Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert succeded where AAR Management failed.

[onehandle]

We loved the talent on AAR. Enjoyed their methods and antics. Even while AAR kept mothballing shows and talent that their most faithful listeners enjoyed the most.

Meanwhile, Stewart and Colbert (and their writers/producers) perfected the art of lampooning the corrupt, and a playful interview style of many of the same guests you'd hear on AAR. Much of the talent that passed through AAR also did this well, but the crappy management didn't understand how to market them.

You should have watched more Comedy Central, you putzs.

Hopefully AAR v3 may get it. Hopefully there will be a v3.

[Zensea]

1. Is it fair to compare two different mediums?

Television and radio are completely different.
Plus Stewart and Colbert are one show among many on Comedy Central, not the whole operation.
A more accurate comparison would be if Sirius was running an hour radio show each night to compare how that show did.
Even that would still not tell you much since television and radio are different mediums.

[Eric J in MN]

3. People know about "Comedy Central" as a basic cable channel,

...but don't necessarily know about the AM station playing "Air America Radio" in their town.

I wish a billionaire would put AAR on FM across the country, where people could find it more easily.

[Eric J in MN]

5. Comedy Central was around for 5 years before...

..."The Daily Show" debuted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comedy_Central#History

[onehandle]

6. I didn't mean the whole of comedy central.

That's just where Jon and Stewart happen to be.

[NYCGirl]

8. And The Daily Show with Kilborn wasn't NEARLY the big hit is is now with

Jon Stewart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Show#With_Craig_Kilborn_.281996.E2.80.931998.29

[onehandle]

9. What I meant is that Jon and Steven got the entertainment factor.

AAR management was all over the place and killed most of their most entertaining shows/talent.

Entertainment is the commonality, not the media itself.

And again, I'm not talking about Comedy Central. They just happen to be there.

[NYCGirl]

2. Apples and oranges. NT

[vickitulsa]

4. Finally AAR has my attention!

And if your analysis is as spot-on as I think it is, I might even find reason to hope that this time around (if they do get another chance), the ones who actually shaped the programming with their choices of talent, styles, particular subjects, however they worked it from the upper offices, will get it right.

Uh, that is ... oh hell, of all the horrible things the Wingnuts have done, robbing me of the normal use of the perfectly good word "RIGHT" shouldn't matter a lot but it does! :D


I certainly agree with you on your assessment of Stewart and Colbert!

[wyldwolf]

7. there used to be a fast food place near me that sold fried rabbit

...it didn't last long.

The problem with Air America is, and always was, the "menu."

Nothing can succeed in a medium where cash is king if the appeal of it is too narrow.

Air America Radio was created to be the counterpart to the Rush Limbaughs of the world. What they did instead was, with a few exceptions, hire a host of inexperienced leftwingers who often joined Limbaugh, Hannity, and their ilk in attacking the Democratic party and often sounded like a college-radio grade outfit.

Let’s take the now cancelled show Unfiltered with Rachel Maddow. First, and this is a big pet peeve of mine, they came across as cultural elitists. I cringed whenever they made condescending comments about certain types of music or artists I like, or movies and TV shows I’ve enjoyed. Were they trying to make their mainstream listeners feel culturally impaired by touting their superior entertainment knowledge or were they just trying to appeal to the 2% or so who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000?

This came across at no better time than on their Friday party machine segment when they played music no mainstream listener had ever heard or would ever hear, music I certainly would never play at my parties unless I wanted everyone to leave. And here I was thinking this was a political talk show!

But the one thing that REALLY turned me off to Unfiltered as well as several other Air American Radio Shows is they were quick to criticize Democrats. Now, I don’t feel any Democrat is above criticism - but doing so with literally millions listening won’t do anything to build support for the party and get rid of the GOP. Do you ever hear Limbaugh, Hannity, or Savage trashing the Republican party? Plus, it provided fodder for the rightwingers. Maddow really crossed the line on her last day on Unfiltered when she launched into an anti-Bill Clinton diatribe. With millions listening, she explained why the man who saved the Democratic party was really a bad president.

Way to go, Rachel! That’s how you convince the fence sitters to vote Democratic! Unfiltered was cancelled because of low ratings. Now you know why the ratings were low.

