Daily Show on The Huffington Post

Somali Pirates: "Daily Show" On The Case (VIDEO)

2008-11-21T16:38:26Z

So, everyone likes pirates. Dressing like them, talking like them. Later, riding on Disney rollercoasters dedicated to their illustrated history of pillage and Johnny Depp-style ambisexuality. But even as the media focuses on the Somali pirate saga as one of their Shiny New Post-Election Things, it's worth noting that there are important issues knit up in the story that deserve attention. In a thoughtful post yesterday, Matthew Yglesias elucidated one of them:

But of course there are real policy issues here. In particular, at the end of the day it's not easy to fight pirates at sea. The ocean is extremely large, boats move around, and circumstances are generally unfavorable to law enforcement. You need to fight the piracy on land. If you tried to run a pirate ring out of San Diego, you wouldn't get very far -- there are police in southern California. But Somalia has, obviously, been in a state of political chaos for a long time now. And when the country looked like it was heading for a measure of political stability under the Islamic Courts Movement, the US decided it would be smart to back an Ethiopian invasion-and-occupation of the country that ultimate wound up resulting in more chaos than ever. But whatever you think of the past, going forward you would ultimately want to solve this issue on land. In other words, by creating some kind of political stability in Somalia.

And, then, later that night, a historical first! The first ever Daily Show sketch adapted from Yglesias' blog!

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

The Buccaneer Stops Here

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

John King Stars In Daily Show's "CNN Magic Wall Conspiracy Thriller"

2008-11-19T08:24:59Z

"The Daily Show" correspondent John Oliver was so transfixed by CNN's Magic Wall, he needed to know everything about it. But when he interviewed the man behind the technology, magic wall creator Jeff Han, and learned that the military is employing the same touch screen technology as the magic wall, he imagined an elaborate media-military-industrial complex in which CNN's John King had control over the media and was watching his every move.

In the hilarious clip below, King proves to be a great sport as he stars throughout as Oliver's Big Brother stalker/potential assassin. He also masterfully deadpans what may become a classic line: "Sprinkles make the cupcake, don't you think?"

Watch:

Allison Kilkenny: Progressives Won and That's Not a Panda Bear

2008-11-17T15:31:06Z

I want to publicly thank Bill O'Reilly. Up until his recent appearance on the Daily Show, I had foolishly started to believe that the right-wing cluster of our "Happy Family" political spectrum still had rational members, and by extension, rational ideas.

So I started to nod whenever I heard right-wing pundits and politicians say America is a center-right country. Therefore, Barack Obama has to be bipartisan in his cabinet selection. Otherwise, they say, the country will explode into civil war and Congress will grind to a stand still, which is weird because I thought Obama secured 52.7% of the popular vote, which is more than any Democrat has won since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. That sounds like a mandate.

Furthermore, Congress securing 57 seats sounds like a mandate. And 3 seats are still up in the air, though the race in Alaska now seems to favor Democrat Mark Begich by 1,022 votes, which again proves that Alaskans will only tolerate the "Maverick" thing until you're convicted on seven felony counts. Sorry, Uncle Ted. Minnesota's Norm Coleman barely leads Democratic contender, Al Fraken, by 206 votes. Meanwhile, Georgians are having a mandatory run-off election.

The point is things look great for Democrats. So why are their spines turning to jello already? Conservatives are muttering that 52.7% of the popular vote and 57 congressional seats are hardly a mandate, but George W. Bush swaggered into his second term with around 50% of the public behind him, and called it a mandate, so why can't the same standards be applied to this election?

But putting aside the popular vote, some recent polling about issues most important to Americans is very telling. In a New York Times/CBS poll, voters overwhelming declared the issues most important to them are the Iraq war and healthcare. At the time, only 27% approved of president Bush's handling of healthcare. More importantly, the poll also showed that Americans are willing to make significant trade-offs for a better healthcare plan, including paying $500 more annually and foregoing future tax cuts. This puts a dent in the Republican theory that Americans universally reject raising taxes. On Americans' part, that kind of thinking sounds pretty progressive. Oh, it also sounds like a mandate.

One might even say Barack Obama has a Progressive mandate from the American people.

In order to thwart this stubborn fact of reality, the right-wingers defer to their second favorite Republican of all, all time, Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln, they smugly remind those of us who cling to our fact sheets, had a bipartisan cabinet.

Well, yeah, but he has also just led the country through a Civil War, and he had a tenuous grip on the country. If he hadn't invited his enemies into his cabinet, everything would have fallen apart. Now, the Republicans will surely whine and bitch for the next four-to-eight years, but I doubt they'll take up arms and storm the Capitol.

This sudden embracing of all things bipartisan is curious, especially from a party that has been so consistently partisan for the past decade. Where were the cries for inclusion during the Bush reign? It's as though the Republicans and the right-wing media are in utter denial about their presidential loss, Congressional loss, and also the future of their political party.

Which explains why they're desperately trying to finagle their way into the Oval Office. They've already made great strides in hammering the "Continuity" drum. Certain members of the intelligence community must remain in place, they say, or Al-Qaeda will catch whiff of the exact moment of transformation and attack. This is speculative reasoning, at best, and there is no evidence that the United States would be made considerably more vulnerable by officially firing the old guard Bushies.

Now is the time for President-elect Obama to act like a stern father, tell the Republicans to be quiet for a while, and start undoing the damage done by the Bush administration. It's also the time to consider reality and start objectively weeding through corrupt ideologies. Being inclusive will only get you so far before it gets you under the track of the Republican tank.

Obama can't tolerate the Neo-Conservative policies of torture, preemptive, endless war, and domestic spying. He must unequivocally denounce these policies, and distance himself from the perpetrators of these crimes. That includes people like Jamie Miscik, who is helping to lead the review of intelligence agencies and is making recommendations to the new administration. Obama, no doubt, made this decision in the spirit of bipartisanship. It certainly can't be because of Miscik's resume, which reads like a disaster list of failed life decisions.

Miscik, who was fired by Porter Goss, is the former Deputy Director for Intelligence. She is guilty of passing along the October 2002 estimate, complete with the 28 lies Colin Powell eventually delivered to the UN, which is now considered an international embarrassment. Basically, this is the lady who supplied the lies that led us to war. Some countries consider that a war crime.

But that requires a rational examination of history. It's 2008. We don't consider history anymore. Polling tells us Americans are ready for Progressive policies, the Bush doctrine has failed, but we're not concerned with this reality. It took Bill O'Reilly to make me realize that.

Up is down. Black is White. Brown bears are Pandas, and America is not a Progressive country. That's what the Republicans would have us all believe. Except, it's not true.

That's when Bill O'Reilly reminded me the truth doesn't matter. Not as long as you're a pig-headed bully with a fat paycheck and control over corporate airwaves. The truth doesn't matter if you can out-muscle and out-shout your opponent.

