Colbert nearly flops

[Autonomy]

Am I the only one who thinks Colbert did not do that well tonight? Maybe I expect too much because I think he's a genius. His background is in sketch comedy and interviewing 1-on-1, not standup, and I thought it showed. Not that there weren't funny momenets, but his performance just seemed off the mark.

Who was he tonight? Was he Stephen Colbert the character, or the real Stephen Colbert? He vacillated between the two, and it kind of blew it for me. He also seemed nervous and totally flubbed a joke. The Hindenburg reference and others weren't in character...

Some here might say his audience doesn't matter, but he almost totally lost his audience, and that matters in all public speaking, especially comedy.

[mike_c]

1. ...

:popcorn:

[linazelle]

2. LOL. You're hilarious. n/t

:rofl:

[WindRavenX]

naw, just stupid

Flopped? My ass.

[newsguyatl]

196. u're rude

can't take someone else's opinion?

[WindRavenX]

209. It's not a matter of opinion

If you can't take into consideration that the context of why the audience wasn't receptive is because they are the people is mocking, that is a failure to comprehend humor.
You can certainly say he wasn't appealing to you as an individual, but if you can't grasp why the audience wasn't receptive-- that's a lack of comprehension. Simple as that.

[rzemanfl]

3. Huh? You have got to be kidding! He kicked ass and took

names.

[montana500]

4. It was an editorial, not a comedy routine.

Laughter was not the measure of success.

[amitten]

15. Thank you. This man only wore the comedy mask half-on

tonight.

He took full advantage of his moment in the sun to say what's needed to be said for years now: Bush is an incompetent mindless photo-op whore of a murderer. Period.

[Rose Siding]

34. That's a great way to put it

This man only wore the comedy mask half-on

I laughed with tears in my eyes.

Hearing that someone wants a cue to laugh, like a track for a sit-com is so insulting!

[amitten]

42. It needed to be done, and he did it. It wasn't comfortable, or

funny.

But it was sooooooooooo overdue.

[adigal]

172. Absolutely right - and those in power

the president and the generals and the press, all in bed together during this madadministration, were not comfortable at the mirror Colbert held up.

Told the Press Corps that they could go home and write about an intrepid reporter who holds the admin to account, a book of FICTION.

Told the Generals that they are brave, sending our troops into war while standing by their computer screens (my personal favorite!)

Told Bush that he has used 9/11's rubble, an aircraft carrier, and New Orleans for his personal photo ops.

Colbert was brave, brilliant and deserves the Medal of Freedom.

[Jara sang]

208. Bullshit, I was on the floor laughing my ass off.

My girlfriend too.

[CatWoman]

5. he didn't flop nearly as badly as this thread

[JI7]

13. HAHAHHAHAHHAH

yup

[NVMojo]

6. excellent sarcasm, Autonomy!

[incapsulated]

7. Are you fucking kidding me??

:rofl:

[RoyGBiv]

8. Yes, you are...

As for audiences, you realize, of course, that those who watched on television *were* the audience. He didn't lose anything.

That man stood up there in a hostile room he knew was hostile and figuratively told them they were all stooges to an idiot. And thousands of people, far more than were in that room, roared in approving laughter.

[TomInTib]

14. Bingo! nt

[Swamp Rat]

28. MILLIONS more are roaring in laughter right now and

it will be hundreds of millions by next week.

[Richard Steele]

92. And in 100 years, 5th-graders will be memorizing tonight's routine...

...for school, like they used to recite the "Gettysburg Address"
back when I was a kid.

This was HISTORY made tonight, folks.

The Little DictatorTot was held captive and forced to hear some TRUTH,
for the first time in years.

[Swamp Rat]

96. I bet he is SCREAMING and throwing things in the White House right now.

:D

I love the digs he got in on Snotty McClellan, T-T-T-Tony S-S-SS-Snow and F-F-FFOX News!

[Tin Man]

237. LOL, and as always - excellent work, SwampRat !!!

After McClellan, perhaps the * administration should have just created a computer generated spokesperson - programmed to lie with composure and without remorse...

[tenshi816]

158. "DictatorTot" - Love it! n/t

[blonndee]

9. He seemed NERVOUS?? I think not.

Besides, Steven had a higher purpose. THAT is crystal clear. And um, look how well he went over with his audience--us!

[amitten]

10. Very little of this bit was meant to be hilarious.

His comments, only at times thinly veiled as satire, were meant to provoke.

The audience was quiet for one good reason: He was speaking the truth. Plainly. In front of everybody, balls to the wall. If you were laughing, you weren't listening.

[Judi Lynn]

163. It appears some people have a very narrow view of what is possible

from a comedian!



I really appreciate your even tone and clarity. Very skillful.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. WTF? Were you watching CSPAN-Twilight Zone?

Because in the universe in which I watched Colbert, he was freaking brilliant. One of the finest satiric performances I've ever seen. If he lost his "audience" it's only because they finally figured out he was punking them along with Bush. And, of course, if they'd been seen laughing they'd be relegated to the back rows of the briefing room and never called on. The other audience, that being US, thought it was magnificent. Stephen Colbert is the bravest man in America. And one of the funniest.

[SnoopDog]

12. No. kicked ass...

Anybody who is a real patriot and Democrat saw him as such...!:hi:

[LiberalPartisan]

16. The audience flopped not Colbert

And he called them on it - 'for 5 years things were great and then you started asking questions.'

[Swamp Rat]

17. The Chimperor has no clothes

[OhioChick]

18. You've got to be kidding, right?

:popcorn:

[gristy]

19. It wasn't supposed to be funny!

And Colbert's audience wasn't in the room! First as part of TDS, then with his own show, and now at the WHCD, Colbert is bringing a new kind of performance art to us. And while confusing, unsettling, and sometimes NOT FUNNY, it is most certainly BRILLIANT.

[amitten]

44. Ditto. This is not funny ha-ha. This is funny "WHAT IN THE

HELL IS HAPPENING IN THIS COUNTRY? WAKE! UP!"

God bless him for it, too.

[Yupster]

149. Yeah, he was supposed to be funny

I think a lot of people commenting on how great Colbert was haven't ever seen a Whitehouse Correspondents Dinner before. The stuff they're saying Colbert did is the same thing that's done every year.

The paid entertainer has a reputation to live up to from past dinners. He has to be in the president's face and they always are. They always either go right up to the line, or they go over it. There are always groans and embarrassed oohs from the audience.

They're usually funnier than this one was though. I thought this one was one of the weaker ones I've seen.

As far as Bush goes, Bush is reacting the same way he's reacted to all the other ones I'm sure.

Clinton used to really enjoy them, or at least he acted like he did. He would laugh loudly at the best jokes, and would heave over in laughter when they were directed at him. Even the Monica jokes right in his face, he would laugh and say something like "got me" or "good one" to the commedian who would kind of look at him defensively.

Bush makes no pretense. He hates these things and wishes he wouldn't have to do them. He makes the least effort he must, doesn't even pretend to laugh or enjoy himself, and I'm sure doesn't give it a second's thought once he's out of the room, or probably while he's in it either.

Anyway my rating is pretty typical WHCD speech by the paid entertainer, probably in the bottom half of the ones I've seen - no big deal either way.

[BlackVelvetElvis]

20. A kiss from Helen is not a flop.

Steven was on top tonight.
Measure the power of his satire by the response he got from George and Laura.
The impersonator got a better response from George than Steven did and Steven owned him.

[mduffy31]

21. It is sad

I knew that that this thread could be found on here tonight. It is so predictable. What were you looking for a Don Imus like performance. Now I love both Colbert and Imus for that matter, but you have to know the audience.

[Epiphany4z]

22. I loved it

I thought it was great. I am amazed he got away with it and think he must have trouble walking with balls that big...but it was great in my book.

I will agree he probably made the audience at the dinner a bit uncompfee..but hell they had it coming.

[kansasblue]

23. I didn't find him all that funny because

he was so on target. The jokes were so cutting about matters so important: Global heating, war, corruption, lies. I thought it was powerful. edgy. courageous.

I do agree that in an attempt to be sooooo cutting he sometime crossed out his 'Fox Reporter' role. But in the end it was a truthful sarcastic look and the current state of affairs. It looks like he gave up on being funny and was attempting to save the country.

[American liberal]

37. aaaaaaaaaaaaahhh... I think I finally understand...

Colbert's persona is as a FOX correspondent! Please bear with me: I don't have cable TV, so only watch his clips occasionally online--mostly when you guys alert me to an especially good segment.

I probably would have appreciated his "schtick" better if I was more familiar with his character, 'cause, honestly, I found him to be a little too sarcastic for my taste. I mean, he covered just about every attrocity committed by the current admin., but the sarcasm was lost on me. I think I have a grasp now. Thanks!

[Ms. Clio]

144. He started out by deliberately linking himself with Bush

"I'm just like you, Mr. President." A simple man with a simple mind. Who relies on his gut instead of his head. Etc. It was glorious.

[DoYouEverWonder]

162. His whole character

is modeled after Bill O'Reilly.

