Howard Dean and John Stewart.

[aden_nak]

So, like many of you, I watched The Daily Show last night. And one thing I was pleased to see was that John was putting Howard on the spot a bit. Now don't get me wrong, I like Dean and am quite glad he's the DNC chair. But that doesn't mean that he is exempt, in any way, from being asked tough questions. To Dean's credit, he came back with some smart answers. See, that's how an interview is supposed to sound, as opposed to the cross-table fellating on certain other Murdochian shows I could mention. Once again, Stewart proved himself to be a more able newsman than the newsmen themselves.

But what I especially liked, and I could tell as Stewart said it that he'd wanted to mention it for a very long time now, was his suggestion about how the Democrats could offer their own policy as an alternative. He addressed the big "Democrats Have No Message" item. And I'm glad it came up, because someone DOES need to do something about it. Stewart's suggestion was quite simple, really.

Every time the Bush Administration decides something, the Democrats should offer up a speaker or a press release to say what they would have done instead. I really do believe that the Democratic party has BETTER ideas. It just needs to start telling people about them. This would have the added benefit of forcing the NeoCons to ask themselves the question, "What are the Democrats going to suggest instead, and how bad will it make our suggestion look by comparison?"

Now, maybe they are already starting that. The Democrats offered a response to Karl Rove's suggestion that Democrats want to counsel terrorists instead of fight them (and as for the fact that liberals want to understand terrorists. . . I guess it shouldn't be a suprise that Rove and his NeoCon Chickenhawk cronies haven't read any Sun Tzu). But it's something up on their website. It's not out in the mainstream. Sure, the President has the bulliest pulpit around, but that's no excuse for the Democrats not force-feeding this response down the media's throat. Personally, I think Dean is the best way to get that response out, since the media will at least pay attention, lest he says something "crazy" they can exploit for ratings.

So the maddest of props to John Stewart (not just for being John Stewart but) for coming up with this idea. And to Howard Dean, in whom I have more confidence than any other Democratic leader to do the right thing as the DNC Chairman. . . you said yourself that if more people listened to John Stewart, your job wouldn't be nearly so hard. Please, Dr. Dean, listen to him yourself.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. I was so impressed

That show last night was maybe the best I've ever seen - from the opening monologue, when Stewart showed those thugs prattling on about how the 9/11 people would want this flag desecration amendment, and Stewart cut in to remind them of the $125 in health benefits that were cut by the Republicans - he then called them "pricks," which was, I thought, perfect.

As for Dean, boy, did he ever do himself proud! The guy's smart and fast and gave as good as he got. I'm not sure how much really solid information was aired - Dean weaseled on Stewart's "What would the Democrats do about Iraq?" question, which was painfully obvious - but the interplay between the two of them was something great to see. Two smart, funny guys.

What did surprise me, though, was that Dean did not get the kind of wild-assed reception from the audience that I had anticipated. It was a great, solid, heavy-duty round of applause, for sure, but I had really expected something, well, over the top. That's just me, I guess.

Bill Moyers, Howard Dean - I'd say the Daily Show is hosting some really terrific guests. Moyers, by the way, was amazing. I just thought he was wonderful. Well, he IS wonderful.

[Coexist]

2. totally agree, oldleftie

I think that Stewart/Dean were right on last night.

Hopefully the Dems will get their solid sound bite on Iraq going soon. I think part of the issue was that Dean was always against the war and elected Dems are afraid of taking this stance right now in fear of being labeled "unpatriotic".

Let's hope the Out of Iraq caucus gains momentum and the Dem party can let Howard say what you know he wants to.

[aden_nak]

3. Yes, Dean had to dodge the Iraq question.

I honestly feel like he wanted to say more, but he is essentially limited to talking about actual Democratic policy. I think he wanted to avoid "making" new policy on The Daily Show. You notice they talked, first, about how his job is NOT policy, but publicity.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

4. Good point, yes.

Of course you're right. I hadn't even considered that.

But, still, that's another example of the Democrats "playing by the rules," when, in fact, we should take a page from the Rovian Satanic Playbook, and make sure that every Democrat is authorized to speak the truth and, in fact, is obligated, and that means every Democrat has to be able to articulate what's wrong in Iraq, how badly it's been done, how our kids are being murdered for nothing, and what the Democrats plan to do about it.

I might be asking too much, I know, but, still .............

[Coexist]

5. One day soon!

[JNelson6563]

7. I can just imagine

how the Democrats in Congress would've treated any statement from Dean that said "In Iraq the Dems would do this, this and this". To overstep like that would be pure folly. Remember how quickly they abandoned him when he spoke rruth about the Rehtugs. He couldn't speak truth about the Dems and say "The Dems have no plan" nor could he make one up and expect to be supported. No choice but to dance.

Julie

[OldLeftieLawyer]

8. I know - and that's the problem

EVERY DEMOCRAT should be a spokesman. That's what I was trying to say. There should be unity and a specific message and EVERYONE should be out there, getting the message across relentlessly. Without cessation.

That's what Rove does, and it works. The American public responds to repetition, we know that, and we should be playing that game.

Don't forget - we're all on the same side here.

[paula777]

6. I agree - great interview. FYI - it's Jon Stewart (no h)

[aden_nak]

12. Wow, the weird thing is that I knew that.

Hell, my best friend is also named Jon with no "h" and he likes the fact that they're spelled the same way.

Moral: Don't post before noon.

[dogday]

9. Howard Dean and John Stewart in 2008

Now there is a ticket

[Debi]

10. I think it comes back to all the anti-Deans in office that repeatedly

told whoever would listen that Dean is only there (the DNC) to raise money and be a cheerleader. He doesn't speak for the Democrats in office and doesn't set policy. (Are you reading this Biden? Pelosi?)

So, the man goes on a show and is put on the spot regarding policy questions which he is not allowed to discuss b/c the Dem Leadership has attempted to neuter him.

He was funny and witty but muted when it came to Dem policies.

Shame.

[seabeyond]

11. i agree. made me think sc ruling. dems need to take a position

instead of letting repug define liberal

dean also is use to msm not wanting that

so maybe next time, dean who likes policy, can approach stewart another way. maybe........he can demand, (ya right i know wont work) msm to want more

i liked the moyer one the day before. that man is good

[ComerPerro]

13. I said the opposite in another thread

I have an issue with the "Dems' have no message" line, but for a different reason.

My problem with it is that the people accusing us don't have any solutions either.

With Iraq and with Social Security, the Republicans had no plan, just rhetoric that the media let them disguise as a plan.

So I was saying that we need to challenge them.

I mean, for Christ's sake, they are in power, they control the Executive and Legislative branches, you would think that they could pass something and get something done. Nothing is stopping them.

The biggest reason Bush SS "plan" died was because he couldn't get his own party to approve of it, because he never offered an actual proposal.

Yet at the same time they attacked us for having "no ideas".