John Stewart foolishly tried to reason with O'Reilly and point out the obvious: a majority of America voted for Barack Obama, who based his campaign on Progressive ideals: ending the wars, providing health care for citizens, creating green jobs, establishing a living wage, and restoring America's standing in the world. John argues, therefore, that the country is Progressive.

Watch O'Reilly's head nearly explode:

This isn't a matter of vengeance. The American people will never "get square" with the Republicans. Their Constitution is in shambles. Their rights have been violated. Their safety is in grave jeopardy because of the imperial desires of a handful of needle-dick Neo-Cons.

This is a matter of being sane and remembering the last eight years. It's time to stop letting people who have no grip on reality dictate the future of America. The country isn't center-right, you're not a bold, fresh piece of humanity, and that is not a fucking panda bear.

Sharilyn Johnson: Election Night At The Daily Show: Ticket Holders Sidelined For VIPs

2008-11-11T12:49:24Z

This post originally appeared at Back of the Room.

It was April of this year - 7 months ago - that while sitting at home in Toronto, I obtained my pair of tickets for election night at the Daily Show. Tickets there are distributed online through an automatic system, similar to how you would reserve a flight or hotel. To say I was ecstatic is an understatement.

I received my initial confirmation email. All good.

Fastforward to October. I received a second confirmation email, followed immediately by another email saying that confirmation was wrong and that I'd receive another.

Finally received my third confirmation email. All good.

On October 27, yet another email went out to all the ticketholders, saying that we MUST confirm our reservation AGAIN via email, or else we would not be allowed in. I re-confirmed.

This was a highly unusual email -- I've never received or known anyone else to receive anything like this prior to a taping. In retrospect, that's when the audience department knew they were in trouble. One week out from the event, they tried to create a reason to turn people away at the door.

The instructions we received told us to get in line no later than 8:30, but suggested a few hours before that. I arrived at 4:15, just to be extra safe. There were maybe 40 people in line in front of me. Home free.

Among those around me: my friend Mark, also from Toronto, who decided to make the trip for this. My British friend Tracey flew across the Atlantic JUST for the taping. I had friends from all over the US in the lineup -- one who used her rent money to pay for a train ticket to New York for it.

We all had one thing in common, and that's our answer to the question: "where do you want to be when the world changes?"

We wanted to be at the Daily Show. Nowhere else.

The hours ticked by slowly. The line grew and grew. We were offered water and popcorn by the show's interns. The glow of iPhones under the canopy indicated where the news would come from. When it trickled in, there were cheers, and even a few tears.

Finally, 9:00 came. Time to get ticketed and go into the building.

It was assumed that not all ticket holders would get in. The Daily Show always overtickets, and I was turned away once myself a few years ago. It happens.

But none of us expected what happened next.

Security came down the line, and informed everyone that if they weren't holding a laminated ticket, we weren't getting in.

The number of people in the lineup of hundreds who were given a ticket? 21.

21. Out of approximately 250.

The studio was VIP'd to the hilt.

Panic set in. I yelled. I screamed. I shook. I cried, sort of, but tears weren't coming out. I was numb inside.

"I understand" was the stock line thrown at us by security. No. No, you don't understand.

They offered us VIP tickets for a future taping. An insult.

I went in search of Teri and Jessica from the audience department, but not surprisingly they had retreated far into the building.

One poor Colbert staffer walked by right in the middle of this, and graciously offered his cell to me to call a friend on staff, who was 10 minutes away from one of the bigger tasks of his career and definitely not answering his phone. I cursed myself for not having all my contacts on the "inside" saved to my US cell's phonebook. But it was moments before they went live, and too late for this. Nobody would answer, and there likely wouldn't be room for extra bodies anyway.

Many of you by now are surely begging for context. Why does this matter so much to me? Why the drama?

My love for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert has nothing to do with politics. And at the core of it, very little to do with how hard they make me laugh each night.

No one individual performer has had more of an influence on my comedic sensibilities than Jon Stewart. Since 1994, I've consumed every ounce of his work. He always trusted his own voice, and had the strength to stand by his ideas of what was good even when it meant being fired. He worked his ass off to get better, from the early-morning sets at an empty Comedy Cellar to making the Daily Show what it is today. He takes none of his success for granted, and continues working hard every day. In his own words, "there is no 'making it'".

These were not my reasons for becoming a fan when I was 15. But I can't think of a better accidental role model to have had for the latter half of my life.

I could write an entire book on my emotional philosophies of comedy, and how incredible it is that human beings have an ability to even do this. Stephen Colbert became another unexpected idol when I witnessed him bring my own philosophies to life. After years of watching him on the Daily Show, I encountered his "real" self at the Just For Laughs Festival in Montreal in 2005. I discovered the decency beneath his character and his natural desire to connect with people and create joy. It was overwhelming to witness, and it remains overwhelming to witness today when I have the opportunity to attend Report tapings. I am deeply touched by what he gives us every night.

The only thing greater than my admiration for them is their admiration for each other. It's palpable. There's a good reason why the tosses at the end of the show are so popular.

They are bonded by their work, and they are bonded by the joy they give each other. All I wanted - and what I gave up so much to do - was to witness that bond when the cameras weren't on them. A culmination of why I admire Jon and why I admire Stephen, played out infront of me, on the most historic night of my life.

Hundreds of us were denied this opportunity, because Doug Herzog's second cousin's babysitter's hairstylist thought it might be, like, totally kewl to be there too -- and the audience department thought people like that were more deserving.

It was absolutely preventable. It shouldn't have gone down like this.

On October 27, when that email went out to re-confirm everyone, they absolutely knew they were in trouble. And their solution? Do nothing.

That frantic phone call I made just before the show began was one of any number of calls I could have made months ago -- or a week ago. On October 27, I could have gone down my contact list and called in favours. I hate being the kind of person who asks for special treatment. I would indeed rather stand in line for 5 hours than ask to be hooked up. But you can believe I would have done it for this if I had thought it was necessary.

I was never given that opportunity. They knew what was going to happen, and they did nothing to communicate it.

Much of the production staff of the Colbert Report essentially had the night off. The Colbert studio is a 5 minute walk away. They could have planned to send us over there, flip the switch on the fiberoptic cable (which allows Jon and Stephen to film the toss), and shown us the raw feed. That could have been organized as late as day-of.

A simple solution. Again, they did nothing.

They know exactly how many fans attend tapings from out of town. They ask for your phone number when you reserve tickets. The area codes are not all 212. They know good and well we aren't all tourists who are there to kill time before going to see Gypsy on Broadway. At least 2 of us had email correspondence with the staff that outlined our travel plans for this night alone.

They knew what we had gone through to be there. And once again, they did nothing.

And how they could let so many people stand in line for so many hours, knowing what the outcome would be, is inexcusable.

