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.

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.

9:48 “Would you consider a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket?” Finally! The question we’ve been waiting for! “Presumptuous” says Obama. “Part of what I’d like to do is restore a sense of what is possible in government… no more yes-men or -women in the White House… whether it’s my cabinet or the lowest civil servant out there, I want them to realize that they’re working for the American people…”

9:47 “It’s a lonely job being the prez” so why are you touting your “experience” in the White House as First Lady?

9:45 Could a Hillary Clinton White house “control” former Prez Clinton?

9:44 Stevie Wonder? WTF? And why are they gratuitously talking about Hollywood censorship? Since when has that had equal weight with Iraq?

9:37 Are they still talking about Iraq?

9:35 Hillary’s getting madd boos!

9:23 Iraq. “I want to end the mindset that got us into the war in the first place.” Wolf says: “And that’s a clear swipe at you.” Whoa, Wolf-man, where did that come from?

9:11 “Can you be an agent of change when we have had the same two families in the White House for 30 years?” Hillary’s response: “We’re judged on our own merit… it did take a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it might take another one to clean up after this Bush.” How are you being judged on your own merit, then, Hillary, if you’re just another Clinton?

9:08 “We are bringing in a whole new generation of voters.” More like, you are, but still, a nice sentiment, Barack.

9:06 Tori says: “This debate is funnier than Scientology.”

9: 04 “Mitt Romney hasn’t gotten a very good return on his investment so far in this presidential campaign” LOLZ! (Obama)

9:01 (Hillary) “I was appointed in the Carter administration…” 1) How old are you? 2) Tori says: “They only appointed you because you were a piece of ass back then.”

8:58 “I have spent my entire adult life trying to bring about change in this country…the leadership that’s needed is the ability to bring people together… to overcome the special interests… talking straight to the American people…” [on why Obama is equally, or more prepared to be Prez than Hillary]

8:49 “Demagoguery?” WTF? “making use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power” nice vocab, Hills!

8:48 “Actually, I co-sponsored immigration reform…back in 2004 when Barack had to come to the Senate…” (Tori says: Back when Barack was a wee babe!)

8:44 I’m getting lost amidst Hills’ 4353263 Commandments for Immigration Reform.

8:37 “People did really well during that time period…” Wait, are you talking about Bill Clinton’s administration? Oooh… And her last name is Clinton! I get it now!
8:34 Whoa! It’s Jason Alexander! (Not the one that Brit married)

8:32 “It’s pretty hard for the Republicans to argue fiscal responsibility when they’ve added 3 trillion dollars in debt…” haha, BURN! (Obama)

8:30 “The health care industry is extremely well-funded.” No way, for real? (Hills)

8:27 “Enlist the American people” in government, versus leaving politics in the hands of special interests and lobbyists. (Obama)

8:22 Tori says: “If if I were sitting there, I would slap her. You can see Barack, he keeps touching his chin to keep himself from punching her in the face.”

8:20 “You can mandate it [health care], but there will still be people who can’t afford it.” (Obama)

8:14 My roommate (Tori) notices that neither candidate is wearing a flag pin. “Who do they think they are? Not Americans, huh?”

8:11 “What is the most important policy distinction between you two?” Great question! In response, Hillary lists more stuff that’s going badly.

8:09 Hillary also lists all the stuff that’s going badly. (Is Barack doodling?)

8:08 “How do we take the country in a new direction?” Barack questions, after listing all the stuff that is going badly. “It is the past versus the future”, not gender, race, or anything else. “Change that brings the country together… I have confidence that we can solve any problem…” Yes!

8:05 “There are no rules!” and Hillary cackles. What is she going to do?

8:02 Hillary’s suit really clashes with Barack’s. Why did she think mud brown would be a good idea?

8:00 I wish there had been a red carpet for this. Is Jack Nicholson there?

 

“Don’t be accusatory with me!” snapped Bill Clinton. “I have enough to deal with.” This latest outburst was not directed at a special prosecutor or the Republican attack machine. No, it was in response to a reporter’s question on why he supported a lawsuit that would deny some casino workers the right to vote in the upcoming Nevada Caucus. The Mayor of Oakland tried to physically pull Clinton away from the reporter, but Bill did not budge. Instead, he stayed put long enough to claim that those votes will be “rigged.”

Almost a year ago, the local and national Democratic Party and all the major candidates or their surrogates agreed to have at-large caucus sites at casinos so that casino workers who want to caucus, many of the union members, could take an hour break and participate in the democratic process. Well, that was when Hillary was seen as the “inevitable” winner of both the Culinary Workers Union (the largest union in Nevada) endorsement and the Presidency. Now her 2-1 lead has vanished and the Culinary Workers have endorsed Obama. So two days after Obama got that endorsement, a group supporting Clinton decided to sue, saying it was unfair that these workers would get to be at work and caucus at the same time (Yeah, I know…sounds really crazy). So when the reporter asked Bill if he should take a stronger stand against a suit that could prevent tens of thousands of people from voting, he decided to take the opposite route and blew up.

