Reid Nullifies Stewart last Night

I was blown away by how cleverly passive aggressive pol Hairy Reid  controlled the interview last night on the Daily  Show. Ostensibly, Reid was there to push a book, but Jon  was unable to take control of the interview because of the way Harry Reid handled the interaction.

Reid quietly, passively, and without too much as the therapist's say "affect" presented himself.  It was one of the most impressive interactions with Stewart that I have seen.  In the end, Stewart apparently decided to relax and enjoy the situation, letting Reid have his way.  I note that Glenn Geenwald at Salon had wrote an article with his impressions and says it so much better than I.

Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
So Joe Lieberman is easy to work with"). Two weeks ago, a NYT article on Lieberman quoted Reid praising him and then immediately added:

A member of the Senate Democratic leadership, who insisted on not being identified, said: "The bloggers want us to get rid of him. It ain't happening." He added: "We need every vote. He's with us on everything but the war."

Check out the Daily Show video here: http://www.thedailyshow.com/...

I am no fan of Joe Lieberman or Harry Reid.  In my mind and apparently in Harry Reid's, they are both cut from the same bolt of cloth.

•  tips

  I still luv you Jon....but Harry gotcha last nite IMO

  by Keone Michaels on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:58:12 AM PDT

  •  rape?

    by taylormattd on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:58:47 AM PDT

    •  to clarify

      what is the deal with this sentence?:

      In the end, Stewart apparently decided to relax and enjoy the rape, letting Reid have his way.  

      by taylormattd on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:59:22 AM PDT

      •  Yes, I wondered the same thing

        Quite tacky, to say the least.

        by BoiseBlue on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:00:53 PM PDT

      •  I mean he just stopped trying to control it

        by Keone Michaels on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:00:59 PM PDT

        •  Certainly

          You can find a better metaphor than that, right?

          by BoiseBlue on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:02:15 PM PDT

        •  Then, please change the phrase

          because "enjoy the rape" is about as offensive as it can get.

          by gchaucer2 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:02:34 PM PDT

          •  Try "let go of the steering wheel" n/t

            "Help!!! I'm being Enlightened!" - TCFKNCS's avatar

            I always wanted to quote an avatar.

            by RhymesWithUrple on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:04:11 PM PDT

          •  Sorry gchaucer - meant to reply to km above. n/t

            "Help!!! I'm being Enlightened!" - TCFKNCS's avatar

            I always wanted to quote an avatar.

            by RhymesWithUrple on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:06:17 PM PDT

        •  You missed the mark.

          Bad analogy, dude. Real bad.

          by MaskedKat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:02:38 PM PDT

        •  I don't know how you find that acceptable...

          ...in your own mind much less written out for all to see.

          by Tirge Caps on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:09:55 PM PDT

        •  that's totally fucking weird dude

          by FireCrow on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:18:11 PM PDT

    •  That Line Doesn't Sound Any Better Here...

      than it did on TV when it ended Tex Antoine's career.

      by Mr X on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:00:44 PM PDT

      •  didn't help bobby knight much either. n/t

        by dougymi on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:21:58 PM PDT

    •  okay, okay, altho I don't agree with you ....

      Just as a sign of my maturity and reasonableness I deleted the objectionable term.

      In my defense, when I decided to use the metaphor I thought it consistent with the Daily show's careless use of such language etc.

      by Keone Michaels on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:08:55 PM PDT

      •  Baaaahhhhaaaaa

        just as a sign of my maturity and reasonableness

        by FireCrow on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:19:34 PM PDT

      •  I'm guessing ...

        ... you have never been raped, or nearly so, or known someone who had.  Otherwise, you might not use the term so casually.

        by JBL55 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:45:09 PM PDT

      •  Thanks for changing it.

        Here's a link that uses the metaphor well, plus it's kind of a fun take on the messed up world we are in.

        Just to broaden your understanding a bit (from someone who has been raped)...  It's not that the rape metaphor is not to be used at all.  It's that in order for the word to maintain the meaning of a deep, selfish, cruel violation of freedom, safety, and humanity... it should only be used in such contexts that warrent that extreme combination of abuse and disregard.  

        To use the rape metaphor because someone is not willing to goof it up with you...  is off base.  I appreciate you changing it. Mahalo.

        by FundaMental Transformation on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:25:20 PM PDT

      •  Thank you n/t

        by Chrisfs on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:20:04 PM PDT

    •  rapor.... rapore.... rapport!!