I don't believe in being entitled to anything just because I'm a fan, or am a bigger fan than this person or that person.

But I am owed. Not the cost of my flight. Or the cost of my hotel. Or even the vacation days I took, which I could have used to visit my family. What I'm owed is the experience of witnessing history take place somewhere other than alone an empty bar on 11th Avenue, sucking on a can of Bud Light, feeling completely emotionally empty.

Because of the incompetence of others, I was robbed of an experience that should have been sublime, moving, and meaningful.

What was taken away from me cannot be remedied with a VIP ticket -- essentially a shorter wait in line NEXT time. At this point, I can't plan to have a next time. How do I stand outside under that awning again, without being reminded of what was done? How do I look at the heads of the audience department, knowing how negligent they were through this entire situation? I don't plan to ever go back.

Make no mistake, the audience department consciously chose this outcome. They know the ticketing system inside and out. This staff has been through election specials before. They can predict VIP demand. They saw this coming a mile (or a week) away. Shocking to me, because until Tuesday night I thought very highly of those ladies, so incredibly sweet to me at my first taping back in 2002 when I was just an excitable wee Jon fan elated to see him in the flesh. It's hard to reconcile that they could allow the show's biggest fans to gather in New York for this event, and treat them so poorly.

The only good news to come out of this is that Tracey managed to get inside. Somehow, one of the VIPs was kicked out, and a kind security guard who knew her story retrieved her from the sidewalk at the very last minute.

When she emerged from the studio, we embraced, and cried. Partly out sharing the joy of the outcome, and partly out of sharing the pain of those of us left in the cold.

We waited around so I could say "hi-you-won't-believe-what-happened" to my friends on staff. Most stayed inside the studio, though, until Obama spoke. The limo drivers stood around outside the exit, and one of them opened his doors and cranked his radio so we could hear the speech. Tracey and I stood with the drivers in the dark, as it began to rain, and listened to Barack Obama accept his victory. That moment will be etched in my memory for as long as I live.

We finished our hellos/goodbyes, had a spirited debate with a few bartenders over drinks, and visited an eerily quiet Times Square at 2 a.m. to swipe as much CNN swag as we could as it was being loaded back onto the trucks. At one point, even on a near-deserted street, a chant of O-ba-ma broke out. My cab driver back to the hotel could not have been happier. I wish I could have fully felt the joy of those moments.

Wednesday was challenging. Every person I know knew what I was supposed to be doing on election night. I'd been talking about it for 7 months. So I had to look at a plethora of "so?? how was it???" emails. I had to recover enough to try to absorb the TDS writers' panel this weekend as part of the NY Comedy Festival, and listen to them talk about putting that show together. I'm travelling across the border again on the 15th to see Jon do standup, but I don't know how I'm going to be able to enjoy it. For weeks to come, I have to explain that night to everyone I know.

As the days go by, I wait for an official response from the show. There has been none. It's unlikely Jon himself knew about the troubles in advance, but as the head of that show he has a responsibility to respond, and respond properly. I may have been a dedicated fan for a decade and a half, but I expect from him the same as I would expect of any CEO of any company that makes this big an error.

It must be said that despite everything, I do feel incredible happiness for America. As a country, you tick off the rest of the world an awful lot, but ultimately we all just want the best for you.

I hope you all were able to enjoy this historic moment surrounded by the people you love. Perhaps in 2012 I won't be prevented from doing exactly that.

This post originally appeared at Back of the Room.

"Daily Show" Writer: "It's Going To Be Fun Watching Fox News Rapidly Lose Their Balance"

2008-11-07T09:25:51Z

Here's what four other participants in coming festival events had to say about the state of comedy and politics.

J. R. Havlan
Writer, "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart"

Q. Are the results of Tuesday's election a mixed blessing for the "Daily Show" writing staff?

A. It's probably no secret where our politics lie; we are in show business, after all. We're not unhappy with the results of last night [Tuesday]. We haven't sat around thinking, "What are we going to do, comedically, if Obama wins?" There's going to be plenty going on around him. Plus, Ted Stevens may have won in Alaska. Proposition 8 passed in California. We don't need a semiconscious president to put on a decent show.

Q. And how do you do that?

A. We look for stuff, but we don't create it. Something has to happen for us to make fun of. Unlike the actual news, what we say is based in fact. It's going to be fun watching Fox News rapidly lose their balance. We may have a thing or 200 to say about that. We did a bit on the show about "So many people are happy about what happened, but we're forgetting about old racists, who thought they would be able to die without seeing this day." That bit comes from a genuine place.

Q. Have comedy writers figured out a way to make fun of Barack Obama yet?

A. Well, his name is Barack Obama. It's kind of inherently comical. We can work around a personality, but we don't really know so much yet what his quirks are going to be. He's good at speaking, so he's less likely to say something stupid. But he'll have plenty of people around him to take care of that. I mean, it's going to be a Democratic administration with a Democratically controlled Congress. If anything, we might have to start doing two shows a day.

Can 'The Daily Show' Survive President Obama?

2008-11-05T10:41:06Z

NEW YORK -- The party accoutrements at Comedy Central's election night party gave the impression that this was an impartial affair. There were, after all, equal numbers of John McCain and Barack Obama cupcakes. Still, it was impossible to walk into the Manhattan bar called The Park without grasping pretty immediately where the host's loyalties really lay.

You want to talk about a network news division (or "news division") in the tank for Obama: Here was one completely, unabashedly, happily tanked.

Tuesday's night's Central production of Indecision 2008, co-hosted by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, was a far cry from "The Daily Show's" live election night coverage four years ago, which ended in something of a dirge.

Keep Reading

-or-

"Daily Show" Investigates ACORN, Community Organizing (VIDEO)

Obama Appearance Gives "Daily Show" Its Biggest Audience Ever

Mitchell Bard: Who Would Be a Better President? I Say, Who Ran a Better Campaign?

2008-11-03T12:04:16Z

With Election Day upon us, it seems like there couldn't possibly be a fresh argument to make for either candidate. But I think I have one.

The policy differences between Barack Obama and John McCain are clear and stark. It seems to me that, at this point, if a voter is choosing based on issues, it's a no-brainer which of the two is closer to his/her values. And for voters choosing based on personality (that is, who they want to have a beer with, or who has a certain skin color), not much can be done to change their minds.

But there is one valid factor that has not been discussed much, and that goes beyond issues of policy or philosophy. We have watched Obama and McCain run their campaigns for nearly two years. These are sprawling organizations with huge budgets and vast staffs. And they have had to act as almost shadow administrations, taking positions as issues arose in the world.

To me, watching how Obama and McCain ran their campaign operations provided the best insight into how competent each man would be in running a presidential administration. In a post-Katrina world, the American people certainly should be holding competency high on the list of criteria necessary to be president.

