Who came first with the straight criticism of Bush? Olbermann or Stewart?

[boston bean]

I think it was Olbermann and Stewart rode his coat tails. Keith took on Fox News all on his own. He was the only voice for us back in the dark days of 2003.

So stuff a sock in it Stewart. Would Stewart be who he is w/o Keith blazing the trail. I don't think so!

[LiberalArkie]

1. Stewart would have been a comic like was, someone only the college kids liked.

[Bluenorthwest]

2. Let's not forget Bill Maher, who got freaking fired from his network

gig, not suspended, fired. Axed, terminated, sent packing. Very early on. Very. Politically Incorrect was canceled full tilt.

[boston bean]

3. Did you see Mahers criticism on the Stewart rally. I thought it was spot on.

I think most of the people who went to the march weren't exactly looking at it the way Stewart portrayed it.

I think Stewart was like, I can't just criticize one side for being bias because then I look bias.

But he fucked progressives and liberals all for his own vanity.

[Motown_Johnny]

4. there was an "Anybody But Bush" movement back in 1999

and we were saying then that the guy was not smart enough to be president


we were right

thinking that stuff that happened in 2003 was "the first" is insane

[boston bean]

5. Did you sleep through 911 and the run up to an illegal war in Iraq where GWB

was portrayed GOD by most news pundits, reporters, journalists?

[jpgray]

6. Pssh. Molly Ivins predated them all!

They should all conduct sacrifices and do obeisance to her glorious spirit.

[boston bean]

7. Now, that can wholeheatedly agree with! Thank you for making that point! nt

[Recursion]

16. D'oh. GMTA. And mine does occasionally, too. NT

[EstimatedProphet]

17. And add Jim Hightower to that list too

But of course, no one listens to him.

[fishwax]

8. I'm happy to have both voices, and hope no sock is stuffed in either any time soon

[boston bean]

9. Do you remember Stephen Colberts speech at the White House Correspondents dinner

That was brave. That was worthwhile and he survived the roasting he gave to the POTUS because he spoke truth.

John Stewart on the other hand can stuff a sock in it when he decides his own vanity comes before the truth.

I like John Stewart, but what he did was shameful. He portrayed people at the march in a way I don't think they would have like to be portrayed. As capitulators to a fuckin evil Republican Party.

[fishwax]

12. yep -- it was great, and one of a number of great moments from Colbert and Stewart over the years

John Stewart/TDS was among the very few media voices raising serious questions about the administration propaganda in the buildup to the Iraq War (long before KO had found his way back to television) and has been a great voice to have around in the years since. I thought his rally had more entertainment value than political value and there were a few things in the execution of it that I disagreed with. But I've never disagreed with him (or KO) all the time anyway. And I have no interest in having either shut up.

I also don't agree that he portrayed people at the march as "capitulators to a fuckin evil Republican Party."

[KharmaTrain]

10. Different Worlds...

Stewart is a political comedian...and was ripping into booosh back in 2000 and before. He also took some nasty shots at Gore and Kerry and Howard Dean as well. That's his gig...and he's damn good at it. While his politics are more to the left and much of his audience are of ths ame persuasion it doesn't mean he doesn't take shots at those he may be politically sympathetic to...if there's comedy gold, he's going for it. Most of it is directly, deservedly, at the right, but there are times Democrats say and do stupid things. There's no black and white in this world...that's a rushpublican trait.

I remember Olbermann sending an email (might have been to someone here) around 2004 when he was being criticized for not being critical of the booosh regime. He replied he didn't have the authority to editorialize...that changed when Phil Griffin (everyone's favorite boogie man) came in. For those looking for that voice in the wilderness, Keith was the re-incarnation of Edward R. Murrow...for others he's just another loud voice on a very loud medium.

The point that Stewart was making was "cable generic"...as to how the 24/7 spin cycle out there has turned political discourse into a bloodsport. It's the tone vs. the content...as sadly the content rarely is heard above all the shouting.

[Berry Cool]

14. You are misremembering something.

Keith was critical of Bush long before Griffin's return (actually Griffin was AT MSNBC in 2004, then left in 2005, then came back later). He was the only man on TV questioning the Ohio election results in 2004. It's the reason there even is a group dedicated to him on DU.

And who cares if Keith shouts? He's passionate, and he's telling the truth. If the tone bothers people, oh, I am soooo sorry. *sigh*

[Old and In the Way]

11. This Olbermann vs. Stewart nonsense is silly and non-productive.

But they are questions that Karl Rove and the rest of the Republican owned media want the Left to engage in. Circular firing squads are fun to watch!

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Shh and pass the damn ammunition

:hi:

[laughingliberal]

13. K & R nt

[Recursion]

15. Molly Ivins. Back in the mid 90s. NT

[HEyHEY]

18. You're aware Stewart is a comedian, are you not?

He was making fun of Clinton all the time. When Bush came in he did the same. Olbermann is a reporter, it's his job to take swings at the president. I don't know why you guys think it's so heroic to be critical of the president. For most of these people, it's just how they make money.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. They did about the same time

before Keith came on air, Stewart when on Crossfire and he is responsible for killing it. No, I am not kidding.

They reach to slightly DIFFERENT demographics ANYWAY.

And this pissing contest is STOOOPID.

[Desertrose]

21. Agreed...stoopid waste of time. nt