      Although now it is situation.

      by sp0t on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:15:13 PM PDT

  •  Can't rec or tip as entered

    'rape' line is just way way way too inappropriate. It doesn't fit and it's insulting.

    by Chrisfs on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:03:30 PM PDT

  •  Reid was skillful in service of his own goals

    Don't get me wrong.  I praise Reid in his skill.  I don't approve of his goals or him.

    by Keone Michaels on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:04:31 PM PDT

    •  It's not about the content...

      It's about your choice of words.  Sexual violence is not taken lightly here...nor should it be taken lightly anywhere.

      by mayan on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:08:22 PM PDT

      •  see my comment ABOVE ABOUT THE TITLE.

        IT IS ABOUT PERCEPTION AND BIAS

        by Keone Michaels on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:13:30 PM PDT

        •  I don't think you are getting what...

          I was trying to say.  You're content may be spot on...I don't know, I didn't watch it or the vid.  Your choice of language about "rape" detracts mightily from you message, however.

          by mayan on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:18:38 PM PDT

          •  Actually...

            I see that you removed the language.  Good for you.

            by mayan on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:20:14 PM PDT

          •  let me clarify....

            no one enjoys being raped.  It is a crime of violence.  The metaphor "enjoy the rape" implies otherwise.

            by murrayewv on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:20:48 PM PDT

  •  Relax and enjoy the HR...

    until that line is removed.

    by Morgan Sandlin on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:05:11 PM PDT

  •  Also as an aside...

    Nobody objected to the title which is a implies a sexual rape of Stewart.  Non-PC language is not an equal opportunity offense or what?

    by Keone Michaels on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:11:54 PM PDT

    •  Don't see how "nullifies" implies...

      ... a rape of JS?  Maybe you already changed that too.  Otherwise it's not a reference everyone is going to get.  I sure don't.  But if I did, sure, I'd object to that too.

      by FundaMental Transformation on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:36:08 PM PDT

  •  I thought the reason Stewart

    was 'unable to take control' was because Reid was an incredibly passive, boring milquetoast.

    Usually guests have something to say.  Reid seemed uncomfortable to be there.

    by cometman on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:23:23 PM PDT

    •  YES!

      He'll never be on anyone's show again.

      What a completely unimpressive outward appearance.

      by Han Valen on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:33:18 PM PDT

    •  I thought Harry

      was asleep  zzzzzzzzz

      by number nine dream on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:14:20 PM PDT

    •  I guess he's not in a laughing mood.

      Jon Stewart did a good pivot once he realized what was going on.  Come on people give Harry a little slack.  Jon Stewart's the comedian, not Reid.  If Jon wants it funny, that's his job.  Sure it was boring, but at least he did show a little sense of humor and clarified the majority in crongess thing.  

      D@*! that Leiberman!  Only differ on the war?!  Oh is that all?

      Classic Stewart - "when do we get to flip Iraq?"

      HR: Soon, we're spending $5000/second in Iraq.

      Stewart - visibly shocked: "that's a lot of wainscoting!" ....No kidding.

      There's a reason Harry wasn't in a laughing mood.  Maybe he should tell that on Leno.

      by FundaMental Transformation on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:33:47 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for changing your wording. n/t

    by cyncynical on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:16:04 PM PDT

•  snark right??

  he was terrible last night. He defended that asshole Lieberman who has been campaigning for McSame.

  by soms on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:58:32 AM PDT

  •  I Believe the Diarist is Contending

    That Stewart should have been harder on him.  He is not saying that Reid's performance was "Admirable."

    I am no fan of Joe Lieberman or Harry Reid.  In my mind and apparently in Harry Reid's, they are both cut from the same bolt of cloth.

    This is also a pretty stunning accusation.  I'm no fan of Lieberman's but he DOES vote with the Democrats on just about everything but the war and the Senate is close enough now that that sometimes makes a difference.  Harry Reid doesn't morph into Joe Lieberman just because he refuses to chase him out of the party.

    by TooFolkGR on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:03:38 PM PDT

    •  Read Greenwald today

      It isn't just the war. That's just what reid says and wants people to believe. It's about a lot more than the war.  Torture, the DOJ (even gonzales), FISA, the refusal to investigate bush with regard to Katrina, and so many other things lieberman is going against the Democratic party.  

      In addition, 10$ will get you 20$ lieberman is going to speechify in front of the pub convention this year and tell the American People how Democrats, specifically those horrible blogs and DFHes, are horrible horrible people and unpatriotic and forced his poor slighted ass out of the Democratic party.