But Maddow wasn’t alone in her disdain for anything that isn’t far left simon-pure. Mike Malloy, the Left’s answer to rightwing wacko Mike Savage, believes he is a “traditional Democrat” (no, seriously, he believes that) but, as Wikipedia explains, he has basically withdrawn from the Democratic party and is now making overtures to the Green Party - those swell guys who cost Al Gore the election in 2000.

Other than liberal strongholds like Seattle, the Air America affiliate stations haven’t been a blazing success ratings-wise. As one observer noted, many on ARR were perfect depictions of the “angry left” charicature that’s been an anchor chained to the waists of Democrats. If AAR can manage to find talent who can “close the deal” with the not-yet convinced instead of preaching to an obviously very narrow choir, then they will be a success.

[Kahuna]

10. I agree with much of your post. Maddow, Flanders and Mark Riley

SUCK as on air personalities. Why? Because they don't have personalities. They go overboard with their "progressive" elitism. Only THEY know the "truth" and what's right according to them. All other stripes of liberals miss the mark if you hear them tell it. Well the truth is THEY miss the mark. They do not represent mainstream democrats, and are often insulting to them. People tire of listening to their overbearing preaching.

I cringe at the thought of listening to Maddow during my evening drive time. She was bad enough in the morning.

[JDPriestly]

13. AAR has made an unbelievably important impact on the

mood of the country. AAR has emboldened the Democratic base. AAR disseminated important information quickly -- information that was ignored by the mainstream press. AAR is building a listening base that is incredible. AAR is a good investment guys. It is the direction of the future.

Right now AAR is about rebellion and anger. That is because it is speaking for a base that is frustrated after many years of exclusion from the national government -- exclusion from virtually any meaningful role at the national level -- and the tragedy of what is the current government is doing to our country. The AAR anger will dissipate as Democrats gain some power, however small -- which they will very soon. The Democratic base is aching for the opportunity to do some good -- to work its magic on the country. AAR, like DU, has made many of us feel that we are not alone in our disgust at the Republican crimes against our country, against our Constitution, against our democracy.

I note that you do not talk about the mainstay of AAR, which is Al Franken. He is kind His show is informative. My only complaint about him is that, at some points he has given too much time to right-wingers. They have too much time on the air already.

Our local AAR station also carries Ed Schultz who is really great and speaks well for Democrats while giving all kinds of listeners a voice.

I don't believe that the problem for AAR was low ratings. I suspect it was low revenue due to too few high paying ads. Again the corporatist hand has smashed any voice that does not parrot its greedy views. Let's hope a Democratic Congress investigates the media monopolization that is going on. Let's see conservatives put their money where their mouths are with regard to the "free market" of the airwaves. AAR is the only nationwide radio voice for most of us liberals -- the only voice. Stewart and Colbert appear briefly on cable TV in the evenings. AAR was/is on morning (except infomercial times), noon and many nights (except when sports were on), when we are driving, when we are doing housework, going for walks, exercising, etc. We can turn AAR on and hear our AAR friends talking our language almost any time of day. Stewart and Colbert don't do that Stewart and Colbert vs. AAR radio. That's apples and oranges. Stewart and Colbert don't allow for calls from listeners to the extent needed.

As for the music. AAR is/was not a music station. There are enough music stations.

As for being too elitist. The activist core of the Democratic party is on the one hand the dwindling membership in unions and on the other the intelligent, well educated middle class teachers and lawyers and other professionals who earn their living through thought and communication. Our local AAR had a variety of programs aimed to appeal to each of those groups. The intellectuals of our country are the most frustrated and the most articulate. By appealing to them, AAR can reach more people faster.

Historically, it is the intellectual elite of a country (not just the U.S.) that leads a country forward. The business sector, the shopkeepers, are usually conservative, intent on securing themselves. They tend to live in yesterday's reality. It is the intellectuals who look forward, envision the future and grapple with planning for the future. The Bush administration has failed because it has shut out the true intellectual leaders of the country. Over and over, it failed to plan for the potential problems and looked backward to repeat strategies that worked in past realities. So, AAR is right to appeal to intellectuals.

[wyldwolf]

15. your entire reply is based on one fatal flaw

...that there is some mythological base of the Democratic party. The Dem party has always been a coalition of various mindsets. The "base" of any party is their single most reliable block of voters. "Progressives," who mistakenly believe they are the core constituent, or base, of the party have proven over time to be the least reliable block of voters in the party.

