I wanted to revive the debate concerning Jon Stewart and the McCain interview, both because the last post ironically devolved into the very kind of uncivil bickering I originally held Stewart accountable for ("I've read more books than you" instead of "I know the troops better"), and because of this brilliant Bill Moyers interview with Stewart, in which he mentions and kind of defends kind of doesn't how he acted with McCain.

Here' my take: It's definitely a great interview, and Stewart's eloquence and intelligence only makes me love him more, but you
notice that he ultimately compares the McCain interview to the kind of counterproductive "dialogue" that Congress and the White House are having over the spending bill. Also, his assertion that all he was
trying to do was simply contemplate "is this really the trading of
talking points we're going to have over Iraq?" is just a rouse,
because in imitating that debate you by default imitate a side on the talking points battle. He may try to convince us that that was the
rhetorical meta-subtext of the interview, but what we end up seeing is Stewart and McCain trade off talking points. People seem to love the interview because they feel like they haven't seen someone cut through the war support bullshit like Stewart does, but to me he's offering the same counterpoint that you'd find in a debate about the war between Carville and Novak on CNN....except it's coming from Jon Stewart. This is the problem with only getting your news from the
Daily Show--you end up losing scope of where Jon is innovative and
intelligent and unique in his perspective... and the rare moment where he's just like everyone else on TV. Maybe, ironically, that's why his interview has been so apparently newsworthy.

Also, he can't simultaneously try to convince me that he's not a
social critic and then end the interview with Moyers by saying that he
believes his program offers a view of current events, in "a certain
context." Placing anything relevant to today's society or political
landscape in a certain context, especially when framed with humor (the punchline of which always has a point), IS the DEFINITION of
social/political criticism. That said, I understand the game he's
playing by not defining himself that way. But come on, if you go on
"Crossfire" and tell Begala and Carlson that they're "hurting
America," you're definitely some sort of socio-political critic.

Don't get me wrong, i love jon stewart and this interview only
reinforces that love. But i think he's a populist preacher posing as a
jester--a disguise that's been most effective for him. And when he
ditches that to pose as a pundit, the disguise wears a little too
thin.