      Greenwald link

      by dougymi on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:29:43 PM PDT

      •  The Zell Miller of 2008?

        10$ will get you 20$ lieberman is going to speechify in front of the pub convention this year

        Don't know if that makes me more likely to watch it or less!

        by JBL55 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:48:45 PM PDT

  •  I found him freakish.

    Seriously, all I could think was "This is the guy who is supposed to be leading the charge?" No wonder the Dems have been so complicit in Bush's dismantling of our rights.

    by not a cent on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:33:04 PM PDT

•  Any way other than video...

  ... for me to get a sense of the interview?

  by droogie6655321 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:59:58 AM PDT

  •  I will tell you.

    It was painful to watch.

    Stewart asked a question or ribbed him, and Reid sat there staring at him.  Finally Stewart said something like, "You don't seem that tough - I bet I could filibuster you.  Could I filibuster you?"

    And Reid responded, "Why not, everone else has."

    Reid did make a point of talking about the Republicans setting the record for filibusters for a 2 year Congress in just 10 months, etc.

    Basically, it started really poorly (for TV).  Probably so Reid could get Stewart off-guard.  But it ended more or less okay (except for the Lieberman suckup).

    by Bogleg on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:03:04 PM PDT

    •  The staring after the first question

      then Jon saying that he could probably filibuster him was when I changed the channel.

      Reid looked like he had taken a couple of prozac and decided to contemplate his naval instead of answering questions.

      by meatwad420 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:47:53 PM PDT

•  don't use that word lightly

  Sexual assault is a destructive act, and using it in other, less violent contexts demeans its victims.

  by Lurtz on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:01:48 PM PDT

  •  Quite right.

    Obviously no foul intended by the diarist, as far as I know.

    That was bad, sorry.  

    But a correction/edit would be wise.

    by OWO on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:04:40 PM PDT

•  Rape and

  de-testiculation.  Hmmm. The diarist seems to be covering the sexual violence waterfront.

  by mayan on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:02:34 PM PDT

•  creepy imagery in your writting

  watching the interview I was reminded of Colber(t)'s words on boxing a glacier.

  by Elvis meets Nixon on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:02:43 PM PDT

•  Relax and enjoy the rape???????

  Please remove that reference from the diary.

  by Morgan Sandlin on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:03:25 PM PDT

•  First, what everyone else said

  about the rape line. Offensive, and you should edit and apologize.

  Second, what exactly did you want Jon Stewart to do? I thought it was an extremely awkward, peculiar interview. It wasn't one in which Harry Reid came off well. It didn't make news. But it didn't represent some kind of massive failure by Jon Stewart, as far as I'm concerned.

  by MissLaura on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:04:14 PM PDT

•  Are You Saying That Reid did to Stewart

  ....the same thing he has done to Democratic voters for the last two years?

  by greenskeeper on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:04:21 PM PDT

•  All I could think

  is that for a former boxer, Harry seemed like a wimpish Alan Colmes if that is possible.

  Was he on some kind of medication?
  He did not even respond to questions at times and when he did it was barely above a whisper.
  Very weird dude,imo.

  by Hawkjt on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:05:36 PM PDT

•  Well, I guess you enjoy

  your perverse phraseology and are tone-deaf to repeated requests to change it.  I'm out of this piece of shit diary.

  by gchaucer2 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:06:09 PM PDT

  •  thanks for your kind comments

    by Keone Michaels on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:49:37 PM PDT

•  Ok I'll say it, Please edit your post... n/t

  by Chrisfs on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:06:09 PM PDT

  •  done

    by Keone Michaels on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:49:53 PM PDT

    •  Thank you. n/t

      by JBL55 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:55:03 PM PDT

•  What the hell are you talking about?

  What you call "cleverly passive aggressive" I call downright boring. He was a poor interviewee, but Stewart did a nice job of keeping it moderately interesting.

  by dagnabbit on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:07:25 PM PDT

•  Thought it was boring...

  Reid looked tired and confused, and it took Stewart a full 30-60 seconds (an eternity during an interview) to even get Reid to say anything.  It actually seemed like they may have cut the interview slightly short because of how poorly it was going, and it looked like Jon couldn't wait for it to end.

  by leshrac55 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:08:18 PM PDT

•  It was odd to me. I didn't know if he was really

  nervous, or on drugs, or what.  Just seemed awkward.

  by mannemalon on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:11:35 PM PDT

•  so THIS is what a fart looks like

  when placed into net-text!

  by terrypinder on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:11:59 PM PDT

•  That was....

  one of the dullest interviews I've seen in a long time.  
  There was no 'gotcha', there was nothing to get.
  It was a difficult, boring interview, Jon tried but had zero to work with.

  by Lilyvt on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:13:57 PM PDT

•  Scoring

  I give you 5 out of 5 for perception and -2 for presentation.

  by mswaine on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:14:51 PM PDT

•  Why is this man our Majority Leader?