I think a question every voter needs to ask himself/herself before voting is: Which candidate has run the kind of campaign operation I would like to see the federal government emulate? I think the answer to this query has a clear and simple answer: Barack Obama.

I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion (any discussion, really) in any quarters (the campaigns and the media) of this simple fact. Obama's campaign has been run like a well-oiled machine (often to the frustration of his opponents), while McCain's campaign has been a circus. Consider these areas:

Continuity
The two leading figures in Obama's campaign, David Axelrod and David Plouffe, have been with Obama since his 2004 run for the U.S. Senate. Obama and his team settled on a message and a plan that they have stayed on for two years. You've heard it so many times, you can probably recite it along with me: change (ending the financial and foreign policy strategies of the last eight years and adopting new ones that work better for all Americans), inclusion (no red states or blue states, only the United States), and hope (inspiring rather than tearing down).

Obama identified a goal, came up with an effective plan to attain that goal, and followed it. Not a bad thing for an administration to do, no?

And what of McCain's campaign? The only continuity was the consistent lack of it. There were two staff shake-ups. The message veered from point to point with no overriding theme. As easy as it was to predict the three things I would write to describe Obama's vision, what can you say McCain has stuck with for his two years on the campaign trail? McCain started with the experience argument. When that didn't work, he shifted to national security. When the economic woes prevented that from getting traction, he belatedly moved to the economy, careening around for a couple of weeks before finally embracing a tax argument in time for the last debate (and the appearance of the overexposed Joe the Plumber).

In the end, McCain has relied on telling us what Obama is not, rather than what he is. When he scolded Obama in the third debate that he was not George W. Bush, the reason the argument didn't resonate with voters was not just because he voted with Bush 89 percent of the time since he has been in the Senate, but because he spent the whole primary season telling Republicans how much he agreed with the president.

During one of the debates, McCain argued he should be elected president because he would be a "steady hand" at "the tiller." But from watching two years of running their campaigns, Obama has proven to be the steadier hand.

Organization
If Obama wins, the big story will be the historic act of America electing an African American president. And it should be. But what may be lost is the impressive feat that Obama pulled off, namely that as a first-time candidate for the White House, he was able to put together and oversee a vastly better operation than either of his two well-connected insider rivals, Hillary Clinton and McCain.

Starting from scratch, Obama and his campaign built a large, powerful, active, engaged and effective organization that worked harder and better than anyone else's. It allowed him to dominate the Democratic caucuses and get out the vote for the Democratic primaries, and it looks like it will allow him to win in the general election in states in which nobody thought a Democrat could be successful.

After eight years of a government that is broken, it would be great to have an administration that works as well as the Obama campaign has.

And for those who say, "Well, he had so much money," I have two replies: First, how do you think he got all that money? Sure, people had to be excited about the message, but without a well-organized campaign, Obama would not have been able to turn that enthusiasm into millions of small donations. Second, even with a money advantage, Obama's campaign was leaner and meaner than McCain's. Of the 10 highest-paid campaign employees, seven of the 10 work for McCain, including the three highest earners. At a time of economic crisis, the ability to work efficiently is essential, and Obama has proven he can do it.

Sean Quinn at fivethirtyeight.com did an excellent job of discussing the strength of the Obama "ground game."

Big Decisions
As John Kerry pointed out on Meet the Press on Sunday, the candidates have had two major decisions to make during the general election campaign: Who should be their running mates, and how they should handle the financial crisis. On both, the candidates showed how they operate.

Regarding the vice presidential selections, Obama's vetting process was so thorough, Tim Kaine joked on The Daily Show about how in-depth it was (including his "high school girlfriend's middle name"). The result was the selection of Joe Biden, an experienced Senator with impeccable foreign policy credentials, the one area that was perceived to be a weakness for Obama.

And what did McCain do? When the right-wing elements of his party would not let him choose Joseph Lieberman, he responded by impetuously going with Sarah Palin. He reportedly made the decision after having had only one meeting and one phone conversation with her, and with no formal vetting process. And how did that work out for McCain? Palin has been roundly criticized, by individuals with a range of political orientations, for being unfit to be vice president. And while her selection energized the base and gave McCain a much-needed jolt of excitement in the campaign, the long-term results were far less positive. Her shocking lack of knowledge and depth of thought, as exposed in her disastrous interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric and her talking-points spewing performance in the debate, ultimately caused her to become a drag on the ticket, preventing many independents from supporting McCain. And she seemed to have an endless stream of skeletons in her Nieman-Marcus-stuffed closet, from ethics violations to the secessionist party her husband belonged to.

Palin's fall from grace was not outside the realm of prediction. A careful vetting process would have revealed the very problems that caused her to be a net negative on the ticket. McCain's impetuousness, along with his shocking lack of judgment, don't bode well for his ability to make decisions as president.

To be clear, I'm not talking about my judgment of Palin (if you want that, you can read this). I am saying that, objectively speaking, Palin's selection was impulsive and reckless, and, in the end, was damaging to McCain's campaign (judged by the polls, including a recent one by CBS News/The New York Times that Found that 59 percent of respondents found her not qualified to be vice president).

On the running mate issue, Obama conducted himself more as you would want a president to act. Just as he did when the economic crisis hit last month.

McCain, days after declaring that the "fundamentals of the economy" were "strong" (watch him say it here), was forced to change his tune as the crisis deepened. He responded by "suspending" his campaign to rush to Washington to "help" get a deal for a bailout package. (This was after he did a 180-degree turn on the bailout of AIG). He also tried to get the first debate postponed.

McCain's poll numbers took a nosedive after Americans watched his unsteady handling of the crisis. McCain's conduct was in stark contrast to the way Obama handled things. He took counsel from economic experts, stayed in touch with Congressional leaders, made his feelings known, and, most importantly, didn't try and disrupt the legislative process by thrusting himself into the middle of it. And most of all, he remained calm, steady and collected. As John Kerry pointed out on Meet the Press on Sunday, the four principals Obama laid out as being essential to any bailout legislation were contained in the final bill.

Tone
As you look back on the 2008 election, whose campaign would make you prouder to be an American? Obama certainly ran some tough ads challenging McCain's policies and voting record, but McCain took the campaign into the gutter, allowing McCarthy-esque attacks on Obama as a socialist, calling out Obama on his patriotism, and running the same kind of smear-filled robocalls that McCain himself was a victim of in the 2000 South Carolina primary.

McCain ominously asked in television ads, "Who is Barack Obama?", as if there were deep mysteries that had to be uncovered, instead of Obama being one of the most heavily vetted candidates in the history of elections. (You know that if Obama had tripped over an American flag as a third-grader, some right-wing investigator would have uncovered it by now.)

But keep in mind that Obama never asked, "Who is John McCain?", even though Obama really would have had more to say. The best McCain could do was talk about Obama sitting on the same charity boards as Bill Ayers or a meeting with a Palestinian Columbia professor (to whom McCain's organization had given half-a-million dollars). But Obama never struck back, allowing McCain to portray himself as he saw fit, unchallenged.

