John Kerry on The Daily Show Tuesday

[Darth Wong]

John Kerry was not very good on the show, IMO, and I think he should Edwards should be media Johnny-on-the-spot more often. He's just better at this sort of thing that Kerry.

Anybody would be better at this sort of thing than Kerry. Kerry has almost no charisma. He reminds me of my high school History teacher, which is interesting because my high school history teacher was totally forgettable.

In fact, I have no memory of my high school History teacher at all, which makes it all the more amazing that Kerry reminds me of him (or her; I don't remember).

[LMSx]

As for your claim that he's soft on Dems, that's more bullshit. The harsh reality is that the Dems haven't been putting out half as much bullshit as the Republicans lately, and while it might have been possible for Stewart to go apeshit nailing Kerry for comments made elsewhere, Kerry didn't say anything in the interview that warranted such attacks.

As for the implication that Stewart is just soft on Dems because he didn't grill Kerry, let's just say that if George W. Bush ever grows the balls to go on the Daily Show and gets ass-raped by Stewart, you might have a point. But to look at the Democrats' top man getting different treatment than a low-ranking Republican hatchetman and argue that it's proof of bias is just silly.

Is that addressed to me?

Isn't it the job of a good interviewer to steer conversation where there might be differences of opinion? There's plenty of questions to raid Kerry over, and keeping the interview in polite softball manner goes back to an original point of mine, I.E a boring interview.

I'm not naive enough to believe that any show with a Presidential candidate that's on air anytime except Sunday morning will be a decent interrogation. But there's a difference between moving the interview along by asking Kerry's opinion on matters, and moving the interview along with a wink-nudge aren't those Republicans crazy? vibe.

[Durandal]

So let me get this straight: Stewart is bias in his interviews because he doesn't let Republicans get away with factually incorrect statements?

So let's say Stewart had a biologist on his show one day, and they talked about evolution. Then the next day, he has a creationist on, and Stewart corrects him when he starts saying things like "evolution is just a theory." Are we to criticize his integrity because the person he was interviewing said something that was obviously untrue? This is a simple case of one side being full of shit while the other is not. In the case of Democrats and Republicans, both are full of shit. The Republicans at this point just happen to be more full of shit.

When Gillespi was on the other night, Stewart wouldn't let him get away with the "John Kerry voted to go to war with Iraq" bullshit, and then Gillespi made a pathetic attempt at semantics to recover. Why did Stewart go after him? Because it was a factually untrue statement. What did Kerry say that was untrue in the interview? Were his remarks about the mean salaries of the jobs we're creating untrue? Or that we have less jobs now than when Bush started? What exactly did you want Stewart to go after?

And come on people. If Bush appeared on The Daily Show tomorrow, Stewart would be a pussy. Bush would be doing him a big favor by just appearing. At the end of the day, no one cares about Republican Congressman X or Gillespi appearing on the show, so Stewart can do with them as he pleases. But you'll notice that when Bob Dole appeared on the show, he and Stewart got along very well, and Stewart didn't dog him about anything. I don't buy this "Daily Show is slanted left" bullshit. When there's so much bullshit and controversy coming from one side of the fence, and that side happens to own all branches of the government, it's hard not to call them on it.