I certainly won't deny Air America has made an impact on further left "progressives," but that is a mighty small choir to be preaching to.

And as for the term "activists" - the Dem party has been made up of activists for decades. Canvassing and writing letters to the editor in bulk wasn't invented just recently.

[Solon]

16. Actually, I think its a different fatal flaw that shows why they can't...

turn a profit. That flaw is that while they TRY to counterbalance Rush Limbaugh, they didn't really try to do it the same way he does it. Rush gets syndication on ALREADY EXISTING RADIO STATIONS, nationwide, AAR tried to start their own station, and that is much more difficult. The overhead is enormous, for one, and second, they simply cannot reach their audience without the Internet, and internet radio, even though its been around for years, is still in its infancy. Satellite radio is also too small a niche.

Seriously, if Al Franken(a known moderate), were to get a syndicated radio show with about the same exposure as Rush Limbaugh, then he would be just as, if not more, popular. For one, he's funny, for two, he's truthful, and to be honest, nothing is funnier than the truth.

AAR simply doesn't have the exposure, period, and many bad decisions may still further doom it. The Daily Show, and Colbert Report actually are interesting in a way. First, for some reason, the folks who watch both shows do have a liberal bias, and the shows reflect that, however, more interesting is that they are able to compete with more established news shows that air at the same time. Some can claim that they are just entertainment, but even entertainment can be enlightening, and both shows seem to show more truth than most major network news stations.

If the Daily Show and Colbert Report are so highly rated, is the audience of progressives really that small?

[JDPriestly]

21. Why do you say that "Progressives" are the least reliable

of Democratic voters?

Yes, the Democratic Party is made up of people of different mindsets on specific issues. But, we share the same fundamental values.

With the exception of years that I lived overseas, I have voted Democratic since 1964. I am female, lower middle class and extremely well educated. I am the base of the Democratic Party. I've seen the Republican Party at work, and I do not like what I have seen. Talk about "evildoers." I have nowhere else to go but to the Democratic Party. I am a member of my local Democratic Club and have been a delegate to my state Democratic convention. I believe that qualifies me to boast that I am an activist, not just for liberal causes, but for the Democratic Party.

The majority of the members of our local Democratic Club are modestly paid professionals, government employees and union members -- in short, caregivers and people who keep the wheels of America turning. That is pretty much it. That is the active base of the Democratic Party. And we love AAR. Thank you very much. It talks our language, and we talk to our friends, co-workers and neighbors. That is how the good word spreads. It isn't how many people listen to AAR or even how many people like AAR that counts. What counts is how much influence AAR listeners have. And trust me. We have a lot of influence over the lives of the people we work with and for, our families and our neighbors. Keep AAR alive. That's what I say.

[wyldwolf]

27. because history has shown that to be so

The presidential elections of 1948 - when progressives split from the party to vote for Henry Wallace.

The Presidential election of 1968 - when progressives sat out the election and allowed Nixon to win.

The presidential election of 1980 - when progressives rallied around Ted Kennedy even into the second night of the convention.

The presidential election of 2000 - you know.

All over the blogosphere from KOS to DU to MoveOn "Don't vote for _______cause he/she is a dino!"

on and on.

I have voted Democratic since 1964. I am female, lower middle class and extremely well educated. I am the base of the Democratic Party.

Along with white males, black males, white females, black females, conservative southern Dems, northern liberal Dems, western populist Dems, etc. etc. of varying economic and professional background.

It isn't how many people listen to AAR or even how many people like AAR that counts.

That is exactly what counts.

What counts is how much influence AAR listeners have.

Completely unmeasurable and undocumented.

[sandyd921]

19. Great post JD!

I'm getting very tired of the many AAR naysayers on DU. We do need radio (and TV too) that speaks to intelligent, articulate, and rational folks. Thanks!

[beaconess]

18. I agree - another problem I had (maybe it's just me)

was that, unlike rightwinger knuckle-draggers, I get little out of listening to a host drone on and on and on in diatribe after diatribe - even if I agree with them. I want something a little more stimulating than hearing my opinion repeated back to me hour after hour.

For example, I love Randi Rhodes, but I get really tired of listening to her monologues, which seem to go on forever. And I find it annoying that the few times a Republican caller - the ones who have legitimate questions they're struggling with, not the ones who just want to pick a fight - phones in, she berates and belittles them, losing any opportunity to turn them (and other listeners) around.