Anyone who has read Tim Dickinson's well-researched, scathing piece in Rolling Stone on McCain knows that he is not the man he portrays himself to be. Had Obama done many of the things that McCain did, McCain would have them plastered in ads in every swing state. But Obama never raised anything from McCain's past, even though I have no doubt that many undecided voters would be greatly affected if they read Dickinson's article. In six months, you have never heard Obama utter the name "Keating," and even when given a chance to say something bad about Palin during the third debate, he declined to do so (and McCain followed by eviscerating Biden).

At a time when the standing of the United States in the world has been battered by eight years of damaging conduct by the Bush administration, it is important for America to re-establish its international credibility. That is why looking at the way Obama and McCain conducted themselves during the campaign is so important. Obama offered an approach we can all be proud of, while McCain's descent into the gutter is all too reminiscent of Bush's behavior.

Top Staff
Compare Obama's inner circle to McCain's closest advisers. McCain has relied on a team of lobbyists. Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, accepted $2 million in fees from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with payments reportedly made to his company as recently as August, and the nation of Georgia paid the firm of McCain's top foreign policy adviser, Randall Scheunemann, nearly $900,000. As the Washington Post pointed out, nearly every one of McCain's top advisers is a lobbyist, including Steve Schmidt, Mark McKinnon and Charles Black Jr. CNN confirmed that seven of the top officials in the McCain campaign were lobbyists.

Which might explain why the McCain campaign was run so poorly that it drew angry criticism from conservatives.

McCain's biggest misstep of all might have been allowing Phil Gramm, the former Texas Senator, to be the chief architect of his economic plan. Gramm was primarily responsible for knocking down the 65-year-old protections of the Glass-Steagall Act, which many analysts agree was at the heart of the recent credit crisis.

As a voter, is this how you want your White House run?

Obama has rejected money from lobbyists and surrounded himself with advisers who have distinguished themselves in their fields (people like former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers and former National Security Advisor Tony Lake).

You may not agree with the politics of Obama's advisers, but they are unquestionably less tainted than the lobbyists with whom McCain surrounded himself.

And again, in a post-Katrina world, isn't competency important?

Vision
Obama took a 21st Century, post-partisan approach to the campaign, saying early on he would compete in traditional red states, a position that was roundly dismissed as wishful thinking by both the Clinton and McCain campaigns.

But Obama was proven correct. He is ahead in the polls in the Bush-won states of Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and Iowa; he is essentially tied in the formerly red states of North Carolina, Ohio, Missouri and Florida; and he is close in the formerly bright red states of Indiana, Montana, North Dakota, Georgia and Arizona. Meanwhile, McCain is trying to piece together an electoral college victory while defending states that were once thought to be safe for him, and through a quixotic, Hail Mary effort in Pennsylvania. As Nate Silver wrote on fivethirtyeight.com about McCain's hopes of competing in Pennsylvania (having a bit of fun with Hillary Clinton's old jibe at Obama), "hope is not a strategy."

If you put aside the issues and personalities and judge Obama and McCain based on their campaigns, there is a clear choice as to what kind of America you want for the next four years. And if you're looking for competence, organization, steadiness, vision, good judgment and behavior we can be proud of, the choice is obvious: Vote for Barack Obama.

Jon Stewart: Good For The Jews?

2008-11-03T02:17:23Z

The latest edition of Moment , the D.C.-based national Jewish current affairs mag, answers this question with a resounding yes in their cover story on Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz, aka Jon Stewart, host of the Daily Show for — yikes! — coming on a decade (Stewart's first show was in January 1999). It's a great addition to the Jon Stewart canon, particularly now that everyone's fretting that the Daily Show will lose some of its bite without the Bush administration to kick around anymore — this profile reminds us that Stewart is incapable of being anything but a wisecracker, and a zingingly smart one at that.

Moment looks at what made him the host he is today — a man who found his calling late, starting the job of a lifetime at age 37 — going back to his Jersey roots with interviews with family members (including Stewart's estranged father), teachers and even a guy he played soccer with at William & Mary (where he returned to receive an honorary degree in 2004, joking "I came to William and Mary because as a Jewish person, I wanted to explore the rich tapestry of Judaica that is Southern Virginia"). Those of us who watch Stewart often will recognize his self-deprecating Jewish humor in the remark; there are plenty others in the piece (though I don't think "Jewy von Jewstein" made the cut). It does, however, include one of Stewarts best lines — funny with a typical twist of the knife, from his September 2008 interview with Tony Blair: "My wife is Catholic. I'm Jewish. It's very interesting; we're raising the children to be sad."

Moment also tackles the perception of Stewart as the "most trusted man in America" as per New York Times (but don't worry, Nick Lemann throws predictable cold water on that). I should add that I contributed to a bit of the reporting on the piece, including the kicker from super-frequent guest Fareed Zakaria, whom Stewart once compared to a Backstreet Boy (and who also told me that Stewart was not only good for the Jews, but was a "shonda for the goyim." Well played, Fareed.)

Speaking of which — so, nu? Here's Moment's conclusion: "In the public square, Stewart may be the perfect Jewish ambassador for our times: smart but not arrogant, extremely funny but not mean--a valedictorian, most popular, best-looking and class clown all wrapped into one." I'm glad they mentioned the punum, because it is very cute. For lovers of Stewart factoids and arcana — with an extra dose of Jewiness! — it's essential reading. So go read it already. It's here.

Late-Night Jokes Of The Week: Election Countdown (VIDEO)

2008-11-01T09:28:51Z

This week late-night hosts had a final week of pre-election jokes. From Conan to Leno to Colbert and Stewart, jokes were about election countdown, voter fraud, and John McCain's appearance on Larry King, with a swipe at Obama's tech prowess thrown in.

WATCH:

"Daily Show" Investigates ACORN, Community Organizing (VIDEO)

2008-10-31T13:05:38Z

John Oliver of "The Daily Show" talked to ACORN's Bertha Lewis about the evils of "community organizing." He also spoke with Liz Shaw, a conservative Christian community organizer who says the mockery of her profession at the Republican National Convention led her to organize for Barack Obama. But Matthew Vadum of the Capital Research Center reminds viewers that community organizing of any kind is a gateway-job into crack dealing. Watch:

Shelly Palmer: Google May Walk Away From Yahoo Deal: MediaBytes with Shelly Palmer October 31, 2008

2008-10-31T09:55:53Z

Google may back out of its proposed search ads deal with Yahoo. The deal, which has been held up in regulatory scrutiny for months, has faced increasing objections from the DoJ during its negotiations. If the deal doesn't go down it will be another failed deal for Yahoo in 2008.

