN
1. Dancing Queen ABBA
2. Blue Bayou Roy Orbison
3. Take a Chance On Me ABBA
4. If We MakeIt Through December Merle Haggard
5. As Time Goes By Dooley Wilson
6. Good Vibrations The Beach Boys
7. What A Wonderful World Louis Armstrong
8. I’ve Got You Under My Skin Frank Sinatra
9. Sweet Caroline Neil Diamond
10. Smoke Gets In Your Eyes The Platters

Obama proves to be cool (the Fugees), fresh (Kanye), classy (Sinatra), and arguably the greatest of all time (Gimme Shelter). Not to mention he just has overall good taste (I’m On Fire, Marvin Gaye in general), but his own tribute for Song #10? That’s a little arrogant.

McCain proves to be cheesy (ABBA? Twice!?), corny (Neil Diamond), and really, really old (Song #2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10).

Honestly, there really is no older sounding name in the History of American Music than Merle Haggard. Someone should have told him not to put that on his list.

A year ago:

Is he black enough?

10 months ago:

Is he too black??

8 months ago:

Is he Christian enough?

6 months ago:

Is he too Christian??

2 months ago:

Is he presidential?

Now:

Is he too presidential??<–>

If this isn’t a reason to vote for him, I don’t know what is.

Are you waiting to see who wins the pledged delegate count? Obama has already won. Clinton would need 80% of the remaining unpledged delegates in the remaining primaries, a absolute impossibility as long as Obama’s name is on the ballot

Are you waiting to see who won the popular vote? That’s over too. Although popular vote totals are ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT, Obama is up 500,000 votes and is favored to win be double digits in North Carolina, by far the biggest state left

Exactly how much more of these candidates do you have to see to know what you are getting? Maybe you are scared you will may make the wrong choice and something can happen tomorrow that will change your minds. Well, superdelegates are not bound by their decisions, if they come out for Obama today, they can just as easily switch to Clinton tomorrow. But after all the scrutiny these two have been under for months, what are the actual chances of that?

Here are some other arguments put forth in an LA Times article about the superdelegates’ supposedly “tough” decision:

….many superdelegates preferred their place on the fence, content to watch as the race plays out. “I feel no compulsion whatsoever to cast my vote until the convention, but I may make a determination following the primaries,” said Nancy Worley, vice chairwoman of the Alabama Democratic Party.

So you don’t really care that they are running relentless negative ads against the other in hopes of running up each other’s negatives, not to mention spending all their money on fighting among themselves, giving John McCain a free ride for two months?

Larry Gates, the Kansas state chairman, said he too was content to wait, knowing any decision he makes is bound to tick off somebody. “I like them both,” he said of Clinton and Obama. “Always have.”

So we are trying to elect the leader of the free world and you are worried about hurting someone’s feelings?

“I’m not buying the Clinton argument that Sen. Obama is unelectable, but I certainly intend to continue to watch his performance to make my own determination of just how strong a candidate he will be,” said R. Keith Roark, chairman of the Idaho Democratic Party.Roark is among those who are less than pleased that Clinton might carry her fight to the convention, suggesting that superdelegates will have all the information they need to make a decision soon after June 3.

If you still can’t figure out who you think is best, you really are not even qualified to be a superdelegate. You sound like one of those idiot voters from Pennsylvania who claim they were “undecided” after six weeks, even after being saturated with election coverage twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, and claimed they were going to decide “in the voting booth.” They should barely be allowed to vote, yet you’re a professional politician whose job it is to follow these things closely, and you can’t even decide? How embarrassing.

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) began her 2008 campaign by announcing a Presidential Exploratory Committee on January 20, 2007. Even after her defeat in Iowa’s primary, she ran her campaign as though she were already the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. She then proceeded to lose 12 straight contests in a row, and her campaign strategy of incumbency changed during and after this period with wild swings in tone, lines of attack, and almost every other factor imaginable, save one line which has remained constant: “I’m in. And I’m in it to win.” What lies unsaid at the end of that little sound-bite is the “no matter what it takes” that the American public has only begun to understand.