The shows I enjoy most on AAR include interviews with some give-and-take and analysis that goes beyond "I hate them I hate them I hate them!!!"

We have to do better than just imitating the other side. Keith Olbermann has figured that out and does an outstanding job - he didn't become an O'Reilly clone, but instead, he gets his point across by using a totally different method, that includes hard news based on solid facts, thought-provoking analysis, challenging interviews and brilliant commentary. And he knocks it out of the park every night.

[sandyd921]

20. Progressive radio is more than Randi Rhodes.

I have a similar reaction to Randi. The monologues turn me off. I really prefer Thom Hartmann's mix of interviews, analysis, call-ins, and debating RWs and squashing their talking points. Randi is certainly not everyone's cup of tea although she has a large audience and appeals to lots of Democrats and progressives. However progressive radio is more than Randi or even Al Franken. I am getting pretty weary with those among us who deride the entire progressive radio enterprise based on individual shows or generalizations about the audience or lack thereof. I am a member of that audience and while I would love to see more Thom Hartmanns, I am thankful to actually have a media to counter the dominance of the reich wing and to hear people on the radio actually voice views similar to mine.

I cannot imagine going back to the way it was before AAR and progressive radio. I am hoping that AAR can get past its current financial and management problems and continue to offer progressive content. But AAR is not the whole of progressive radio and I am hopeful that the progressive content that it has launched and other progressive radio personalities such as Peter B. Collins and Stephanie Miller will continue on and that others will emerge.

[beaconess]

30. I agree 100%!

[OzarkDem]

28. OMG wyldwolf

I agree with you! Astute observations.

[Caution]

11. 30 minute show vs 24 hour format. TV vs Radio. Apples vs Oranges

And i personally can't stand Air America

[patricia92243]

12. Republicans use hate to get their message out - Democrats use humor to get

our message out. But, the humor has to be real. Jon & stephen are funny first and foremost - and then get the message across. If they were not funny, most of their listeners would never have listened to them - message or no message.

Radio and TV are different, but the one thing that will work on both mediums is humor. AAR - and lots of people - don't realize this. Democrats will not get their message out to the mainstream with out humor - anymore than the Republicans could get their message out without hate.

Oh, and by the way, humor and silly are not the same thing. I love Al Franken, but he is simply not funny enough to make his show much of a hit, plus one show on a whole network won't do it.

[stillcool]

14. I actually tuned in to both...

in much the same way. In the beginning, an avid listener/watcher, but of late ...sporadic. I guess it doesn't matter who's flinging the bullshit. A lighter shade of lie pisses me off as much, if not more than the blatant whoppers. Apparently truth does not have a high enough profit margin, although I don't recall it's ever being tried.

[vickitulsa]

17. I don't quite get all the "apples and oranges" remarks.

I do not see the situation in that frame. There are principles upon which almost any program trying to reach an audience in a talk/comedy/message delivery format would logically rely upon. The central principle that seems to sustain the majority of Dems and progressives I know -- and would be inviting (if done right) to most non-aligned, non-political Americans -- involves the HUMOR some have mentioned repeatedly in this thread.

When I first came to DU a year ago last July, one of my first posts was a comment about feeling frustrated that the public faces we had to represent "us" were now Michael Moore and Al Franken.

It's surprising to me now, but at that time, no one pounced on me for that remark. And one guy even went so far as to let me know -- in a post, not a PM -- that he understood exactly what I was talking about!

There are places for these guys in our big family, but I was bothered by the fact that these two were the most public of any public people from our side, the ones most folks had heard of and heard from. They both have their helpful traits -- certainly MM is bright and busy and fearless, while AF is, as someone pointed out, kind, and he's funny but not LOL funny usually -- maybe because he's TOO kind.

Humor is based, generally speaking, on poking fun at someone else's pain or misfortune, even if it's only in a gentle way or purely to provide situational structure, IMO. Some of the best humor is the self-deprecating kind, but if that results in lefties attacking fellow lefties, we hurt ourselves. We can recognize our own foibles and shortcomings and laugh at ourselves, a capacity the R's have ZIP of, but we must maintain our rep for intelligence and perspective in more somber areas, too, and avoid eating each other's young.