[SoCalDem]

235. He did what Jon Stewart did on Crossfire.

His personna was as "comedian", so he was invited on, and was expected to "be funny"..

What Jon did and what Stephen did last night was a trojan horse maneuver. They presented as one thing, and then unloaded on the stunned audience.

Why did they do it?

because it NEEDED doing, and no one esle ever does it. Cable has 24-7 to report on important things, and they NEVER do (unless it's a screaming head confrontation that is all heat and no light)..

The state of news in America is such that comedians and actors feel compelled to throw the dice with their own careers in order to try and get some "truthiness" out there. It HAS to be on LIVE tv since any "unruly" comments can be and are edited out of taped appearances.

No doubt he was nervous last night..Only HE knew what he was about to do..(well his wife and Jon and probably George Clooney knew :)..)

[amitten]

45. Exactly. He's a media hero. n/t

[seabeyond]

24. i thought his delivery was poor. i listened to people thread after thread

i was excited and watched the re run. yes i thought it was a poor performance. he did say a lot of gutsy stuff, and it shook up a lot of people. i saw peoples hands up on mouth like in surprise and oh shit kinda position. i thought the thomas tape was poor. but i like that he said the things he did. feel a bet sorry for him it didnt go more smoothly. and this is against many other posters i respect tons.... after reading their posts tonight. jsut being honest, from my perspective

[Autonomy]

52. I can't buy the "his audience was the TV audience"

because he's on TV four days a week, and this was not the same Stephen Colbert. I laugh at his jokes and interviews non-stop when I watch his show, and I was as stoney faced as his audience during a large part of tonight's performance. I even winced a few times. Yeah, the Thomas tape wasn't that good. Poor production value. The whole thing left me confused as to who he was supposed to be.

As far as cutting edge satire, I thought it was mostly predictable stuff. There was nothing there as far as satire that hadn't been done before. Smirky seemed willing to go at least as far in making fun of himself.

Oh, and for everyone who's offended by my not agreeing with you, get over it. It's just a comedy routine, even if it had editorial elements, and this is just a performance review.

[redacted]

62. Comedy is very subjective. And the delivery mechanism was strange

being that it was live, but we saw it on tv. It was comedy behind a podium.

Also, because it's not his reg audience, he had to step out of character at times (otherwise it wouldn't have been as biting). But you could see the difference between the character and Stephen.

onedit: his audience was not the tv audience, his audience was the lying sack of crap leader of the free world and the press that is afraid of him. They didn't think it was funny, because they got his message loud and clear. But the rest of us were laughing/cheering him on.

The whole thing was very brechtian. Go Colbert.

[Old and In the Way]

67. I didn't laugh much either.

And I'm perfectly happy with his performance. There is nothing particularly funny about this administration, IMHO. Really, all Steven did was to reiterate the facts in the way the Washington media spins for this administration. The people there were completely embarassed to have themselves reflected back on them. The Washington media has propped up this administration by spinning the truth or ignoring it completely. Steve reminded them, painfully, of what the Press has become in Washington.

[adigal]

174. So Bush made fun of the fact that he stood on a pile of rubble

at the WTC site and used it as a photo-op? You were not watching the same performance as I was, that's for certain.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

223. If you thought it was just a comedy routine, you missed the point entirely

[Media_Lies_Daily]

221. "Delivery was poor"?? "Sorry...it didn't go more smoothly"??....

Yikes.

Just curious, but who do you think made up most of his live audience? Do you think they were going to laugh knowing that the chances were good that they'd be picked up on camera? You do understand how the NeoCons deal with disloyalty, don't you?

"Poor performance"?? Oh, my.

[seabeyond]

232. you know i watched it on cspan,. the feed was bad. i watched again

this morning and it wasnt nearly as bad looking as watching last night. and.... i heard a lot more laughing than i did from the cspan show. i dont know what site gave the link to see, but it presented itself much better thru that feed and people were laughing thru most of it that couldnt be heard watching cspan.

just for clarification

but..... i tried to be as sensitive as i could in my critique. i love colbert and i watch regularly on tv and think he is genius. i especially liked the one the other night telling us women to fight for the man, send us out of room cause mad and then said how males are doing good job foolin women to get what they want. totally clever. i dont think we HAVE to get pissy about everything. sometimes someone may just have differing views.

but it was much more clear, and not as disjointed as what i saw on the cspan feed. and i did hear laughter thru out most of it. not as uncomfortable feeling as the first time i saw. and.... i specifically went back to watch to see what i missed

[Brothaman2k]

25. You have a point...

But I think it was just that the audience was uncomfortable cuz they knew Bush was getting pissed. That was that "sympathy" I talked about.

And the tv audience weren't in the hall to laugh, that's the problem with that argument. But it was funny, he just left them blown away cuz it wasn't what they were expecting. Don't know what they were expecting, but that wasn't it...lol.

[titoresque]

26. thats a good one!

" Colbert did not do that well tonight? " :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: He also seemed nervous and totally flubbed a joke. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

GOOD ONE! :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[NYC Liberal]

27. Of course the audience didn't laugh...THEY WERE THE ONES HE WAS

SKEWERING!

Really, it was more stinging satire than laugh-out-loud comedy (although I DID laugh out loud) directed at Bush and all the media that was in the audience.

[savemefromdumbya]

224. Right on!

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. I completely agree

It was painful to watch. Probably only people on DU would appreciate it, and some would find it cringe-inducing.

Many here are celebrating, seeing this as speaking truth to power or some such. Speaking truth to power - those great moments of confrontation in history - also require a sense of the occasion. This missed, and mightily. Yes, yes, it's all, that's what I would have said, etc., but there was definitely something way off about the whole thing. If anything, I think non-Duers watching would be pushed to feel sympathy for the targets of the speech, and that is definitely not a good thing.

[jane_pippin]

32% approval.

I don't think it's just DUers who would get a kick out of seeing tonight's performance.

[alcibiades_mystery]

38. Just sayin'

I think DUers are misreading this thing pretty wildly.

[fooj]

49. Actions have consequences.

It's time they take responsibility for their behavior.

[alcibiades_mystery]

53. Um

OK.

[jane_pippin]

55. Well, maybe. But here's how I see it:

1. 32% approval
2. Those watching live were probably c-span nerds or Colbert nerds, or both. In other words, people who follow these things and have some kind of expectation of how one or both operates. (On DU I'd guess many of us are familiar with both the event and Stephen).
3. If people who see clips of it, (say on the Today Show or some goofy show), are offended by it then fine, Colbert suffers some backlash, maybe. But if that happens some other scandal will pop up soon enough and it will be forgotton. And I'd bet that if there is any backlash it won't effect his fan base anyway since his fan base is made up of "it-getters," as Colbert calls them.
4. 32% approval. The majority in this country is down on George and maybe that means they'd enjoy seeing him skewered.

I see your point but I don't think it's worth worrying about. He did seem a little flat, but I think it's because the audience wasn't laughing like mad during the performance. I don't think it's that he flopped. I think it's that the audience didn't get it or wasn't willing to go there with him so their lack of wild laughter made a strong performance seem flat. That's their loss, in my opinion.

[anitar1]

154. I was not put on earth to please other people. I have my own

opinions and don't give a rip if "other people" are upset by Colbert. He spoke for me tonight.

[alcibiades_mystery]

167. Good luck with that

Cheers.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

226. Good luck with your own comments.

[alcibiades_mystery]

231. Thanks!

:-)

[Gabi Hayes]

71. try reading the transcript here someplace. I didn't laugh during the TV..

presentation, but I LOLed MANY times as I read some of his lines

try it that way

[NYC Liberal]

86. Please. People are beyond sympathy for this guy at this point

and it shows in their approval...or lack thereof...of pretty much everything he does. When was the last time his approval went up? Has B*sh gotten sympathy recently when Dems have slammed him on his lies and incompetence? NO.

there was definitely something way off about the whole thing

How was it "off"?

[WinkyDink]

175. Then Bush's ratings might rise to...33%?

[alcibiades_mystery]

176. Oh, I don't think we'll see a significant rise in ratings over it

...

[Protagoras]

192. I respectfully disagree.

Thankfully we can still do that. I thought Colbert was great and I know I'm far from alone in that opinion. I also thought the Impersonator was pretty funny.

[BeHereNow]

30. Autonomy...What ARE you smoking?

That broadcast will go down in history.
Colbert was BRILLIANT.
He spoke the truth as NO one has yet.
Is the truth funny?
Not at all.
That is why it was a stoke of genuis to have
him, of all people, present it.
Kudos to who ever had the courage and influence pull it off.
Bush and his cohorts walked out of that
dinner completely humiliated.
BHN

[Rosemary2205]

31. It was painful to watch

I think Colbert was nervous. Who'd blame him. This doesn't change the fact that he was BRILLIANT! I doubt he expected much encouragment from the audience in attendence. He didn't set out to tickle their funny bone, he set out to whip their collective asses.

[BigBearJohn]

66. I can't wait to see the aftermath of tonite's performance.. PSHEW WOOF

[SeveneightyWhoa]

236. Painful to watch?

Are you sure you're not mistaking Dubya for Colbert?

