Up until this week, I would have thought that Jon Stewart was on to them. Then, Wallace & Maddow

[ProfessorPlum]

The first huge question mark was his incredibly weird and butt-kissing interview with Chris Wallace where he looked dreamily into his eyes and said "I like you" and talked about what a great job he did and accepted Wallace's completely unfounded claim that he would "go after" Sarah Palin as soon as she announced she was running. Right.

Then his weird appearance with Rachel. WTH?

Maybe it is just the Daily Show writers who can see clearly through the BS. It's like Jon has lost it. Weird.

[Koshari]

1. Uncomfortable

I felt very uncomfortable watching the interview. It was like he took the position of "Father Knows Best" and was kindly reprimanding her.

[mwb970]

2. I watched about ten seconds before turning it off.

I don't know who that was talking to Rachel, but it wasn't the Jon Stewart I know.

[a kennedy]

3. I think the Jon we know is really the writers of his show...

he's nothing without them. Terrible interview. I watched it all, and it NEVER got better, it went from bad to worse. :puke:

[MadBadger]

4. I'm assuming you skipped the season during the writer's strike.

[a kennedy]

6. yup, I missed it......

[oldlib]

11. I agree with your assessment.

I watched for a while and soon realized that, on his own, Jon could not articulate his message. He rambled and his statements made little sense. I turned it off after about five minutes.

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. It got better at the very end when Maddow challenged him and set the record straight.

And, I think Stewart hedged a bit. Something about discourse being fluid, something like that.

Frankly, I think Stewart put out his premises, and it was up to us to disagree with him. And he was alright with that.

[JVS]

25. Bingo!

[csziggy]

5. Maybe he's pulling a Colbert? Or maybe he is so sick he's delusional?

I couldn't watch the Maddow interview either so I have no idea, but he just sounded "off".

[MadBadger]

7. You didnt watch the interview, but he sounded "off"

What am I missing here?

[Viking12]

14. He was sick. Rachel mentioned it numerous times.

[csziggy]

15. I watched a few minutes of it, turned away, came back for another segment and gave up

First off, Jon Stewart sounded sick, congested and really flat, unlike his normal self. Then some of his statements in response to Rachel's questions were very different from the style of comment he makes on his show. Maybe this is the real Jon Stewart and not the guy he plays on TV, but it just did not seem consistent with what I have seen of him previously.

"off" - maybe out of character or into a different one.

[Tesha]

8. He's a comedian, not a prophet or a saint.

Just like Tom Tomorrow mercilessly mocked Al Gore
in the run-up to 2000 but now many DUers think he's
God, Stewart will go mostly anywhere to get a laugh.

Tesha

[dennis4868]

9. For all of you Stewart apologist out there....

How do you defend Stewart who defended Bush's false WMD claim, Bush not a war criminal, Bush's reasons for war, and Bush's use of torture? Still like him now? The guy was sitting there as if he knew best and Maddow was some ignorant person who needed to be educated by him.

Fuck you John....you will never be at the intellectual level as Ms. Maddow. You are nothing compared to her! You may think so but you are NOT.

[MadBadger]

17. Love him.

[JackRiddler]

19. He didn't say Bush is not a war criminal.

He said, "technically that may be true," but you shouldn't say it because it's a conversation stopper! Truth in this case kills polite discourse, which is much more important.

Also, war criminals look foreign and evil, like Pol Pot. They couldn't be Americans with homey mannerisms, see?

[dennis4868]

23. Jon said....

Technically is a war criminal but I don't think he is. He also sadly defended Bush's lies about WMD! Go to he'll Mr. Stewart....

[JackRiddler]

24. What Stewart said is in a way worse than mere denial.

Bush may technically be a war criminal, but the issue is irrelevant because it's not the conversation Stewart wants to have. (It's not as Stewart says a conversation stopper, but it would be a conversation changer. Who wants to talk about justice and restitutions?)

[fishwax]

21. like Rachel, I remain a big fan

Rachel, it seems, is one of the apologists you're addressing.

[leveymg]

10. It was so obvious: Rachel is a lot smarter than Jon, who was rambling and incoherent.

Stewart was really stretching to find something original to say, and fell on his face repeatedly. He wasn't even coherent, and Rachel stepped in there at the end to save him from saying something really stupid, like Bush-Cheney and their henchmen was justified to torture people - that's where he appeared to be going in his last ramble toward the end of the "interview."

Stewart is trying to reposition his image toward the center. Screw him.

I didn't watch him much before, and this won't make me want to tune in more, now.

[Dawgs]

12. I only watched a few minutes and it was clear that his ego was getting the better of him.

Not sure if it was the rally, or everyone in the media talking about him, but it was uncomfortable to watch.

[Dash Riprock]

13. After that interview with Maddow

I now understand why Jon Stewart doesn’t do many interviews. He doesn’t do well without a script, like “Bush is technically a war criminal, but…” Huh?

[myrna minx]

18. I love your name!

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[CatWoman]

20. LOL!!!

I just caught that.

Welcome to DU, Dash!!!! :hi:

[Dash Riprock]

26. Thanks.

I'm a fan of early Beverly Hillbillies and that's where the name comes from.

[ipaint]

22. Maybe his brother had a talk with him.

COO of the NYSE

http://www.futuresindustry.org/larry-leibowitz-.asp

[MisterP]

27. theat means you're a "reader" rather than a "follower"

readers pay attention to what's being said, followers to whether their Beloved is saying it (thereby making it beyond criticism)

"readers" can admit that someone terrific in some departments can screw up big time