Sprint announced that it has failed to find a buyer for its struggling Nextel unit. Sprint, the third largest cellphone network, will instead hold onto Nextel and seek a new long term partnership. Sprint Nextel, who merged in 2005, have had very little success and Sprint lost 901,000 customers in the second quarter.

Barack Obama's segment on the Daily Show Wednesday night helped the show score its highest ratings ever. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart took in 3.6 million viewers, besting its previous high of 3.0 million viewers when Michelle Obama visited October 8th. The ratings boost also helped the Colbert Report attract its largest ratings ever.

Silicon Valley Insider came out with its Silicon Alley 100 and Union Square Ventures founder Fred Wilson topped the list. Wilson, an influential blogger, as well as VC man, has made choice investments early on in web companies like Feedburner and Twitter. His blog has become a sort of "Silicon Alley Bible."

Estelle Reiner, Carl Reiner's wife and Rob Reiner's mother, passed away earlier this week. Estelle, a jazz singer, is most known for a single line in Rob Reiner's When Harry Met Sally, where she responds to Meg Ryan's infamous Deli orgasm by saying "I'll have what she's having."

Plus, today's consulting question, "EA cut its forecast, don't people play more games when times are tough?" Shelly has the answer on today's MediaBytes.

Shelly Palmer is a consultant and the host of MediaBytes a daily show featuring news you can use about technology, media & entertainment. He is Managing Director of Advanced Media Ventures Group LLC and the author of Television Disrupted: The Transition from Network to Networked TV (2008, York House Press). Shelly is also President of the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, NY (the organization that bestows the coveted Emmy® Awards). You can join the MediaBytes mailing list here. Shelly can be reached at shelly@palmer.net

Bill Kristol Knocks New York Times , Predicts McCain Win On "Daily Show" (VIDEO)

2008-10-31T08:35:59Z

Bill Kristol knocked his own paper, the New York Times, on "The Daily Show" last night, and repeated his prediction that John McCain will win the White House on Tuesday.

Jon Stewart joked with the error-prone Kristol, who he has mocked before, "You can't look at past performance as a predictor, otherwise you wouldn't be, obviously, still a pundit."

"You're reading The New York Times too much, Jon," Kristol told Stewart, only for Stewart to remind him that he works there. "Oh, it's a very fine newspaper — on one day of the week."

Kristol also predicted that McCain would "win huge," but that even if Barack Obama does pull it off, he ill be a "conventional" president."

Watch:

Previously: Jon Stewart: "Oh, Bill Kristol, Are You Ever Right?"

Obama Appearance Gives "Daily Show" Its Biggest Audience Ever

2008-10-30T23:13:34Z

Comedy Central's "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" pulled in its biggest audience ever Wednesday night.

The 11 p.m. episode, which featured an appearance by presidential candidate Barack Obama, averaged 3.6 million total viewers, beating by 600,000 viewers the previous record set October 8 when his wife Michelle Obama appeared on the show.

Shelly Palmer: Obama Hits Primetime, Daily Show: MediaBytes with Shelly Palmer October 30, 2008

2008-10-30T09:36:36Z

Barack Obama spent roughly $4 million dollars on 30 minutes of primetime ad space last night. The commercial, which aired on CBS, NBC, MSNBC, Fox and some cable networks, concluded with Bill Clinton stumping for Obama. Obama then hit the Daily Show, where he chatted with host Jon Stewart.

The Beatles will license songs for MTV Networks' Rock Band. While details of the deal are scant, it should be noted that a video game publisher beating iTunes and all other digital download stores to the punch is a sign of the significance of music-related video games.

Netflix and TiVo have reached a deal to deliver movies from Netflix "Watch Instantly" service directly to TiVo DVR's. Netflix, which has a library of over 12,000 available online, will begin testing the service today. The free-to-subscribers service is another attempt at linking televisions with online video.

A man who pleaded guilty to recording films in a theatre with a camcorder is getting 21 months in prison. Michael Dwayne Logan of Washington DC admitted to recording 28 Weeks Later and Enchanted and is being charged under 2005 Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, which made it a felony to bring a camcorder into a movie theater and record movies for piracy purposes. Logan also admitted to producing DVDs of his recordings intended for sale.

Plus, today's consulting question, "When is OpenId going to get real?" Shelly has the answer on today's MediaBytes.

Shelly Palmer is a consultant and the host of MediaBytes a daily show featuring news you can use about technology, media & entertainment. He is Managing Director of Advanced Media Ventures Group LLC and the author of Television Disrupted: The Transition from Network to Networked TV (2008, York House Press). Shelly is also President of the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, NY (the organization that bestows the coveted Emmy® Awards). You can join the MediaBytes mailing list here. Shelly can be reached at shelly@palmer.net

Obama's Daily Show Interview (VIDEO)

2008-10-29T23:03:28Z

Barack Obama continued his media blitz tonight with an appearance on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Obama's appearance comes on the heels of his half hour long infomercial which ran in prime time tonight on several major networks, as well as some cable networks. Watch clips of Obama from his interview, including the candidate conceding the "Sean Hannity vote," and how Obama has been undergoing therapy to ensure that his white half doesn't prevent him from voting for himself.

[WATCH]

Brian Ross: Channel This Election Fervor Into Helping the Country

2008-10-29T09:39:39Z

It is fear of change, or the lack of change, that are polarizing our electorate.

In an odd way, my brief meeting with Joe the golden retriever owner, while doing some canvassing for the Obama campaign yesterday evening here in Boca Raton, FLA., was probably a pretty good way to help me regain some sense of balance in these final days leading up to the election.

It is easy, reading everything you can find on the web, to get caught up in the waves of the news cycle, and the high-amp that happens when shows try to find extreme points of view, which, sadly, this year, are plentiful. John Oliver's brilliant "Obama and Palin Rallies of Fear" on "The Daily Show" was a funny bit that showed how strong opinions become in the heated final days.

Yet there was Joe, who told me that he was a McCain supporter, but that he was happy to help my son canvassing for Obama find his way around the apartment complex where we were working.

His five week old golden retriever doesn't have any political affiliation, apparently, because it was more than happy to run over to me and jump all over me and enjoy a good head scratch.

Joe, as we'll call him for this interview, since that seems to be the fashion of this year's campaign, said:

"I'm for McCain but I can appreciate that you guys are taking the time and being part of the political process. That's really good."

I knocked on a few more doors, and came back. Joe and his dog were still out there, taking in the 65-degree crisp, by Florida standards, evening air.

"Do you mind if I ask you why it is that you support McCain?" I asked him.

"Oh no, sure," he replied as a good-natured Joe is apt to do, "I've voted Republican my whole life, and I think he just represents more of what I'm looking for with all of the stuff going on out there."

I asked him if he was more of a social or a fiscal conservative.

"Oh, fiscal, more so, yeah, but I, there are a lot of other things that the Democrats want that I don't go with."