[me b zola]

32. Kind of like Steward on Crossfire, eh?

The boneheads on Crossfire weren't laughing either while they were being called out.

[hlthe2b]

41. Yeah... when Steward said "he was not their monkey..."

when they tried to get him to play the affable comic...

I think Colbert decided to adopt a similar approach tonight...

[Supersedeas]

246. to me, that is the importance of the piece--not the wheres the funny

[Maven]

33. You only think he flopped because the audience was afraid to laugh.

This is why canned laughter works--social dynamics. In reality, his performance was sharp as a tack. I was going wild in front of my TV, as were most other DUers from the looks of things.

[Robbien]

35. The lapdogs in the audience didn't want to displease their master

How do they sleep at night.

[lpbk2713]

36. ©

®

[splat@14]

39. IMO, I don't think he flopped at all. You could tell however, that he

made everyone uncomfortable with his "truthiness". He got great applause at his intro and I agree he may have succumbed to some nervousness during his delivery and didn't seem to have the crowd's support. But, he stuck to it and said what he had planned regardless of the audience participation. Actually, I was disappointed in the audience. They should have been rolling in the aisle. As the audience is the press, That illustrates the problem with the press and their approach to this administration.....they cower when they should press for the truth. They did tonight except for Cobert (& Helen Thomas)

Colbert should have had a standing ovation.

[amitten]

47. Well, he got one from me. n/t

[BeHereNow]

48. He got a standing ovation from my house!

And I am certain MILLIONS of other people
watching.
He nailed them and HARD.
I don't think much of what he said was funny, because
it was too close to the truth- but that is EXACTLY
why he succeeded in my point of view.
He made the most of an opportunity to speak
for the rest of us.
God Bless Colbert.
BHN

[splat@14]

58. Exactly, thanks! It isn't funny.....people are dying. n/t

[blonndee]

56. There were quite a few who were! Mostly I think they were shocked

like we were. It's painful to see this kind of thing, no matter how much we hate Dumbass and the lapdogs. It's uncomfortable and unexpected because it's so true. And the truth isn't funny these days.

[AmericanDream]

40. Lincoln's gettysburg address got no applause! This was satire at its best

Gosh, wait till MoDo gets her hands on this. Wait till KO puts this on his show. This was the real deal. This is what satire is about - confronting social realities with a coating of humor. This was brilliant - the audience was the target, he made them feel guilty, he made them realize their shame. This IS historic.

This wasn't for the laughs - this was some classic satire, not mere sarcasm or wit. Wow.

I can only hope that the media will realize the truth at the bottom of the comedy. Colbert was doing the same thing Stewart tried to do on crossfire - but Colbert was lightyears ahead of Stewart on this one. He is a master.

[American liberal]

46. really, to my taste, it was way more sarcasm than satire... n/t

[RoyGBiv]

74. Satire, sarcasm, and irony ...

These are all interconnected tools of the satirists trade.

[American liberal]

185. I understand that satire uses ridicule, sarcasm, and irony...

It just seemed to me that it was too heavy on the sarcasm to be considered satirical. I'll have to watch it again now that I understand Colbert's context better. I don't have cable and am, therefore, a bit of a laggard.

[amitten]

50. Yes. Totally brilliant. He didn't take this lightly. The man was on

a mission, and it was accomplished. Actually.

[FrannyD]

43. He was great

The audience was lost alright, but it wasn't his fault.

[amitten]

51. They weren't lost. They were shocked. And I'm very happy. n/t

[kestrel91316]

61. And they were SHAMED by him.

[amitten]

64. Not a hard thing to do. n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

54. Funny. You Must Be The Only One More Focused On His Delivery Than His

content right now.

Don't you get it? He wasn't trying to be a comedian tonight. He was using that persona as a springboard to smash the hell out of this administration in as witty and blunt of a way I've seen ever.

This wasn't about humor, delivery, or comfort. It was all about the content. You were listening to it I hope?

[alcibiades_mystery]

59. But delivery always matters in public address

And you can't "smash the hell out of" anything without it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

60. Best You Could Do Is Cliches?

:eyes:

Let me make this clearer for ya, k?

His delivery was fine. His content was stellar, shocking, and refreshing. It was an amazing moment. Anyone who doesn't think that's the most important part of his segment has their priorities all sorts of fucked up.

I hope that was easier to grasp.

[Autonomy]

73. I just didn't see anything all that new, clever, or earthshaking

I've seen it all before on the late night talk shows, standup routines, music, Internet, and a million other sources. There was nothing all that earthshaking as far as content. Two years ago, then yeah. But now, it was pedestrian. There's been worse said about Bush in front of Bush in public before, as well. I have to side with those who are saying that DUers are overestimating the value of the content, and underestimating the mediocrity of the delivery.

[fudge stripe cookays]

81. Blase is as blase does.

The man did an amazing job. If there was anything "mediocre" about the delivery, perhaps it was because he was trying to keep his cool arrogant persona, when knowing that just as he's achieved celebrity he could be torpedoing it for stating his beliefs. Knowing these assholes, he could even be putting his life in danger.

"Nothing at all earthshaking?!"" What the fuck have you been smoking? IT wasn't what he said. It was who he said it in front of. Bush is constantly insulated from hearing the anger of the American public, and the media are complicit in it.

Tonight they BOTH got slapped in the face.

Why don't you go put on some nice "I Love Lucy" episodes. You seem to need that canned laughter to convince you something is funny.

[Autonomy]

88. "Trying to keep his cool arrogant persona"

He tried, but didn't pull it off.

As far as "who he said it in front of"... so what? I guess I am the only one who is not so impressed with George W. Bush that I think any criticism made to the man's face is a major coup. Besides, this isn't 2004; we've seen him ridiculed to his face before several times in the past year or so. Colbert doesn't get a prize just for showing up. He could have done better.

[fudge stripe cookays]

93. That's what I said.

If you were to get up on a dais KNOWING you were getting ready to skewer the leader of the Western world, you probably wouldn't be able to keep up the persona either. It's called nerves, genius. He is human.

But I see you're much cooler than the rest of us. The next time you speak to the Press Club and bitingly rip into the administration without any hesitation, flubs, or obvious nervousness, you make sure to let me know. I want to be there to heckle you.

[Autonomy]

94. Ah, the "he did better than you could do" response

I've not heard that in a while. It's been years since I've been in the 3rd grade. I know this now to be called argumentum ad hominem, but back then I just called it stupid.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sugarcoated]

220. There was nothing wrong with the delivery

That's how he always delivers. And he didn't seem nervous, he's always like that. Even when he screwed up the delivery on one joke, he covered for it very well. He wouldn't have been able to pull that off if he was real nervous.

Comedy, like all art, is subjective, and some people won't "get it", or it's just not their thing. It's why there's chocolate and vanilla . . . and rum raison for that matter. My husband isn't a "Du'er" and he doesn't usually go crazy for Colbert, but he thought it was brilliant and was very amused - says he's a big fan now. And I'm sure that not all the posters on the Colbert thread at Huffington Post aren't all "people in the bubble", or Du'ers, and he's getting major props over there.

It think it's just you Autonomy.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

227. Sounds like a personal attack to me. Why is your post still here?

[alcibiades_mystery]

169. Dind Ding Ding

Not to mention the lunatics here who think Colbert is in danger because of his performance. When you're dealing with that kinda crazy it's rarely any use making an argument.

[NightOwwl]

102. Hello?

When has anyone ever said anything even remotely negative in front of Bush? When has anyone ever criticized Lord Pissypants to his face?

What Colbert did was an act of incredible bravery, no exaggeration.

[Judi Lynn]

166. His not celebrated tolerance for dissent was illuminated as soon as

he stole the pResidency, and immediately constructed all areas where anyone might show up to protest his policies as "free speech zones" located blocks, if not a mile away!

He made it impossible to hear anything remotely unflattering by choosing to speak ONLY in front of hand-picked Republican audiences from the very first.

Makes you wonder where some of these people have been all this time!

[WinkyDink]

177. Where, "in front of Bush"? Name the event. And then read some

Jonathan Swift.

[alcibiades_mystery]

168. Thanks for clearing that up for me

Now you are even more clearly wrong.

cheers.

[leftofthedial]

57. talk about vacillating between two personas . . .

[Neil Lisst]

63. If by "flop" you mean "hilariously successful," then yes

[redacted]

65. Very Brechtian. One for the home team.

His audience was not the tv audience, his audience was the lying sack of crap leader of the free world and the press that is afraid of him. They didn't think it was funny, because they got his message loud and clear. But the rest of us were laughing/cheering him on.

The whole thing was very Brechtian. Go Colbert.

ps. Went through Northwestern in the same program as Colbert. A few years behind. Didn't really know him, but we had common friends.

He's really f'ing smart and he knew exactly what he was doing. As I recall: he's always been very sharp at improv and very ironic.

Some of you think his performance was off -- well I bet he was scared sh--less. I'm not sure you can be THAT brazen infront of people that powerful without being a bit nervous (unless of course you are crazy, which he is not.)