  And can we vote in Chris Dodd (or someone else at least halfway competent) in 2009?

  After this interview, it surprises me not a whit that the situation is as dire as it is on FISA and other matters. Harry Reid must go. The sooner the better.

  Oh, ugly diary by the way. You do seem to have a strange fondness for sexual violence. Glad you at least removed the "rape" reference.

  by DavidW in SF on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:15:44 PM PDT

  •  "We" do not vote for majority leader.

    The senate Democrats vote for that.  I'm not part of that voting group, and if you're in SF and your name is David, neither are you.

    by MissLaura on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:30:01 PM PDT

    •  blah blah blah

      Do you honestly think DavidW believes that the Senate Majority leader is elected by popular vote?  Wow.  AND you think it strongly enough to post a spanking? I've got an idea: How about actually contributing to the discourse?

      by mappamundi on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:06:29 PM PDT

      •  Perhaps it's because you haven't

        been here for long that you haven't noticed, or perhaps you don't read that many threads, but that idea is in fact quite prevalent on the site.

        Would you like to put your contributions to the discourse up against mine?

        by MissLaura on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:29:17 PM PDT

        •  You assume that DavidW's comment was meant...

          to be taken literally.  I do not.  It is my opinion, therefore, that your spanking was over-the-top and uncalled for. It was not a contribution to the conversation on the subject.  And BTW, yes, I do read plenty of threads, and yes, I am familiar with your screen name. The frequency of your posts does not by definition make you right, on this or any other subject.  In the interest of civility, perhaps we can just agree to disagree.

          by mappamundi on Tue May 06, 2008 at 07:01:52 PM PDT

    •  I understand that

      I meant "we" through our Senators.  It is supposedly representative government, and I'm hoping we can get those we elected to actually represent us.

      by DavidW in SF on Tue May 06, 2008 at 05:27:29 PM PDT

      •  Thank you n/t

        by mappamundi on Tue May 06, 2008 at 07:05:13 PM PDT

•  Reid is an idiot

  Watch the interview, he blames the  inability of the democrats in congress to accomplish anything on not having the presidency.

  He once again spreads  the lie that Lierberman is with us on everything but the war.

  Tell me Harry, if Lierberman's feelings on the war lead  him to speak at the Republican convention to help PREVENT us from getting the presidency, where the fuck does that leave us, based on your own excuse for not getting anything done?

  by furiousxxgeorge on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:16:08 PM PDT

  •  i suspect

    ... that that happenstance would get Joe booted out of the caucus if we can get Harry Reid the votes to spare, once the next session is convened.

    it hasn't happened yet.

    by wystler on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:25:17 PM PDT

•  I wish Jon would have asked "what about...."

  -supporting investigation into Kucinich's impeachment articles and hearings on that issue, isn't it important to find out whether the U.S. was intentionally misled into an unnecessary war on false pretenses?

  -supporting an investigation into price fixing by Big Oil, many industry analysts and economists say these prices have little to do with supply/demand and more to do with price manipulation.....hello?

  -why isn't Reid more effective at using his thin majority to rally media and public attention not only to these issues, but to the GOP's stall and wait tactics?  Do we really have time to wait another 6 months?

  All in all, I thought the interview was worthless.

  by RichardWoodcockII on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:16:27 PM PDT

•  Reid looked confused and medicated

  Had anyone explained to him that TDS is comedy?

  by Alden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:16:37 PM PDT

•  I think Stewart *could* have nailed him

  ...obviously. But he just simply chose not to. This keeps most of his guests coming back. He does that quite a bit with republicans on his show. (Witness his interview with Lynn Cheney, whom he treated quite well considering) He mostly tries to keep things cordial - unless you happen to be Tucker Carlson.

  by Snud on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:20:13 PM PDT

  •  or Chris Matthews!

    by dagnabbit on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:26:20 PM PDT

  •  agree, but not just guests

    I'm a long time fan of Stewart, mostly because the opening sequences (before interview) are often spot on in their honest critique.  This, unfortunately, has not been the case for the last few months, until very recently.