Recently, Senator Clinton has even suggested that pledged delegates can switch their political allegiances at whim and that super-delegates should not pay attention to who has the popular vote and the most pledged delegates—effectively, she is arguing that the will of the voters should have no bearing on the nomination process. Unfortunately, this arrogant and self-serving line of thinking is hardly the first dirty tactic that voters have seen.

Senator Clinton has run her campaign on a graceless foundation of hot air and hyperbole, on deceit and duplicity, and on secret handshakes with the party elite behind closed doors. She has introduced damaging rhetoric to political discourse through the sacrifice of her surrogates (recall Geraldine Ferraro) and she has herself been no stranger to the deceptive doubletalk which has dominated American politics since FDR (“There’s nothing to base that on, as far as I know” [on Senator Obama being some kind of Muslim Manchurian candidate]).

Senator Clinton has run her campaign on the basis of her “35 years” of experience in politics. What is this experience, exactly?

“I helped bring peace to Northern Ireland”

What actually happened, as Nobel Peace Prize winner (for bringing peace to Northern Ireland) and former First Minister Lord Trimble recalls,

“I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around,” he said. Her recent statements about being deeply involved were merely “the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets” during elections. “She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player.” (link)

Well, okay. It’s great that Senator Clinton was vocal in her encouragement for peace. Yeah, she exaggerated a little. So what? The problem is that her tactics aren’t limited to exaggeration—they are dependent also on downright fabrication of events.

“I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

If by “ran with our heads down” she means “took a leisurely stroll across the tarmac” and if by “sniper fire” she means “cute little Bosnian girl”, then her statement isn’t false at all. Unfortunately, this time semantics aren’t on her side and Senator Clinton now says she “misspoke”. Really? Twice? When pressed for elaboration, she held that she had a “different memory” of her one and only landing in Bosnia. Later, she said, “So I made a mistake. That happens. It proves I’m human, which, you know, for some people, is a revelation”, her flippant words laden with condescension and disdain. Nowhere have the words “I’m sorry” left her mouth, however insincere. Is this what Americans are to expect should Clinton become President?

Days before the Ohio primary, she shouted “Shame on you, Barack Obama!” for his campaign fliers asserting her support of NAFTA. Here’s Hillary in her own words:

“Oh, I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade, and I think that NAFTA is proving its worth.” (1996)

Additionally, MSNBC broke down some White House documents which show that Hillary held five strategy meetings on how to win congressional approval for NAFTA, and that her support was helpful in blocking labor and environmental unions’ protests against the agreement. (link)

Is this another “different memory” of events? Even if she says she didn’t agree with NAFTA at the time, as MSNBC says, the facts remain that she helped to get it passed. Remember, Hillary cares about actions, not rhetoric:

“[McCain has] never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”

So in addition to her actions to pass NAFTA, what other actions has she taken? What kind of judgment has her “35 years of experience” given her? Well, here’s one answer, from a floor speech in 2002:

“This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make — any vote that may lead to war should be hard — but I cast it with conviction.”

The vote she’s talking about is the one that authorized the war in Iraq—the war that has embroiled the United States in a conflict that has no end in sight and that has now claimed the lives of 4,000 American servicemen and women and anywhere from 87,000 to 675,000 Iraqis.

So is this what Americans can look forward to should Hillary become the Democratic nominee, or even President? Do Americans—and the rest of the world—deserve this lack of judgment and flat-out flagrant disregard for democratic principles, for truth, and for honesty in the Leader of the Free World?

The answer, of course, is no. Too long have American politics been dominated by the selfish desperation for reelection that leads to such underhanded tactics and disrespect as we have seen throughout Senator Clinton’s tenure in the public eye. Senator Clinton ought to be considered a relic of the past—the time for change has finally come.