I got the impression, from talking further, that McCain would not have been his first choice, but that he was the party's choice. That's pretty common, even amongst us Democrats.

I said: "You know, I know where you're coming from. I didn't get all excited about Kerry, either. You know who I miss though? Robert Rubin."

Joe smiled, nodded, and agreed that Bill Clinton's Treasury Secretary was pretty good for all of us.

"John Snow was one of the worst Treasury Secretaries in history," I reminded him.

"Yeah, a lot of people in the Bush Administration weren't too good on the money," he agreed.

"That's what I worry about," I told him. "Maybe you know, because McCain hasn't mentioned it on television that I know of, or in his stump speeches. He says that he's going to solve this mess. Who is he going to get to do that? The same guys who are doing it now? I mean, I know that Obama has Robert Rubin, and Warren Buffett to advise him, who I think are pretty smart guys..."

"Oh yeah, Buffett's great," Joe acknowledged.

"So who is McCain going to get to fix the mess like he says? I looked a bit, but maybe you've seen something at one of the Republican websites or on some news that I missed."

Joe thought, and realized that he didn't know.

"For what it's worth," I said, "You might want to take a look and see, because right now, the economy is job one, and I think that Obama on the rest of the stuff that you might be worried about isn't so bad. He's got good people behind him who can help get the economy back on its feet."

Joe promised that he would check it out, and, even though it is likely that he's still going to draw the line between the arrows (our system) for McCain, at the very least I got him thinking about it.

Reasonably.

The reason that I bring this little slice of humanity to you is because I think that it is way too easy to demonize "the other side" in all of this. I sit and listen to McCain and Palin's incendiary stump speeches on POTUS, the XM Radio political channel, and hear their stream of desperate distortions and outright lies, and think to myself: 'Who can listen to this and have watched TV or the video and know that this is not total bull.'

I thought that Karl Rove and Lee Attwater came up with this type of slimy politics. dlinguist, a HuffPost reader, corrected me by showing me this:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. "
-- Joseph Goebbels.

The rest of the quote is:

"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

There are a lot of people for whom voting is more habit, and following in the footsteps of one's parents, just like, for a large part, religion.

There are going to be differing opinions on which way to go. There are those who are going to be afraid of John McCain's wild behavior and hyperbolic rhetoric, and there are those who think that Obama is a black Muslim socialist communist reverend Wright Christian vote-fraud endorsing baby killer. If I missed a smear tactic, my apologies.

In between, though, are me, and Joe with the golden retriever puppy. When the dust settles next Tuesday, the lunatic fringe of both sides will crawl back into their burrows for another three years of winter, and the rest of us will have to repair the damage that the Bush Administration has done to this country.

This is one thing that McCain, reluctantly, and Obama are now in agreement upon.

So go and be passionate. Get out there and get people to vote. Speak to your point of view. Temper, though, your passions so that you can hear other people's needs, wants and fears, and they can hear you, too.

Next week, we will need that level of calm and order to get to the hard work once the confetti and streamers are gone, and the heat of the campaign has not left a warm enough glow to keep the house heated this winter, or families with sub-prime mortgages from being put out of their homes.

Barack Obama To Appear On "The Daily Show" Wednesday

2008-10-28T14:18:35Z

CHESTER, Pa. — Gotta make time to laugh in a campaign _ and court the youth vote.

In the midst of a mad dash toward the election, Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama will make time Wednesday to appear on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" with its host, Jon Stewart.

Late Night Jokes Of The Week: Palin's Clothes, McCain-Palin Tension, Powell's Endorsement

2008-10-25T11:27:30Z

This week in the best of late night jokes, SNL comes up with a slogan for Bill Clinton, Jon Stewart mocks Palin's extravagant expenditures on clothes, Colbert dissects Powell's endorsement, Kimmel spoofs the tension between McCain and Palin, and Craig Ferguson mocks Democrats for their ability to blow elections:

Wajahat Ali: The Daily Show 's "Brown Guy": Aasif Mandvi Interview

2008-10-24T13:18:44Z

Comedian and actor Aasif Mandvi speaks to us about life at The Daily Show, life after Sakina's Restaurant, and why Muslims shouldn't complain about negative portrayals in Hollywood if they don't get involved.

So how does it feel to be, unofficially and involuntarily, the media ambassador for all things Muslim on The Daily Show?

Aasif Mandvi: Is that what I am?

Does anyone see you as the Muslim representative by virtue of your last name and your background?

If they do then they're in big trouble (Laughs). Yeah, you know that by virtue of being brown on the show, I've become the ambassador for all things brown. Muslims often fall into that category.

Most mainstream audiences know you, especially the youth, from The Daily Show. What's that bridge? How'd you get that Daily Show gig?

The Daily Show gig came out of left field, honestly. It's like a lot of things in life. It's like that old quote, "Life happens when you're making other plans." They wanted to audition people for the Middle East correspondent on The Daily Show. They wanted to hire somebody ethnic for that slot. Helms had left, Cordry had left, and they felt that they needed an ethnic face.

So, I went in and auditioned and I got the job. I auditioned for Jon Stewart that afternoon, Jon Stewart offered me the job five minutes later and, basically, I was on the air for the first time that night.

Whoa. What was the feeling? Goosebumps? Excitement? All of the above?

It was amazing. It was a show that I was really, really excited about being on because I was a big fan myself. I always used to watch The Daily Show, and there were all these comedic geniuses there.
I didn't know if I was going to be hired full time or not. At the beginning, I was sort of hired as a part time, on and off guy. When I first got hired -- it was August 2006 -- and I was working on and off and they'd call me whenever. And then in December 2006, they offered me a full time job and I started in March of 2007.

It's been great. The thing about it is that you'll be working and you'll be doing stuff and then you get something like The Daily Show which is right at the center of popular culture. It's kind of a bizarre thing, because suddenly you realize that this is something that is actually penetrating the culture.

You can do all kinds of stuff. You can do movies and TV. I worked with Ismail Merchant on The Mystic Masseur, I did Sakina's Restaurant, I've done plays, I've been on Broadway, I've done movies, I've done TV... but nothing has had the pop culture penetrative impact as The Daily Show has. It's the nature of the beast.

The Daily Show was just in the news recently, when a survey came out saying it had some of the Fox News approach and yet it maintained its diversity in the sense of the guests that it chooses - Republican and liberal. Is The Daily Show news or is it comedy? Stewart hates being called a newsman, he says he's being a comedian, like you mentioned. It's still, nonetheless, very penetrating and talked about, especially for young audiences. They see it for their news.

Jon will always say he's a comedian. None of us are news people. We're all comedians, we're all actors. We're all performers at the end of the day. We're out creating satire. That satire has a place in the society right now that is really, really necessary.