A lot is required in order for AAR or any other progressive or Dem medium to succeed. I agree with the comment that a variety of presentations are needed to appeal to a wide range and large audience, to draw in the fence-sitters and a-political types. Many if not most of those folks are now VERY concerned about our country and could swallow the "medicine" a lot easier if it were offered with some laughs that release the tension and promote healing and positive change.

I can't imagine anything that would more quickly repulse someone giving AAR a fresh chance than to have intellectual or elitist snobbery thrown in their faces. Insult people and expect them to like it? Like Rush and the dittoheads? IMO won't work for our side.

Nor would we want that sort of life for ourselves.

Sadly, I have a real hard time even managing to tune in AAR because I live in Tulsa and our radio bands are crammed with hatemongers from the right and fundie preachers but permits only PBI-NPR otherwise, as far as talk radio goes. My computer can't handle streaming well enough for me to listen that way -- primarily because I am pretty much a shut-in and have to use my PC for a lot of other things all day too. Can only run so much at once without screwing up the radio streams.

Frankly, I'm still happy with NPR overall -- and there IS still a great deal of terrific stuff for us there. Again, a variety of programming that appeals to many different types and moods, both in talk and in music.

But there are no "comedy firebrands" leading the charge in our behalf, taking us along because we support it. Or them. Closest thing may be some of the regular anchor shows, including Garrison Keillor and the PHC gang -- yet they too devote large segments of their time to enjoyable downhome entertainment and non-political humor.

I listen to the gearheads on Cartalk and LOVE Ira Flatow and Science Fridays plus other Talk of the Nation programming.

I am very concerned that CPB/PBS on television and PBI/NPR on radio may both be reduced drastically by cuts to funding by the * administration, and if we lose them .... well, I think we're in worse trouble than we want to admit.

The TV universe has many alternatives to offer, but radio? Hey, we all KNOW what's out there -- that's why we're trying to find SOME WAY to have AAR succeed!

I'm all for figuring it out ... but whether we could ever get a complete product up and running with a great plan and fine talent, like a full grown adult being born instantly, I'm not sure. Just doesn't seem plausible.

Gotta give the baby time to grow and develop! But unless it's appealing enough to entice others to FEED AND CHANGE IT, it won't thrive. :)

[JDPriestly]

23. Interesting. I do not like NPR. It is too low-key. Too polite.

The voices bore me. The subject matter is pretentiously "objective." Come on now. Where is the energy. They all sound tired of it all -- and the combination of tiredness, pretentiousness and pseudo-objectivity conveys cynicism, big-time cynicism. That is what is really "unacceptable." With the world in the peril it is in thanks to the Bushies, cynicism on the part of our newscasters encourages voters to stay home. We deserve people who care, people who let voters know how important it is for them to participate and then to vote. Olberman is an excellent example of someone who tells the truth with passion.

Randi Rhodes embraces some crazy ideas, but she makes me think. I don't agree with a lot of the opinions the AAR hosts, but as long as they are giving me information and viewpoints I don't find elsewhere, I am happy. The talk is stimulating. I don't expect to agree with others all the time or even to think they are doing the right thing in their programs all the time. I want to listen and then make up my own mind.

Please, somewhere among the umpteen country music, Spanish language, religious, pop and right-wing extremists, there has to be room for AAR, even if some of its broadcasts are outrageous. None of the AAR hosts even approach Limbaugh, O'Reilly or Hannity for stupidity and lies. All of the AAR hosts are more willing to hear out callers who disagree with them than are Limbaugh, O'Reilly or Hannity.

As for broadcasting liberal talk shows on other stations. Until AAR proved there is a listener base, there was no market for liberal talk shows to speak of. There was a myth that liberal talk shows would not work. That there was no listener base. Keep AAR alive.

[vickitulsa]

29. I so much appreciate your low-key, polite argument in response,

and thanks for expressing your passion in a manner I can listen to without bristling! --See, I have passion, too -- plenty of it. But it's so very hard to demonstrate clearly in typed words and is probably much easier on the radio.

I mean that thank-you ... and I comprehend your points. It seems to me that in the end we have a different preference in the tone and volume our "presenters" use. I'm 57 and am not really comfortable anymore with the increasingly disjointed, fast-paced, and "herky jerky" manner in which everyone does everything these days!