[itzamirakul]

182. I didn't see the program yet, but a re-run is coming on C-Span at 12:25

EST.and I will get to see Colbert for myself.

But from all the descriptions of Colbert's alleged "nervousness", I get the feeling that it was sort of the same emotional thing that Kanye West seemed to display. I'm guessing that those two guys had that inner feeling that says, "I know I'm putting my whole life on the line when I say this...but...FCUK IT!"

You gotta be sweat-palmed, cold and hot at the same time, momentarily SANE, when you realize that this could be the very end of your career.

[BigBearJohn]

68. Prez was taking it on the chin and there wasnt a f**g thing he could do

but sit there and take it. Can you imagine the utter
BALLS it took to stand there and throw one insult
after another at the President of the United States.

Phew. BALLS INCARNATE

[DoYouEverWonder]

164. Notice they didn't put the camera on Bush much

during Colbert's routine?

I think has the insults got worse, Bush's got more pissed and the whole place got more and more uptight. It was great and Bush hightailed it out of there as fast as he could. Playing the good sport is not something Bush is good at, especially after he's just gotten skewered.

[genieroze]

69. What the hell did I miss? I miss the show one time and something big

happens. Dagnammit!!!!

[redacted]

70. He was the featured speaker at the White House Correspondents dinner. NT

[me b zola]

85. c-span says they'll rerun it Sunday @ 12:30 est

It is a definate don't miss :)

[johnfunk]

72. "Am I the only one who thinks Colbert did not do that well tonight?" No...

... you're among the 32% who thinks he did... hmmmm... 32%... now where have I heard that number recently?...

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spacelady]

78. Is that what you are doing? Speaking before a hostile audience or

Provoking an audience to react in a hostile manner?

[Autonomy]

82. Are you question my sincerity? Calling me a troll?

I question your priorities if you think that giving a bad review to a performance warrants personal attacks.

[spacelady]

87. I would never question your sincerity or your authoritie on giving

a bad review.

[Autonomy]

90. Then, in all sincerity, I am speaking my mind

in front of a hostile audience. Choice A on your questionnaire.

[spacelady]

95. That's cool.:)

[fudge stripe cookays]

97. Perhaps, if I may suggest....

if you don't want to be perceived as such, you may not want to title your post something that so obviously screams "flamebait" on a night when everyone is celebrating the same.

[Autonomy]

101. IOW, don't rock the boat... WWSCD?

Hmm, what would Stephen Colbert do? He'd rock the boat and take what was coming. Celebrate it.

[TheWatcher]

134. Then take what is coming to you and accept it.

People have been cowed long enough.

Our people are dying in a country we never should have been in. Innocent civilians of that country are dying every day unnecessarily. Because of a LIE. Because this piece of shit wanted to go to war.

It isn't funny. It hasn't been funny for many years.

Our COUNTRY is dying because of them.

It is time for someone, ANYONE, to get in these people's faces and call them for the lying criminals they are. Publicly. Often,

Tonight what Steven Colbert did I hope becomes a trend.

Hopefully there will be many more performances for you to be displeased by in the coming weeks, months.

I could care less what you think about Stephen Colbert or what he did tonight.

I hope more will show the courage.

I'm afraid you'll just have to deal with it.

[Autonomy]

150. WTF are you talking about? Did I kill people and not know it?

I agree with what he said. I just think his act flopped. He's not the first to say all the things he said, so there was no major coup there.

So don't mix up the message with the medium. You want change? Vote. Pinning the world's mess on a bad review of a comedian has no altruistic value whatsoever.

[TheWatcher]

157. You have your right to your opinion

But you're wrong about this line

"He's not the first to say all the things he said, so there was no major coup there."

He said it to the President's FACE. He humiliated him and the lapdog media in public.

Tonight was something a bit different.

Sorry you weren't thrilled by it. Like I said, I could care less what you think.

And I'm not mixing up the message with the medium. Whatever that means.

And as for this line:

"You want change? Vote."

See that Avatar sweetie? I did. The problem was that they stole the past two elections. Or perhaps you missed that, or it didn't make an impression on you.

"Pinning the world's mess on a bad review of a comedian has no altruistic value whatsoever."

Well, your assertion is complete Bullshit and makes no sense, but at least we can both agree it was a "Bad" review. But it's your opinion, and you have a right to it.

No matter how lacking in altruistic value it is.

Bye now.

:spank:

[Autonomy]

187. He was not the first to mock bush to his face

Didn't you watch the King funeral? Saying things "to his face" doesn't impress me either. Wtf is Bush to be afraid of? He knows what people are saying about him. 32%. It would have been a whole lot more effective if Colbert had not flubbed. Bushes mockery of himself was probably even better, thus negating any satirical effect on Colbert's part.

So sorry, toots, this does not even remotely constitute "change". Bush is still in office this morning. Nothing new has been said, and the MSM hasn't blinked an eye over "the Colbert coup d'etat" last night. Only taking back Congress will count for me. Telling a joke, especially an flubbed one, just doesn't make me want to celebrate. The troops are no close to coming home today.

And, yes, everything I am saying makes sense, moreso than my opposition. It's pretty 3rd-grade of you to be in an argument and deny the opponent even the credit of making sense. You'd have to deconstruct what didn't make sense instead of throwing out accustions and constantly restating your opinion. You don't realize it, but you mean "I disagree", not "you don't make sense".

[Name removed]

207. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AmericanDream]

79. colbert is not the "hostile audience" that is the media... he makes

fun of them all the time. What is wrong with you? He probably went home soon after. There was no hypocrisy here... Stewart and Colbert don't hang out with the media or play pundits on TV. I don't see what your problem is - there was nothing distasteful about this. We are becoming a nation of timid yes-mans. The president is an elected leader, he is not the monarchy. Whatever.

[Autonomy]

84. Correct. The hostile audience for Colbert was the majority of the media

and in this thread, it's the majority of DUers.

[RoyGBiv]

98. You're missing part of the equation ...

We're celebrating him standing up before a hostile audience and making sense.

Ergo ...

See, I don't think anyone here would celebrate KKK members walking into a black neighborhood and speaking their minds. (And, no, I'm not comparing you in any way to the KKK, just making a point: reductio ad absurdum.) This is not hypocrisy. This is a realization and acceptance that standing up for some causes in front of some hostile audiences is worthy of respect. Standing up for other causes in front of other hostile audiences is worthy of contempt. If you want to apply a moral equivalence to all people who stand before hostile audiences, go ahead, but that's your deal, not ours or at least mine since I speak for no one but myself.

[Autonomy]

105. You're missing part of the equation, too

My part in this. You said it yourself, I am not the KKK, or any other absurd reduction. Like, say, a troll. I've definitely, at the very least, achieved your standard of "making sense". Anything else is mere disagreement.

"If you want to apply a moral equivalence to all people who stand before hostile audiences, go ahead, but that's your deal, not ours or at least mine since I speak for no one but myself."

Interesting that someone who knows logic terms such as reductio absurdum would commit the much simpler fallacy of a straw man argument.

[RoyGBiv]

109. Show me the strawman ...

I charge, rather directly, that you've applied a moral equivalency to those who stand before hostile audiences, which is precisely what you did by charging several of us with hypocrisy for assaulting you while you did the same thing. There's a strawman there, for sure, but I didn't build it.

A strawman would be this: It's nice to know you applaud the KKK when they speak before a hostile audience. I didn't make that charge.

My equation is just fine and balanced, thanks, and, no, you're not making sense.

[Autonomy]

119. Here's the strawman:

"See, I don't think anyone here would celebrate KKK members walking into a black neighborhood and speaking their minds. (And, no, I'm not comparing you in any way to the KKK, just making a point: reductio ad absurdum.) This is not hypocrisy. This is a realization and acceptance that standing up for some causes in front of some hostile audiences is worthy of respect. Standing up for other causes in front of other hostile audiences is worthy of contempt. If you want to apply a moral equivalence to all people who stand before hostile audiences, go ahead, but that's your deal, not ours or at least mine since I speak for no one but myself."

Yes, your whole post was a straw man, or part and parcel of one. You make a bizarre comparison that you immediately disclaim. The comparison is OK per reductio absurdum, but the disclaimer is self-contradictory.

Then you state that some arguments are not to be respected merely because they provoke hostility, which is true. But you've in no way connected that to the discussion at hand when you, holus bolus, throw me in the pot with your own "non-comparison" and attribute a statement or line of thought that in no way resembles anything I've said.

That's not just a straw man, it's fuckin' Ray Bolger on amphetamines.

[RoyGBiv]

122. Ummm...no

This is the last go'round I have with this silly game, but I'll take my last ride.

You made an explicit charge herein:

"How can you celebrate someone for having the courage to stand up and speak his mind in front of a hostile audience, then turn around and become that hostile audience yourself. And in this case, over something far more trivial. Such rampant hypocrisy is extremely distasteful."