The artist never really has any control over the impact of his work. If he starts thinking about the impact of his work, then he becomes a lesser artist. On some level, it is important that we keep doing what we're doing. The impact it has is another thing. And what we do is another thing. They're two separate things.

Take us behind the scenes of a Daily Show episode. How does one day's news turn over so quickly and how are you a part of that process?

I'm not very intrinsically part of that process. I am more a part of the process when I'm on the show. We're there pretty much all the time, but we're not always involved in the days because, as correspondents, it depends on the way we're being used for the show.

Basically, they go over the news, they start coming up with stories, and they've got these amazing writers, they've got the producers, they've got a whole team of people who do this. Usually by 4:00, we have the makings of a show.

There's a rehearsal around 4:30. Between the rehearsal and the actual taping, which is around 6:30, the entire show can change. They go into the rewrite room, Jon, the writers and the producers. In that sort of pressure cooker situation, it's good because you end up cutting away things that don't work and you keep the things that do work. It pares everything down, it cuts out the fat really quickly.

You go for the laugh and you go for the thing that is the easiest to communicate. Sometimes things that are cerebral or convoluted in the original draft, then they get pared down and simplified and woven in by 6:30 (when) we go on the air.

Jon said to me once (that) the show is disposable on one level because it's everyday. Once it's over, you've got to move on to the next thing the next day. It's the best show they can create in the day.

A lot of Muslims and/or brown folk always lament the choices and roles that are depicted on the screen, like you mentioned. Since you've been an actor in theatre, on television, and in movies, where do you place the blame?

Well, there's nobody writing the roles. Though it's not just one thing to blame. It's just the reality of the situation. You started off these questions saying, "How do your parents feel about you being an actor?" That ties into it, right? We don't have the numbers of people out there in this profession.

People lament that there's no roles being written for South Asian or Muslim characters. But their parents don't want their children to go into the entertainment field. You don't get it both ways. The more people write from that point of view, the more people write from the perspective of being Muslim, being South Asian, being Middle Eastern, then you will have more realistically depicted characters.

Also, it's about marketing. It's about marketing this stuff to an American audience, which takes money and funding. It's about creating the infrastructure that allows these positive images of Muslims and South Asians, complex images, out into the mainstream for popular consumption.

You need the creative side of it and you need the business/marketing/financial side of it. Both those need to be working in tandem in order to create that infrastructure. And we have the talent, we have the money, and we have the resources within our community. We just don't have the will.

How have your reactions or criticisms been from the "brown" and/or Muslim community to your work? Do you ever get any criticism? Sometimes the people who are most critical are your own ethnic groups.

There are, but they haven't come up to me. I don't find a tremendous amount of criticism in terms of the stuff on The Daily Show. I think people are happy that there's representation going on. I think people are happy that there's this point of view happening out there. I don't find a lot of criticism coming from my own community in that way. Not yet. Maybe I'll just have to be really awful and then I will.

I'm thinking of Obama and his speech on transcendence... Do you think that a brown, Muslim comedian avoids facing the political nature of his very being as a performer in post-9/11 America? Can you transcend this by just playing any role by avoiding it? Or does a brown performer, a Muslim performer... does he transcend all this baggage by confronting it, the stereotypes and generalization? Can you transcend it by avoiding it?

Yes and no. I think that what you have to do as a performer is just keep questioning it, just keep on raising the level. What does an artist do? An artist's job is simply to take the mirror in front of your face and hold it there. It's not to give you any answers. It is simply to take that mirror and point it at you.

If any performer is doing that, you will transcend stereotypes because you will force people to ask questions about themselves. So, hopefully, you use irony, you use ambiguity. All these paradoxical things ...we do that all on the Daily Show. We make things very ironic, we juxtapose paradoxical things and try to create humor out of that. By doing that, you're constantly raising the mirror and saying, "This is you. This is America. This is what it is. Are you ok with it?"

As a playwright, as an actor, as a writer. I think that's all you can do. And then hopefully it will transcend. But if you go out there and you say, "Oh, I'm going to transcend all this stuff," I think you run the risk of preaching, and then nobody wants to hear from you.

Anything else new that's happening that you want to talk about?

I'd like to plug the fact that we're about to go into production on my film this summer called Seven to the Palace, which is inspired by Sakina's Restaurant. It's a comedy about Indian Food, but it's also about a Muslim American family that runs an Indian restaurant. And I will be starring in it.

Christopher Buckley Reaffirms Obama-Love On The Daily Show

2008-10-22T12:34:53Z

Last night former National Review back-page columnist Christopher Buckley was on The Daily Show to promote his new book, Supreme Courtship, and talk about how he became the former National Review back-page columnist (i.e. he endorsed Barack Obama on The Daily Beast, people on the right went mental, NR subscribers called to complain, Buckley offered his resignation 'sincerely', and it was sincerely accepted by NR editor Rich Lowry. And thusly the son of the magazine's founder was, just like that, evicted from the magazine of his father's legacy. Drama!). Did he have any regrets? Did he do it just to sell some books? Nope, said Buckley - Obama was his guy. And that was how the Daily Show audience came to explode with applause for a conservative guest, maybe for the first time ever. Watch it here:

Jon Stewart Clarifies Palin Remarks, Expands To 'F%ck All Y'All'

2008-10-21T10:05:29Z

Earlier this week, The Daily Show host Jon Stewart, performing at Northeastern University in Boston, criticized Governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin for making divisive remarks, saying, "She said that small towns, that's the part of the country she really likes going to because that's the pro-America part of the country. You know, I just want to say to her, just very quickly: fuck you." Since then, a few more hobos hopped aboard the hate-America bandwagon -- Nancy Pfotenhauer insisted that Northern Virginia was not part of a "real Virginia" (despite being the economic driver of the entire state), and Michelle Bachmann (who is basically a nonsense-spewing twit whose electoral success is among the world's most enduring mysteries) went on Hardball to call for a Congress-wide witch hunt for people who didn't measure up to her standard of patriotism.

Early in the show, Stewart lambasted the general divisive sentiment that pits small towns against big cities, alluding to the fact that 9/11's "ground zero" happened to be godless and elite New York City and "Communist Country/Fake Virginia" Arlington County. But at the end of the show, Stewart went back to reference his remarks at Northeastern, to make his point more broadly.

"We're all a little chafed here about this whole 'some parts of the country are real and American' and other parts are not. This weekend I was performing at Northeastern and I just read the statement that Sarah Palin had made about the 'pro-American' parts of the country and I...in response to that, I think I might have said, you know, 'Fuck you!' That's just my way of saying that I think that's a profanity to say, and I was answering with a profanity. But it's not really fair, and it makes it seem like I'm just addressing Governor Palin about this, and I'm not, it's just this whole entire theme that there's more American areas, or some people love the country, some people don't. So what I meant to say is, 'Fuck all y'all.'"

Here's (William and Mary graduate) Stewart's response to Nancy Pfotenhauer: