Okay, I can ask this now...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

In the Stewart controversy I said what I had to say in a few posts early on and then largely disengaged from the issue because to really argue what I was feeling required arguing that we were about to get crushed in an election.

And in the last few days of an election it doesn't feel right to get into a peripheral argument that requires arguing how bad we're gonna get whacked, so just let the matter slide for a while.

If you knew that we were about to get crushed in an election the the Stewart call for higher-brow infotainment was grotesquely inappropriate, self-important and stupid.

Some sort of radical right "shut down the government and default on the debt" is only a couple of days from taking over thew only part of our government the Constitution allows to initiate spending and the big issue is Jon Stewart's ironic take on the mode of discourse?

Talking about wrong-headed priorities.

But if I had thought we were going to win in this election then I would have welcomed the Stewart thing as a potential element in our burgeoning coalition.

Question: Were the Stewart defenders more likely to be people who thought we had some sort of chance in the election? Were the people pissed at Stewart more likely to be people who recognized what was happening with the national election?

[sharesunited]

1. Seemed like a worthwhile attempt to appeal to brain over spleen.

So I think your optimist / pessimist dichotomy is generally correct.