While this construction is rather difficult to parse, the implication is clear once one has taken the time to do so. The only semblance of a point in this comment is an unqualified claim that "rampant hypocrisy" is present when a person (or group) celebrates someone for having the courage to stand up and speak his mind in front of a hostile audience yet turns around and becomes that audience. This is mostly nonsensical, but if we give it the benefit of the doubt of making a cogent point, that point is a moral equivalency between those who "stand up and speak <their> minds in front of a hostile audience." The only way "hypocrisy" can exist is if the moral equivalency is present. You, in other words, claim a moral equivalency in criticizing Colbert on DU to Colbert criticizing Bush and the Press Corps in front of both. Had you qualified that in some way, you might have an argument, but you didn't, so you don't.

My summary of words you wrote is not a strawman. My summary is a summary.

I don't think you understand what a strawman actually is.

I'm done now. Have your say.

[Autonomy]

155. Thank you for allowing me my say.

Here's your flaw, your straw man notwithstanding:

"The only way "hypocrisy" can exist is if the moral equivalency is present."

Hypocrisy is not measured in "moral equivalents", but rather in the lack of consistency of application of principles. One cannot defy a principle one has set as a foundational point merely because it's "of lesser importance" than the subject being debated. How ridiculous.

A straw man is a misattributed argument made in place of your opponent's argument for the sole purpose of undermining it. You did it. Blatantly, as I've demonstrated.

[fudge stripe cookays]

110. We get it.

You know Latin. How's that correspondence class coming?

:eyes:

[Autonomy]

123. You mean Roygbiv's use of "reductio absurdum"?

Someone else used that term first, so get your sarcasm straight.

[confludemocrat]

75. Even the soft jabs he threw were too much for that crowd

and this is the place Bush treated WMDs--the fake spur to 100,000+ deaths--as something you could laugh off. He touched on things that can't be ignored anymore, but only touched on them, not bad, not great

[confludemocrat]

241. I take it all back saw the WHOLE thing today-pretty F'in Awesome!

not the abbreviated version linked to from the from page, which was only a portion and maybe the least impressive part with the long Helen Thoma-based video "bit" dominating

[spacelady]

76. Watch it again. It gets better with some aging. Serial.

[jdelullo]

80. Yeah, tonight isn't the night

I mention something about not knowing how to receive Colbert's performance and i seem to get ripped on by every Duer on right now. You post this and have 80 posts in about 5 minutes.

But I'm new and can use that excuse....

[DanCa]

83. We get so few wins so I agree

Not tonight lets just sit back and enjoy the fall out.

[TexasLawyer]

89. Colbert nearly...

highlights every missing thread and fiber of the emperor's new clothes.

[chookie]

91. Sorry, dearie, but...

...you are not one of the "It Getters."

[Autonomy]

99. Thanks, sweetie, and if I am ever blessed enough to "get it"

I hope I'm more rational, gracious, and thoughtful than some of the snide pricks that responded here tonight.

[incapsulated]

104. You have been on DU long enough to know better, honestly

I've been the lone dissenter plenty of times when a bandwagon gets rolling here. Just yesterday, in fact. I know that even posting in a thread during such times, you are lucky if you just get run over. Starting a thread the way you did was asking for a hostile reaction, given the celebratory mood here tonight. Is that fair? In a perfect world, no. But, really, forums such as these are never "fair" in that way. It's not worth getting upset over, no one is going to jail over this.

[Autonomy]

108. I agree, it IS fairly trivial

which is why the "OMG you're raining on our parade" response seems ridiculous.

[incapsulated]

111. Because people enjoyed this.

I certainly did. It was a little victory. It was sweet to watch Bush sweat while Colbert skewered him. It was great to see him give it to the so called free press. So, they don't want you pissing in their cornflakes, not tonight. It's really that simple.

:shrug:

[Autonomy]

114. Yeah, that First Amendment thing sucks. Too bad.

I hear you're being more thoughtful and rational than others, and I respect that, but it's not my place to make sure others like what I am saying, or to make sure they don't get a spoonful of peepee in their cereal.

[Lars39]

115. Your goal was to get that subject line in your OP posted

at the time you did.

[incapsulated]

116. If this was a more serious issue, I would agree

But this is more like being a downer at a party, just because you can. It's not worth it to you, and just pisses everyone off. Yes, it's your right to do it, but why? Let it go. You say you are a fan of Colbert, then be happy for him, everyone loves him tonight, even if you don't agree with their review.

[Autonomy]

120. Let it go. I agree. Let it go.

It was just a review. I think he did badly. Do you want to debate that argument or not? Because your fluffy appeal to consensus is meaningless.

I posted for people who agree with me, or want to debate Colbert's performance on its merits.

Thanks for at least being civil, though.

[incapsulated]

124. Well, thanks a lot

For this bullshit remark:

"Because your fluffy appeal to consensus is meaningless."

I did no such thing. I said, in so many words, there is a difference between taking a stand on an important issue and moaning and whining, as you have, when you decide to be the downer at a party for no reason other than to be contrarian and people, not surprisingly, take issue with you. I said you know what you will get with this crowd. You seem to want it. Enjoy.

[RoyGBiv]

127. Well said n/t

[Autonomy]

133. Rinse, FLUFF, repeat

You've said the same thing twice now:

"when you decide to be the downer at a party for no reason other than to be contrarian"

The "decide to be a downer at a party" is an appeal to consensus. Blatantly. You're saying that what I am saying goes against the grain, and therefore should not be said.

But you don't stop there. You then accuse me of being insincere, of trolling, by saying "for no other reason than to be contrarian". You're just plain wrong, and speaking from a weak position. You've nothing to point to that I've said that would reasonably suggest that I don't believe that Stephen Colbert did poorly tonight. Neither do I have a history or reputation of posting flamebait on DU. And I still don't. I simply disagree with some other people.

[incapsulated]

141. You want to fight over a fucking comedy routine

And wrap yourself in the first amendment when people disagree with you and act like there is some crucial debate at stake. And whine like a baby when they call you names, even though you have every right to expect it. You know your "audience" don't you?

It's lame. And stupid. And pointless.

But if that's what you want, have at it. It's nothing new on DU.

So long.

[Autonomy]

147. Yeah, I wanna fight you, but off school property.

No "wrapping blahblah First Amendment blahblah" going on here. You have me pissing in cereal and wearing a clause from a legal document. That's weird shit. What I am doing is stating an opinion and not backing down in the face of attempted intimidation.

I love when someone accuses someone of whining and arguing over trivialities on an internet argument. I really need to know, does your hypocrisy keep you up at night?

Psst, you're "fighting over a comedy routine". I'm stating my opinion and responding to the responses.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

228. If you think what Colbert did was a "comedy routine", you missed the boat.

[Autonomy]

234. even he called it a comedy routine, meant only for laughs

there was no boat to miss. no higher purpose. no coup d'etat. no grandiose outcome will ensue because of his comedy routine. maybe the collective effect of comedy by many comedians over time... but no one performance...

[WinkyDink]

178. Debating taste in wit? Talk about futility. But here goes:

The measure of Colbert's success is inversely proportional to the laughs emitted by Bush per second.

Whether YOU ROFLYAO matters not, because SC didn't see YOU.

[Autonomy]

193. The measure of Colbert's success is directly proportional

to laughs emitted by ME. Bush laughed more than I did. And honestly, I didn't see Bush as being all that sullen. He seemed in fairly good humor and gracious. He had zinged himself previous to Colbert and seemed not to be phased by Stephen. It seems to me that some DUs just saw what they wanted to see and nothing else.

[WinkyDink]

204. Okay, then. But how are we to know your standards from now on?

Please post.

[Autonomy]

210. I'll post them, even if briefly

as I did in the OP.

Your standard not only flies in the face of the majority of posters who claim that the TV audience was what mattered. You imply we didn't matter, that only his live audience mattered, specifically Bush. You attribute Bush's lack of laughing to Colbert's success, except that you reverse the order of events and assume the point in question. That's post hoc reasoning. Maybe bush didn't laugh because Colbert wasn't all that funny. Remember now, your reaction, whether you laughed or not, doesn't matter by your own standard.

By your standard Colbert could not fail. I love Colbert, but I'm not THAT fawning. Also, what would you have said if his act had received a riotous ovation? I doubt you would have, therefore, called his act a failure.

[NightOwwl]

103. Flamebait, pure and simple. eom

[charlie]

107. Does it matter?

The opportunities to make the shaved monkey hear an opinion other than his own arise somewhere between never and never. Colbert got a shot at the most stage-managed preznit in history and took it. Few have ever had the brass to ditch the phoney-baloney bonhomie and the hit president where it hurts. So what if Colbert was off his game? He didn't spend his time just waggling his dick like Imus did. Nor did he didn't waste the rare chance to pierce Dubya's bubble. Good on him.

[Autonomy]

112. "Does it matter?"

Metaphysically-ontologically speaking, does anything matter? JK.