“Do you really believe that all the Democrats understood that they had agreed to give everybody who voted in a casino a vote worth five times as much as people who voted in their own precinct? Did you know that?” Mr. Clinton said in a testy exchange with a television reporter, Mark Matthews of KGO. “What happened is nobody understood what had happened. … Now, everybody’s saying, ‘Oh they don’t want us to vote.’ What they really tried to do was to set up a deal where their votes counted five times, maybe even more.”

According to party officials, they did understand. Oh, and the part about the votes counting “five times as much or more,” is nonsense too.Of course, this is just the latest in a series of asshole moves by the ex-President. It started a month ago with an interview on Charlie Rose. He likened Obama to a ”gifted television commentator” who had “less than on year of experience in national politics.” Then made his now infamous remark that a President Obama would be a “roll of the dice.” This, despite Bill Clinton having one year less foreign policy experience than Barack Obama when he became President.

As Hillary sat back and watched, Bill continued his assault every few days when he didn‘t think he was getting enough camera time. A week ago, when responding to a question about chief pollster and Clinton campaign strategist Mark Penn, Clinton made headlines again when he launched into a controversial diatribe, claiming that Obama has not been consistently against the War in Iraq, declaring that notion “the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” Apparently, it was bigger than the fairy tale he had told a month ago when he proclaimed for the first time that he “has been against the war from the beginning.”

Today he’s spinning a different weave of bullshit, this time claiming that instead of the fresh face on the scene, Obama is actually the “establishment” candidate. Yes, that’s right, he meant Obama, not Clinton. The two term Senator from New York who’s husband was President for eight years, who has the support of most elected Nevada politicians, the majority of Nevada Democratic Party officials, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s son Rory Reid, a Clark County Commission member, is running an outsider campaign against the “establishment” candidate Obama, all because he won over the endorsement of one union.

“Don’t be accusatory with me! I have enough to deal with,” he said to the reporter before leaving in a huff. Yes, he does. If he doesn’t have his way tomorrow when the court decides on the suit, he’ll be dealing with another defeat.

Watch the Video

As the night wore on the only hope came from college towns who had yet to report their results, but even then Clinton’s early lead of 2% refused to shrink. Every 200 vote swing would prompt groans or cheers from the crowd, but the margin stayed so constant on through into the night that the networks finally called the results for Hillary Clinton at 10:30. New Hampshire’s recently elected congressman and woman tried to come out and pump up the crowd, but nothing could wake the Obama patrons who were still in shock from what was supposed to be a runaway victory. Finally, the Senator from Illinois emerged and the energy from the crowd lifted at the sight of his face.

Obama’s knack for giving a speech has been his strength during this campaign, but giving a concession speech is whole new ball game, no matter the candidate. As he conceded the state’s delegates to Hillary Clinton and congratulated her on her victory, the crowd only half heartedly gave him their approval. It seemed like the wind had been knocked out of his sails, that his spirits had been broken. But then, in an instant, Obama flipped on a switch of such passion and energy that he made every person in that room, however dejected and discouraged they might have been, believe again. “For when we have faced down impossible odds, when we’ve been told we’re not ready, or we should’nt try, or we can’t, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums of the spirit of a people: “Yes We Can!’”

And with that, he took off. He implored the rest of the country to not give up hope, he again proclaimed, “Yes, we can!” Over and over he pressed the issue. To all the doubters and cynics who say he cannot win, he said, “Yes we can!” To all who say there will never be “a new majority” in this country made up of Democrats and Republicans and Independents, he shouted “Yes, we can!”

With those three words he left the stage to an ecstatic, rejuvenated crowd, clapping and screaming, who, at least for a few moments, seemed to forget about the night’s unexpected loss almost completely.

Obama was winning by 10+ points in virtually every poll taken yesterday and today.

The room where the victory party was set is completely silent. Obama’s supporters’ usual “Fired Up! Ready to Go!” chant that usually deafens the room is only catching on with a quarter of the auditorium.

When Obama’s name came up on the screen recently a slightly inebriated fan yelled, “OBAMMMMAAAA!” and was followed by an awkward silence.

People here are worried. Clinton is leading big with women and in big cities, both of went to Obama in Iowa. Obama’s last hope might be the three college towns that house Dartmouth, Franklin Pierce and University of New Hampshire students–they have yet to report.

Everyone here is in for a long night. More to come…

We expect these numbers to be changing shortly, but anything can happen…