    I've been really let down at how little Stewart has actually dealt with the ridiculous machinations of the entire Clinton campaign staff since mid-February.  Only in the last couple of weeks has he made light of it.  I'm glad he finally came around.

    by symptomORdisease on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:43:59 PM PDT

•  Republicans must love Reid.

  by driftwood on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:21:57 PM PDT

•  OT, passive-aggressive isn't what you describe

  http://en.wikipedia.org/...

  Signs include:

  Fosters chaos
  Intentional inefficiency
  Making excuses
  Losing things

  The best way of dealing with passive-aggression is to lay down the rules and then follow them. For example, announce what time you are leaving and say if anybody's not ready, they don't get a ride. Then leave on time. Put the responsibility and fault on the non-compliant.

  by LNK on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:25:29 PM PDT

  •  yes it was...he made Jon come to him ..

    by just sitting there and not interacting.

    by Keone Michaels on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:43:44 PM PDT

    •  Sounds like my cat.

      by istari5th on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:51:55 PM PDT

      •  exactly!

        by Keone Michaels on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:56:30 PM PDT

        •  I did not intend this to be complimentary

          to Senator Reid.

          I expect my cat to be aloof.

          I expect the leader of the Senate who represents my party to be somewhat more assertive.

          I understand he has a razor thin majority to work with but many of us hoped for something a bit more productive and less conciliatory to the status quo.

          by istari5th on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:18:05 PM PDT

•  I don't think Reid controlled anything.

  He sat through most of the interview and said nothing, even when Stewart was talking about Reid's book.  

  I'd say that was the least interesting interview I've ever seen on that show.

  by nupstateny on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:26:07 PM PDT

•  It wasn't an interview. It was a book tour date.

  Harry Reid just wanted to stay 'on message'.....

  http://www.prnewswire.com/...

  From Going Down into the Mines to Taking on Mobsters in Las Vegas to
  Leading Debates on the U.S. Senate Floor, Mr. Reid Reveals the Previously
    Untold Personal Stories That Inspired His Toughness, Values and Vision

  by LNK on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:27:47 PM PDT

  •  Reid didn't stay on message

    Stewart gave Reid every opportunity to talk about his book, his upbringing, his history, his life story, but Reid sat there as if lobotomized.

    Stewart then moved on to some open-ended political questions to see whether that might stir Reid out of his torpor, to no avail. Then, it was obviously time to bring out the hook.

    It's also time to bring out the hook for Reid as Senate Majority Leader. Let him focus on Nevada, and leave the organization and motivation and leadership to those who can actually organize, motivate, and lead. It ain't him.

    by DavidW in SF on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:46:02 PM PDT

•  I hope, after November, the democratic party

  can afford to be done with Harry Reid's "leadership" and Joe Lieberman altogether.

  by istari5th on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:37:49 PM PDT

•  "He's with us on everything but the war."

  and ..that other thing.. uhm... the presidential candidate.

  by soros on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:41:28 PM PDT

•  Reid is creepy

  He acted like he didn't know what was going on.  He just sat there quietly, like he was trying not to be noticed.  He had all the presence of a ramen noodle.

  It's no wonder the Democrats taking over the house and senate hasn't accomplished much with this complete nothing being in a leadership position. He doesn't look like he could win a fight with a breeze.

  by shadetree mortician on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:49:54 PM PDT

•  what planet are you living on?

  Reid looked like a total bozo.  All that came out of that inteview is everyone scratching their heads wondering how the hell Reid got the top democratic position.

  by BDA in VA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:50:41 PM PDT

  •  He is an experienced performer

    and he does nothing without purpose.  If he wanted you to see him as a bozo rather than as Stewart's fool he chose to act the way he did.  He was passive so Stewart would have to come to him.

    by Keone Michaels on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:54:26 PM PDT

•  wrong...wrong....wrong

  Harry Reid was the CLEAR loser last night. I'll give you a few simple reasons, and follow with a more academic take.

  1. He was boring.

  2. He made the situation uncomfortable.

  3. He didn't say anything.

  4. He turned off a Stewart-friendly audience.

  Academically, he failed to work with the medium. Television is an image medium. To quote Andre Agassi, "Image is everything." There are two defining characteristics of television that Reid countered with his terrible performance. One, television depends on dynamic images to work. Two, it demands a high level of "user participation" to work properly.

  Marshall McLuhan described TV as a cool medium, noting that it requires the user to engage multiple senses to complete the interaction. Harry Reid sitting there like a bump on a log broke the fourth wall by reducing the image to a visual only experience. The full interaction of a television user was shaken for sufficiently long periods of time that the very nature of the medium was compromised.