Yeah, good for him. I agree. As far as "so what?", I'm not sure what you're expecting from a post on DU. Do any of these posts matter? It is what it is. Agree or disagree. I personally won't start going around to threads on DU and questioning the value of the content. I'll restrict myself to response to threads I start. :P

[charlie]

117. Hmm?

Don't go all Yoda on me :) I'm not "expecting anything" from a post on DU. I'm just disagreeing politely, by asking instead of asserting. You figured Colbert nearly lost his audience. I figure that he couldn't win an audience of politicos and the barking seals in the press, unless he did the usual beltway schtick, in which case the night would have been unremarkable and Dubya would've gone to bed happy. It might have been fine comedy (or not), but what we got was much better.

[incapsulated]

118. "the usual beltway schtick"

Nailed it. That's what they were expecting. It ain't what they got. :)

[Autonomy]

121. No, I said he did poorly. That he lost his audience

was a secondary point. Or teriary, rather. An aside, added at the end of the post.

[RoyGBiv]

125. One last time ...

The people in that room were not, by and large, his audience.

[Autonomy]

130. Are you sure that's your "last time"?

One MORE time: whether he lost the audience or not, Colbert wasn't up to his usual form. I briefly stated why in the OP and was willing to debate it, but no one was willing to address the point in favor of personal attacks and dragging red herrings around.

Here is what would have been the basic outline of my argument that he broke character: Stephen Colbert the character is a self-proclaimed Bush apologist and "neo-neo-con", and an astute one. Tonight, in vacillating between the "real" Stephen and the character, he actually created a third Stephen, the STUPID Bush apologist. He basically created a new character before our eyes, and one without precedent in either TDS or TCR. In so doing, he achieved a lesser degree hard-hitting insight that we get from his own show.

[RoyGBiv]

132. Maybe, maybe not ...

Your argument is without merit.

[Autonomy]

137. You don't know it, but you mean "I disagree"

To address my argument, you would ACTUALLY HAVE TO ADDRESS MY ARGUMENT.

[RoyGBiv]

139. Already have ...

Repeatedly. Your argument is without merit. I don't just disagree with it, I find it lacking in any substance.

[Autonomy]

143. How could you have? I only just told you what it was!

But really, let's get past the typical stages of the conflict thread:

Roil over who said what, emphatically state that each of us addressed the other's points, tell each other we're not going to repeat ourselves, call the other one an idiot, find an ally and start making side discussions about the other person...

and go straight to the end-game:

[RoyGBiv]

146. I'd comment on that ...

But I think both our heads might explode.

I addressed your argument before you presented it, here and elsewhere, because it was rather clear what it would be. What I don't entirely understand is why you chose to start this thread in the manner you did and only just present the argument you claim you wanted to make. That makes no sense.

I'll agree to "disagree" if you like. I'm not much into the typical stages of conflict nonsense.

[Autonomy]

148. What don't you understand?

Almost no one was willing to have a rational discourse. I spent all my discussion time dealing with inane fallacies and mischaracterizations such as yours.

We can agree to disagree, but only on the OP, whether Colbert sucked or not. On any other point, I'll accept only a retraction or an apology.

[RoyGBiv]

153. You really want to know?

I don't think you do, because others have already told you with you claiming some sort of oppression, but I'll tell you anyway.

I've seen this before, often in fact, usually under similar circumstances. DU, as a group, is all aflutter about something that has just happened, usually on the lines of what happened this evening. Someone stood up in public and said what most of us have wanted to say ourselves. In the midst of that, someone else comes along and says, figuratively, "No, you're wrong. You should not feel good about this. It was bad." That's basically what you did, and don't even try to claim ignorance. (The last time I was a participant in something like this, the person with whom I was discussing things tried to claim s/he hadn't seen the dozen other threads surrounding the one s/he posted and so had no expectation it would be taken the way it was. It was bull, and that's presumptive on my part to mention this, but I'm just trying to head it off in the event it might happen. I don't buy it.)

Anyway ...

So, you make your comment, starting with a thread title in total opposition to what is being said in dozens of threads elsewhere, and you do nothing but give an outline, punctuated by a final comment that provided the context of much of what came later, to wit the notion that Colbert lost his audience, tying in to the title, that he flopped. Now, with all the expressed concern you have for audience, why on earth should I or anyone else take this as a genuine attempt to provoke thoughtful discussion on the merits of his performance? If you were considering your audience, which you must have done given the context of your remarks, you surely realized those comments would provoke a negative reaction, yet you did nothing to clarify your position and indicate that what you really and truly wanted to discuss was the technical merits of that performance. Sure, you mentioned his breaking character, but that notation was framed within what was to this audience other comments that would obviously provoke the response you got.

Not until post #125, by your own admission, did you actually present the argument you want to make. You argued details rather than clarifying. You ignored comments previously that did in fact address the point you say you wanted to make. The individual who introduces a subject is tasked with the duty of clarifying the boundaries. Your protestations of misunderstanding or lack of cooperation are absurd in this context. My question for you is what am I supposed to understand?

I've been in your position, an almost lone voice in the wilderness of DU. Because I understand "audience" I know better than to jump into the middle of something with a vague outline of my point. If I feel like tackling that subject right then and there, I make a clear and determined effort to elucidate my point to the finest details. Economy of expression is for journalists and programmers, not those wishing to explore contentious, intricate subjects.

And here, in this post, you go even further. It's not that he was off his game or that he broke character. It's that he sucked. Am I really supposed to take you at your word that you merely wanted to discuss the merits of his performance in a rational manner?

With regard to "other points," if you refer to the previous discussion in this thread, I retract and apologize for nothing. I know that particular subject very, very well, and you are quite simply incorrect in your assessment.

[Autonomy]

186. You have deep-seated issues

I can't even bother to read past what this other person did in the past. I wrote my opinion. Now your reaction is making sense in the light of your emotional issues.

[Autonomy]

201. I broke down and read your post

So your objection is that I should I have made my OP longer and more detailed about my specific objections. I note your objection. Is that the crux of your objection with my position? You could just as well have been, personally, more circumspect and less reactive. Don't take all the focus off yourself, bub.

"And here, in this post, you go even further. It's not that he was off his game or that he broke character. It's that he sucked."

Semantic parsing of "flopped" and "sucked" blahblah. Can't bother with that...

And your anonymous, unsupported appeal to expertise -- "I know that particular subject very, very well, and you are quite simply incorrect in your assessment" -- is utterly meaningless.

That was a LOT of words on your part for so little content.

Am I really supposed to take you at your word that you merely wanted to discuss the merits of his performance in a rational manner?

How can I take this question seriously when you've already spent so much time on this thread? If what I've said has absolutely "no merit" as you've said, then you're a complete buffoon to spend so much time on it.

[timtom]

216. Allow me to jump in here

in my role as "facilitator". By the way, I have no horse in this race.

I'd like to start by saying that, misunderstandings aside, this is one of the better threads I've seen lately, as almost everyone has acquitted him/herself quite admirably. The intellectual level has been quite high and most have demonstrated more than a passing acquaintance with logic and argument.

But I think that the issue that is not being clarified is a problem with ethos/audience.

It doesn't really matter what one's perceptions of Colbert's performance is. What has been pointed out is the celebratory mood of most of DU.

That would call into question the timing of the original post. The audience is clearly not ready for this sort of negative review at this point. The point, "know your audience" has been brought up in this thread.

Whether he was at the top of his game or not is immaterial. His presence and presentation has had, and will have, impact. DUer's merely want to savor the moment.

[Autonomy]

217. I appreciate the compliments

addressed to me or not... Your argument that this post is poorly timed has been made several times. I don't get why a minority opinion would be so threatening. Do you need complete unanymity to celebrate? I can personally enjoy a movie or a show regardless of a critic's disdain for it, though more often than not I find myself in agreement with an insightful critique.

I'm not going around posting in other peoples' threads about what I thought of the act. I am leaving it all for this thread only, so don't make me out to be a flamer or a party pooper or something. I'm not.

[WinkyDink]

205. But you AREN'T "ready to debate". You replied to me that it only

mattered if YOU laughed. That is hardly open to debate, for any number of reasons.

[Autonomy]

238. That's an egregiously out of context quotation

I said it only matters if I laughed in reference to my right to form an opinion. I am certainly willing to debate the merits of that opinion. Prove me wrong by debating my opinion on its merits, instead of taking the long way 'round to avoid having to defend your point of view by making out of context quotes.

[charlie]

129. Oof.

You made audience opinion a prime measure of his performance. You told us "it matters." I'm saying, with that crowd, it doesn't. The only way Colbert could've won them over would be to do a singing duet with Mark Russell.

[Autonomy]

135. Oof. Please don't mischaracterize.

The "lost his audience" remark was in the last and shortest paragraph of the OP, and was phrased as a response to previous threads. It was of moderate importance at best as I sat there watching and not laughing much.

[charlie]

142. Okay

I don't know anything about the previous threads you're referencing and I'm not intentionally mischaracterizing. I'm not interested in arguing the weight of placement in your posts, so I retract and accept your stated intent. I've posted my disagreement, I'm done. Peace. Out.

[Catrina]

136. His audience was us. Those in the room were his targets. He succeeded

which was obvious by their inability to laugh. His real audience did laugh. They could not, and I think that was proof that they 'got it'. That's what made them uncomfortable. It was as though we had conspired with him to finally corner the schoolyard bully and watch him cower. His behavior isn't funny, but finally facing him down, and watching him cower, as bullies often do when confronted, is.