I do indeed enjoy the low-key approach, civil tones, and a reasonable level of courtesy among human beings, whether I'm participating in a discussion or just listening to it. I like continuity, and perseverance, and listening to thinkers who can put together complex puzzle pieces with clarity.

But I'm not at all stuck-up or pseudo-intellectual or pseudo-anything, for that matter. I don't like hosts of programming that are, either! I'm about the most relaxed, easy to talk to person you could meet -- people have confirmed this to me all my life. My friends would also tell you that at the same time I'm passionate about life and about improving the world I live in and the lot of others in it.

I'm so tired of all the shouting and discourtesy on every public medium these days! People yell in each other's faces; they try to talk louder than the other guy, with so much crosstalk it's a waste of time. I just don't get a damn thing out of such "discussions." Egos are too big, residing in small minds that can't accommodate them! :)

I certainly was appalled the first time I heard Rush Limbaugh, years ago, on the radio. He didn't shout too often but he was certainly a bigmouth from the start, rude to callers, snide to his listening audience, offensive and insulting without let-up -- and sometimes even to those who were calling to say they agreed with him!

He has been succeeded by some who are even worse in all those respects -- or maybe others gave him the idea, it's hard to be sure. Still, with so many Americans who apparently love being called "dittoheads" (which is and should be taken as a huge INSULT) and who enjoy being scolded and incited to riot by a frothing idiot whose only "talent" is for pumping up hatred ... I'm just at a loss to explain what's gone wrong with my country and its people!

And please don't get me wrong -- I do feel there is a place for an AAR out there, and I would listen to it if I could and if I don't hear wackos hollering at me and each other on their airwaves. Why can't we have both NPR and AAR, with different approaches and styles but a common interest in getting the truth out to the people?

I agree with you about Keith Olbermann, of course, but you notice he doesn't shout to convey his passions. Rather he is subdued but intense, emanating seriousness as well as he radiates good humor at other times.

I wish we could clone the guy!

Obviously I disagree with your assessment of NPR's people, though -- the hosts there don't seem tired of it all or cynical in the least. Diane Rheem is my least favorite and I don't listen to her much, but other hosts are much livelier and expressive. They DO make ME think! And in recent times I note an urgency in their efforts to counter the propaganda machine of this administration.

It was on NPR that I heard an interview a year ago of Bill Kristol, and he was compelled to admit his boy George had made a thorough wreckage of Iraq since day one of the invasion. He carefully avoided accepting blame himself for having promoted the invasion in the first place; but even that dodge was obvious to listeners because the interviewer wouldn't let him get away with it.

Decreased civility and courtesy in the world have degraded it, IMO. But hey, I'm not the "new wave," and I won't be inheriting the culture of the future ... that's for the younger folks now. I see my position in a transition, but I'm not unhappy that I was able to live in both the exciting, promising times of the Sixties when I was young and vibrant and much later in a bona fide progressive period during WJC's terms in office.

Always, to me, there have been the "loudmouths" in the mix out there who are trying to outshout each other to gain attention for themselves and their ideas, but now it seems rudeness is becoming the norm. I'm all for passion -- just not for nonsensical blather or hate-filled speech at high volume! :)

I still think there's a role for different voices with disparate styles from within "our" ranks.

Actually, I think Atomic Kitten may have said it all in a few choice words -- AAR had a bad game plan, it didn't work, back to the drawing board!

Just hope they get a chance to give it another shot, and that they've learned a lot from their efforts and mistakes so far. There's a lot of promise there, and we need all the passion and persistence we can muster. Hope civility doesn't get left behind altogether, though, or everyone will be poorer for it.

And thanks for the excellent discussion, all of you! I've learned a lot in this one.

I so love DU and the people who make it the special place it is! :loveya: :thumbsup:

[ihelpu2see]

22. I really hope AAR can survive and I hope Rachel Maddow sticks around

Monday, I am contacting them about advertising my business on a local affiliate.

[JDPriestly]

24. Thanks. Great album.

[Kahuna]

26. Why should Rachel stick around? If she was effective in terms

of bringing in revenue why do they keep shifting her shift? They should shift her out the door instead of trying to force her onto people who just aren't interested in what she has to say.

[AtomicKitten]

25. They simply didn't have a good business plan.

Back to the drawing board.

[oc2002]

31. I agree with the original poster, AAR should watch Stewart and Colbert

..they know how, now the (miss) manegment should see how its done.