  The best guests on "sit in a chair" talk programs are those that animate, gesticulate, and have expressive personalities. It's one of the reasons that pundits who shout and act loony are the most frequently used. It's the reason that Matthews and O'Reilly have huge audiences. Matthews spitting is repulsive, but oddly works on TV.

  by mikeplugh on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:10:37 PM PDT

  •  All you say may be true, but ....

    Consider the alternative.  The alternative is to make nice with Stewart and perhaps avoid the negative aspects you suggest but lose any sense of control of the situation.  Look at it from his strategic viewpoint.  The Daily show could be a slippery slide.

    I maintain that it was that Reid chose the safest alternative for him.  He was not trying to be a "best guest!"  He was just trying to get thru the shit without fucking up.

    by Keone Michaels on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:35:44 PM PDT

    •  Did someone twist his arm to appear on the TDS?

      The Daily show could be a slippery slide.

      Well so can the Senate, especially when you are chosen to be leader by your party.

      If you can't handle a comedian how can you effectively handle the jokers on the other side of the aisle and, in the case of Lieberman, in your own midst?

      by istari5th on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:48:53 PM PDT

      •  Mean ol Mr. greed and power lust twisted his arm!

        by Keone Michaels on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:01:55 PM PDT

  •  also you must remember to seperate content and

    process.  "Best guests" and "good television" are terms that only have meaning in context.  I have a masters degree in communications and understand how television works.  

    Harry Reid's task was not to make good television or be a best guest, it was just to survive a potential disaster as surefootedly as he could manage.  And he did.

    by Keone Michaels on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:45:47 PM PDT

    •  wrong...wrong...wrong

      I have a Masters Degree in Communication Theory and Media Ecology and I'm on my way to a PhD.

      Content is irrelevant with respect to most media, but especially television. The medium works against you when you perform as Reid did. Go ahead and poll the DailyKos community and see how many people think Reid did well. I guarantee that more than 75% will say he performed poorly. The reason is not what he said or didn't say, it's that he looked bad in doing so.

      Television is a image-primary medium with dynamic properties. Fast cuts, big movements, loud sounds, colorful things...all do well on TV. Look at the most popular progams on television and they all share these characteristics. American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, and football are the most popular shows going.

      Reid is a literate character, with appeal to a literate-primary audience. That audience is older and disappearing from our society with every passing generation. The Stewart audience is an overlap of the TV generation and the Internet generation, who are more participatory in their orientation. The younger group demand interactivity with their media experience and there was no interaction possible with Reid. He was a photograph in a dynamic environment.

      by mikeplugh on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:55:40 PM PDT

      •  Dueling masters degrees eh?

        Dude, Harry Reid like you is not stupid

        But, your comand of communications theory is greater than your empathy with the performers.  Much greater.  Put yourself in their shoes to fully understand what I am saying.  This discussion is not about you winning an argument. And please, don't go wrong, wrong wrong.  You are not my teacher we are just having a discussion.
         
        Instinctively Reid also knows what you suggest.  He made a choice. The alternative, to lose control and fuck up was worse in his mind.  As you or someone else said,  he is a performer in the congress, a master of control in that venue.

        In that context I'd say he was very successful.

        by Keone Michaels on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:56:55 PM PDT

        •  Okay

          The wrong...wrong...wrong" thing was for effect, but doesn't really foster a good conversation. Withdrawn.

          If Reid knows what I'm talking about, he wouldn't have appeared on the show in the first place. He would have stuck to Good Morning America and Bill Moyers. The choices are:

          1. Look good on television by playing by the rules of the medium

          2. Look bad on television by going against the rules of the medium

          3. Don't appear on television

          4. Stick to CSPAN and Book TV

          He chose the worst possible option. I'll put it to you this way, what if he appeared on Monday Night Football and behaved that way? Would he have looked good? If he had appeared on Survivor and sat like a bump on a log, would he be the first one voted off? If he was a guest judge on American Idol and didn't say anything, or give an opinion, would he have appealed to the viewers? The answer to all of those questions is, "No."

          If McLuhan's slightly cryptic ideas are too much, just look at Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" for the answer to why a vast majority of people here at DailyKos think Reid was awful on TDS.

          by mikeplugh on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:06:19 PM PDT

          •  whoops

            If he appeared on Survivor, the answer would be "yes."

            by mikeplugh on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:25:09 PM PDT