Only one other person has succeeded in making Bush that uncomfortable. He was at Coretta Scott King's funeral. He was thrashed by the rightwing afterwards. Laura and Bush for the first time had to sit for hours and listen to the truth, about Katrina, the War etc. That had to be a rude awakening for them. I even felt a little sorry for them and wondered who finally let them out of the bubble they've been in.

This is the second time ~ much more is at stake for Colbert. The Dixie Chicks taught many never to speak out against this administration. Don't forget that people lost jobs after challenging this administration, even slightly. Remember 'Politically Correct' or the 'Donahue Show' (after Scott Ritter's brilliant, standing ovation performance). And that was from a distance, not face to face.

I can see where you might have the opinion you have. We are used to judging a performance by the reaction of those present. But as I said, that audience was the target and rightly so. Had they laughed, I would have been worried, it would have meant they didn't get that WE KNOW the truth.

That's what he did. He showed them we are no longer fooled ~ We may not be on tv, but we know how they've failed this country. It's true, he mentioned it, the WMD lies, all of it. It would be hard to laugh at yourself when what you've done is so treasonous. We laughed, not because it was funny, but because he made them uncomfortable. Their reaction, which he elicited, was actually hillarious. They were caught, exposed and it was about time.

[Autonomy]

140. Yes, the King funeral! We've seen this before.

And a few news conferences. There was nothing earthshattering merely in calling the Chimp out.

As for whether his audience laughed, it's meaningful, but not everything.

[Catrina]

189. Yes, you mentioned before that this was not momentous because it

wastn't the first time etc. The incidents you do mention did not happen until this year. Five years after Bush took office, no one had the courage to tell him the truth. We know that even his own staff are frightened of giving him bad news. During Katrina, as reported in the MSM, his staff were afraid to tell him how bad things were.

The 'few incidents' you refer to happened only in the past month. Nothing before that. You are forgetting the 'loyalty' pledges people were required to take just to go to a political rally given by Cheney or Bush.

This is the first time the press itself, corroborators of this regime, were publicly taken to task. I doubt it will get much coverage by the MSM for that reason. But we don't expect coverage of anything important by the propaganda machine anymore. We are the media. We will email Colbert's words to every list we have.

His 32% poll rating didn't happen because of the MSM. It happened because people watch shows like the Daily Show. Eg, while members of my own family are Republicans who voted for Bush twice, their son and his girlfriend questioned Bush because of Jon Stewart and Colbert. Sad to say, they get their news from Comedy Central and they're not alone.

No one said Colbert calling out Bush and the Press is 'everything'. But it's another card being tugged at from the House of Cards this administration so carefull built. The reaction of his audience is important, especially the press ~ they are cowards, they betrayed this country and made this criminal war possible. They would have laughed had they not recognized the truth in what he said ~ and his words will be repeated all over the Internet on blogs that now get more viewers than the average cable 'news' program.

I, eg, along with many other Americans, cancelled cable months ago. There's no point in paying for propaganda ~ the truth is a powerful weapon ~ too bad our press and legislators didn't realize that. Colbert and a small number of others who have a voice have been wielding it for awhile. Last night it got another airing. And that IS important, because it may soon become popular again if more people follow Colbert's lead. He's an entertainer and in a culture that pays more attention to Hollywood Icons than to politicians, he has a louder voice than say, John Conyers does, sadly.

[Ms. Clio]

199. excellent response

Hell no, it's not the fall of the Berlin Wall, but it was a nice big chunk knocked out of it.

The line about a president who likes to stand on things -- aircraft carriers, piles of rubble, flooded city squares -- was shock and awesome, bay-bee!

[WinkyDink]

179. "[D]id poorly", in what way? Because the only way to answer that

is to say, "I didn't like it, I didn't 'get' it, his lines fell flat for ME", emphasis on the personal response.
Which is a perfectly rational response, but don't be shocked if others find your inability to appreciate what others obviously did to be in itself incomprehensible. To THEM.

[Autonomy]

191. Haven't you ever read a review?

They don't equivocate in wishy washy subjectivism. They find the flaws. The 2nd paragraph of the OP touches on those flaws.

[WinkyDink]

206. Don't hesitate to compliment yourself on my account.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

113. Yikes.

[progressivebydesign]

126. He was hilarious. you have to realize that CSPAN is not mic'd normally.

the audience reaction is not professionally miked the same way.. say.. your favorite comedian might be on Comedy Central. CSPAN is not Comedy Central, they televise this stuff as simply as possible. if you think that the audience didn't like him, I just can't agree with that.. and you have to realize that lots of the folks with tix to that event are Bush cronies who scored tickets, and network execs.

Colbert had people laughing.. I just don't understand what some of you people are trying to do tonight..

[Marr]

128. I think it showed what an enormous gulf there is between this

extremist, ideologically crazed government and regular people. Colbert's ratings are fantastic, and he was doing the same thing he does each night on television. The problem was not Colbert. He didn't get many laughs from the crowd because the crowd is used to Kool-Aid.

[Yupster]

151. The crowd going to a WHCD is used

to a comedian to throw jokes right into the president's face. That what happens every year.

They even invite people to the dinner just to be in the president's face.

Anyone going into the WHCD expecting vanilla Henny Youngman jokes has never seen a WHCD before. They're always edgy, sometimes go over the line and always produce embarrassed groans from the audience when they go too far.

[Marr]

184. I don't know.

I've watched a few of these things and I've never seen a comedian do something so biting. It's usually more naughty than scathing.

[NYCGirl]

219. This one is pretty scathing (Al Franken at the WHCD in 1996):

Read the whole thing — it's pretty good.

http://www.alfrankenweb.com/whcd.html

But I can sympathize with Imus somewhat because when you do a speech like this you do have to risk offending someone. When I did this dinner two years ago I told a joke that is actually still timely. The joke was: Having Al D'Amato lead an ethics investigation is little like having Bob Dornan head up a mental health task force." Not a bad little joke. Well, three days later, this is ture, I'm in Hollywood in someone's office and this guy's assistant walks in and says, "Al, Congressman Bob Dornan is on the phone for you." So I pick it up and say, "Hello, Congressman." He says, "I heard you really did me in at the White House Correspondents Dinner." "Well, I told a joke." "What was the joke?" "Well, the joke was...having Al D'Amato lead an ethics investigation is a little like...having Bob Dornan...head up a mental health task force." And there was this pause...."Ah, hell, that's okay."

So now I like Bob Dornan. Even though he is a crazy homophobe, the guy can take a joke.

Speaking of Al D'Amato, I'm getting pretty well known for my Al D'Amato impression. You wanna hear it?

"We are simply attempting to ascertain the veracity of the First Lady vis a vis and in regard to the discrepancies and inconsistencies - which I am told...mean the same thing - in so far as they relate to the documentation contained in the documents and the information therein...vis a vis and in regard to...uh...does anyone remember how I started this sentence?" Thank you.

Edited to add:
I just had to add this bit about Pat Buchanan — priceless!

"I followed Buchanan around for a few days in South Carolina. I hate his politics, but I met Buchanan in 1988 at the Atlanta Democratic convention. I was doing commentary for CNN. Which also didn't work out. But I found Buchanan very charming. And I went back to New York and told my firends, "Pat Buchanan is very charming." And the response I got from more than one of my friends was, "Yeah, well Geobels was charming." Which is so unfair. Because Geobels was not charming. He was an ill-tempered backbiter."

[originalpckelly]

131. I think it is the same same thing...

that happened with Jon Stewart at the Oscars...Their comedy is based upon timing and funny captions. Not that that isn't funny, but it doesn't work well when in front of such an audience.

I think the funnier part was when that imitator was up there with dumb sh**. That was actually a little funnier because it was so unexpected.

Think of comedy, the way some people think of tickling. Tickling causes laughter because it is an error in the system, unexpected input, I think that is the part of some comedy.

[Autonomy]

145. Interesting. I agree. nt

[rucky]

138. You have the ear of the press and the president. You have a microphone.

What would you say?

I know you're supposed to make jokes at these things, but I think Colbert saw an opportunity to do much more.

[FrenchieCat]

152. My Review.....

Colbert was magnificently funny and "dead on" with his satire tonight.....it was the truth just a tinch bit exaggerated, as it should be.


Bush got "punked" tonight.....and I'm sure he finally "got" it, at some point.

He was made to look like a dick to all of the other dicks there.

Colbert ROCKS....TOTALLY!

[qanda]

160. Sorry

responded to wrong post.

[lakeguy]

156. don't know what you are smokin, but i sure as well don't want any

that was some FUNNY shit. scalia was laughing, that make you feel better?

[Neoma]

159. I couldn't care less about that pitiful audience.

I found it hilarious, and strikingly "Holy shit, he's going to ether die or lose his job" from being dead on blunt. I didn't find him outside of his "character" nor did i find him "nervous" the only nervous thing about it all was myself, from him saying all that in front of the president.

Personally, i viewed the audience like still nazis about to pounce on Colbert from talking that way toward Bush... a guy from The Truman Show.
Everyone there was ether clenching their fists or trying not to laugh, this wasn't a normal audience if you didn't notice!
:popcorn:

[qanda]

161. I thought there were a few awkward moments

It seemed like the audience either just didn't get or didn't think it was very funny. I didn't see it before I read the reviews here and so I was probably expecting too much, but overall it was good.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

230. The vast majority of his live "audience" were rightwingers and....

...rightwing facilitators. Of course they were going to react the way that they did. To react any other way is political/career suicide when you're in the same room with The Fearless Leader and some of his top flunkies.

Colbert's real audience was watching on television...and the vast majority of us "got it".

[Tiggeroshii]

165. Doesn't he always brag about the size of his balls?

They were pretty evident tonight...

[Starbucks Anarchist]

170. I thought he was great, but I respect your opinion.

After all, if we all thought the same about everything, we'd be Republicans. :hi:

[malaise]

171. His audience were also watching on CSpan

Colbert rocks. He was fabulous. Who the hell cares if Bushco and his press whores were uncomfortable. You're on your own.

[WinkyDink]

173. From what I've read here, SC was there to speak Truth to Power.

He didn't care a fig about making his audience laugh. He wasn't aiming at their funny bone; he was going for the jugular.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

180. speaking of his audience...

they may have uneasy, upset, or even shocked ay colbert's performance,

but those whores would give their right arm to be on his or jon stewart's

show.

[bridgit]

181. he's not flopping in the least, he's learning to fly...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=5093997&mesg_id=5094104

[Puglover]

183. Sorry disagree..

his humor was edgy. And that's hard a sell, especially to the whores that were listening to him. He was brilliant.

[nuxvomica]

188. I didn't hear a lot of laughter

But every time they showed the crowd folks were laughing. Jeez, Scalia nearly bust a gut laughing. I think the audio on the crowd was turned down. Colbert may have "nearly flopped" but in comedy that means you killed and he did.

[Frank Cannon]

190. It was acidic satire in the honored tradition of Jonathan Swift

Colbert called out the entire crowd for what they are, including His Monkey Majesty, right there to their faces and in front of a national audience.

I thought a lot of what he said was funny, but I don't think he was aiming for laughs, entirely. He was aiming to make many points and he hit the bullseye on each and every one.

[IChing]

194. Ha,Ha, Ha, Ha, thanks, this is the funniest post at DU on Sunday

Thanks for the sardonic humor, which I always enjoy
you must be getting your facts from your gut.

What a great post on irony... brave post on truthiness.


LOL
ha, ha, ha
keep up the good work. Ha,ha,ha, I just spilled coffee on my keyboard....

series, that's funny

[newsguyatl]

195. it was ok

didn't think it was NEARLY as good as most du'ers seem to think it was.

the only part where i really laughed out loud is the whole, "I believe it's yogurt."

but that's just my sense of humor.

[jumpoffdaplanet]

197. Since Michelle Malkin thinks the same...

and I only saw the last bit with Helen Thomas in it, (it's repeating on CSPAN now so I'll see it all in a bit).

But based on that little bit, I'd say Colbert totally rocked, and bush was crapping his pants.

As for the audience, they were in shocked.

Colbert has guts and balls and isn't afraid of bears no matter what form they take.

The audience was just sitting there scared to death that if they laughed cheney would kill them, and take his time doing so.

They know that if cheney can be drunk out of his mind while shooting a man in the face AND STILL get away with it, there's no telling what the criminals in the white house would do to anyone in the audience who laughed.

So no. Colbert did not suck or flop.

bushie and cheney were the floppers, and the audience were the suckers.

[Zorra]

198. Colbert took 'em to the woodshed. He whupped ass

in front of the world on those who so richly deserve it. He told it like it is.

We, the entire country, actually the world, were the major part of the intended audience.

The message was the intent, the comedy was secondary.

And the most hilarious part of the comedy was watching the filthy weasels squirm under the biting comic satire.

[politrix]

200. He Did The Media's Job

He confronted Bush on more points in one sitting than the ENTIRE MEDIA has for 4 years.

He had to make the truth ludicrous to be able to slide it in under the radar - but, it was the hard, uncomfortable truth that america needs to hear and all those politicians and media people assembled there needed thrown in their faces in public.

He's a hero for that.

He had to do it under the intense glare of the biggest war criminal of our age and all his cronies and the media and he KNEW they weren't going to be able to laugh - so, he was completely on his own.

The bravest thing I've ever seen and career suicide if it doesn't work. He's DEFINITELY made enemies. What a rebel. What a patriot.

And, it WAS funny.

The ballot hasn't worked. Congress hasn't worked. So, he used comedy to bury the President under his own slime. This was an historical event that will NEVER be forgotten.

NO ONE has ever beat up a President this badly to his face publically, to my knowledge.

[Beelzebud]

202. He wasn't there to amuse them. ala Stewart on Crossfire.

[Cocoa]

203. it wasn't supposed to get tons of laughs

for example when Colbert stretched out a long series of jokes about Bush's poll numbers. Colbert obviously knew people weren't laughing a lot, but that wasn't the point. He was doing it to inflict pain, which he clearly did.

[Mr_Spock]

211. Dayum dude!! Pass the crack pipe!!

That was the best thrashing this insular president has ever taken!!!

If this is "not so good" to you then there are no arguments anyone can make to stir you from your deep depression.

[union_maid]

212. There was no nod, nod, wink, wink

You're not going to "keep" an audience by taking them to task without a little hint of complicity, sympathy, affection or throwing them some kind of bone. I doubt Colbert will be invited back any time soon. Doesn't matter. I can't get into his head or know what he was trying to do. What I do know is that he, Jon Stewart, blogs and assorted other outlets have started to apply some pressure to the press in opposition to the pressure that they're getting from the powers that be. They're stepping it up a little lately and they'd probably never give credit to the outcry about their dereliction of duty, but that's what it is. Steven Colbert is just one part of the much needed chorus.

On a career level he's got us talking about it and a lot more than if he'd just played it for a few laughs. In the show biz, that means you've done well.

[JVS]

213. The studio audience thing makes stuff look funnier, but he did well

The joke he flubbed, was really just a false start. A total flub requires that you've already given up to much for the punchline to have any effect. This was not the case there.

Inconsistency in the character might be because of the limitations in appearing live. On his TV show, when he does "The Word" the text at the side of the screen often delivers the punch. Appearing live doesn't allow this, and sometimes he had to do the work of the sidebar himself. For example the 1/3 full punchline is something that would show up in the sidebar.

[barb162]

214. I never heard of this man until yesterday; had to google his name

and then I realized why...I never watch that station

[rocktivity]

215. "Was he Stephen Colbert the character, or the real Stephen Colbert?"

Colbert the character, of course. And it makes perfect sense that he would appear project nervousness and humility standing a few feet from his so-called idol. The real Steven Colbert wasn't going for straight belly laughs. He had something to say and he said it--magnificently, in my opinion.

:headbang:
rocknation

[devilgrrl]

218. How about something more your speed like Dennis Miller or Don Imus?

:eyes:

[lonestarnot]

222. I see you just fall off a turnip truck... poor thing.

[savemefromdumbya]

225. I see Rove has sent all the Republican trolls over here today!

[teknomanzer]

229. You are going to find your opinion in the minority...

What Colbert did was nothing short of daring. As I watched I could tell that he was still in the process of thinking if he should go ahead and say what was on that paper or not. There were definitly some forced moments. But look at what he was doing... he was poking his finger in the eye of everyone in attendance. That takes no small measure of courage... he was speaking truth to power, and they didn't like it, as evidence by their lack of any response. There we moments I found hilarious simply because he was speaking about truths which have been suppressed for so long.

So you didn't find it funny. So what. Satire has been a dead art from the day Bush took office.

[moondust]

233. You mean he didn't please the King and his court?

Shame! Off with his head!!

[Octafish]

239. The only thing flopping in that speech was Bush.

And the little turd from Crawford is still flopping.

A FLOPPING TURD

[The Doctor.]

240. His intent was not comedy, comedy was merely the disguise. nt

[stanwyck]

242. Not a flop. Not even close.

Even the middle-of-the-roaders I work with are raving about Colbert today. His diatribe is being downloaded like crazy. One co-worker will be distributing DVDs tomorrow from the recording she made.
He's becoming even more of a cult hero -- and reaching people he hadn't before.

[librechik]

243. no, lots of people Colbert targeted with his humor think he tanked.

Since I think it was brilliant and a nearly perfect characterization, I have to wonder why you think he tanked. Your reasons seemed pretty vague. You are certainly entilted to your feelings, tho.

[redqueen]

244. The fact that he made us laugh AT ALL...

while covering such heartbreakingly sad material, is in itself a miracle.

Perhaps you'd be better off watching South Park? The Git-er-done guy? If you like characters, I'm sure you'd be much more pleased with them.

[ScreamingMeemie]

245. No. I am sure there are several Freepers and a President and his

posse who think so too. :hi: