I could not agree more. Russert didn't play devil's advocate. He played Republican advocate. I have never seen such biased coverage by the media against a candidate as there has been against Hillary.

Comedians should not joke about politicians?

Everyone in public life is a target..

Nah - you should just stop watching him. Your blood pressure would decrease and you wouldn't have to waste valuable time and bandwidth trashing him online because you don't find him smart or funny or he mocked your candidate...

Ditto, also add Mathews there....

Stewart may be pro-Clinton but he is also a rather brilliant satirist and so I'm willing to forgive him for being only human.

If Jon Stewart was so Pro-Hillary, then why on CNN's Larry King show. When asked by King about why Clinton was loosing? Stewart's quick reply was "she (aka Clinton) was the front-runner tell people started to Vote, votings what happend" (this was followed by big laughs from both Stewart and King.)

Let me just add this, "BURNNNNN!" LOL

And if Obama supporters are drinking kool-aid, then clinton supporters most be smoking cigars!

Clintonistas clutching at straws that aren't there are either pathetically hilarious or hilariously pathetic.

tnrc - In case you haven't noticed (and by your remark I'm guessin' you haven't), but Jon Stewart is a "comedian" on the "COMEDY CHANNEL" and Brian Williams is a great sport every time he's on Jon's show. So get a sense of humor for christ sake you boring ass.

I really don't get what you're trying to say here. At least not in relation to Jon Stewart.

SO, ALL men are "scared" of WOMEN ? In general, or ALL women...and so hence, you guess that is why women MUST be stronger and even (b)itchier to prove are best ? Uh, sorry, as a somewhat rather strong (b)itchy fem myself , do NOT buy that premise and is one of the faults that FAULT the Hillary campers with, the presumption that women MUST prevail at all costs whether Hillary actually IS THE BEST CHOICE, no matter the FULL RECORD which is GLOSSED OVER and given a "pass" way too often but then whined about when some DO want to fully scrutenyze ,inspect or question...AW shucks, its just the boys picking on her, blah, blah, blah usuage to difuse REALITY based issues that YES, folks really want to KNOW about !!! Its all marketing ploys and deployments and more of the same which in the C's experience has wonked so well on their behalf in the past but may prove to NOT this time around and they are showing their befuddlement and lack of really "getting it' !!!

They have designed the debate to be cursory. It's to Obama's advantage. When she pushes and gets into the dirt it forces him to counter and thats where it is revealed the man has a shallow grasp of the many policy issues that makes the country run.

The media, if it really wants to get something accomplished, should extend the debates to 2 solid hours and actually require each candidate to respond and rebutt any of their opponent's debating viewpoint.

A real debate requires a focus to detail. Obama gets worse as the debates go on.

If Edwards were still in this, it would be even more apparent.

Uh, I also remember mention of a COIN TOSS that let the winner of the coin toss determine WHO went first...and further, LOL , Yes, Obama won one or two of those coin tosses and opted for Hillary to go FIRST, would have likely been equally skewered to some extent for NOT being a "gentleman" if HE chose theoption of "opening" (remember, he got tagged a bit on that issue before, dig and be reminded....and note how he graciously does the chair for the lady....LOL ) Folks are in full SEEK mode to discredit Obama as best they can...no more than the CLintons and their squad of campers...They did NOT take Obama serously at the beginning, thought he provided a nice sideshow diversion as they were SURE that Hillary was INEVITIBLE a she had been actually protrayed that way as far back as her FIRST (carpet bagged version ala' RFK) NY Senate seat race and MANY of her SENATE VOTES were POLITICALLY motivated for POLITICAL POSITONINGS..After the 2004 Dem loss (of which the CLintons were interjected as NOT being enthused of Kerry for it would DELAY a run by Hillary, YEAH, check out the archives folks, that too is there in the mix) from 2004 forward, the media has promoted the notion that HILLARY WAS THE DEM INEVITIBLE, and the CLintons promoted that as well even when coyly playing the "will she or won't she declare game--that was all part of the poli-game, they continued to fund raise and stash the cash for just this run and ARROGANTLY blew big bucks in her last NY Senate seat run against oppositon that was dismal and recognized as dismal but wanting a FLOURISH and confident MORE cash would be sent to the Clinton campaign fun, well...comes down to Feb2007, in difficulties due to poor campaign management on many levels but cash wise as well and Hillary had to lend herself $5million (likely a biz tax write off, but who knows, as does NOT yet release tax records which again could highlight Bills foundaton to having $$$ donated from major FOREIGN entities and etc for the FOundation as well as his P-Library...but Whatever....THe media is JUST picking on Hillary cuz she's a strong woman....Yeah, whatever but NOT right on that mark!!!

First off I find your comment "to give more credence to a network comedy show than it deserves" a little offensive, is it the role of the media to put "a network comedy show" in it's proper place? Are you saying Jon Stewart can appear on Larry King Live but the reverse would somehow destroy some hierarchy of what shows deserve what? If you're concerned that the Daily Show has become too popular I daresay there's nothing you can do about it. I believe as viewers we have a right to watch what we like and I would say it's The Daily Show's massive audience that makes it relevant and gives it credence.

Secondly I think your concern over BriWi appearing in the same SNL episode but not skit as Obama as some kind of endorsement or something that he needs to answer for is equally ludicrous. It sounds to me like you lack the sense of humour and proper context to watch SNL as it was intended. Now I'm not saying there aren't some tough questions the media needs to answer, like "Clean Coal" sponsoring and advertising on so much of CNN's election coverage until just recently or allegedy neutral websites having Obama ads on them. Was it just a buy into a company the uses the space or was the supposedly neutral website aware of it? Did their contract with the advertiser allow them to filter content that might make it appear as if they're taking sides?

Don't get me wrong, you're obviously reasonably well informed, do excellent research, and think critically about things but for pete's sake why not address those strengths to issues of substance rather than coincidence?

Just maybe BriWi's Halloween question to Obama inspired the SNL bit. Why do you find the question so odd?

See Rachel Sklar's Profile

This is really interesting. I did not think twice about the Hallowe'en question coming up in the debate and in SNL - since the show was on Nov. 3rd it's a natural theme -and I would guess that Obama was booked prior to the debate (though I don't know). When I saw Barack Obama walk out during the first scene my first thought was to wonder about perceived bias from the neutral newsman-host. (I know, media nerd.) I ended up writing a column about it that got absolutely no attention: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/05/barack-and-briwi-forget-_n_71058.html ("Barack and BriWi: Forget About Gravitas, What About Bias?). It was more about the appearance of bias and the fact that HRC was portrayed sort of negatively (every character thought she was dressed as a witch when she was a bride; except Obama, who told her she was a lovely bride). It also noted that HRC had been scheduled for a walk on during the season premiere but it hadn't worked out. All that said, I don't think BriWi would in a zillion years have compromised the integrity of the Philly debate in any way, nor his role. He's pretty scrupulously on the fence and is very ostentatiously straight and narrow - he says his family doesn't even know how he votes. I do, however, agree that there was some underscrutinized synchronicity there, and I also agree that HRC got hammered in that Philly debate though the excuse of everyone around that time was, that's what happens to frontrunners.

Lordy, what is the point of this slightly incoherent rant? Your suggestions at some conspiratorial connection between BW and SNL was just dumb.

Speak for yourself. Jon Stewart is one of the few people who actually addresses any real issues on a nightly basis, albeit in the context of a comedy show. His guests have included presidents of countries. He is important.

Middle America hates Hollywood. YAWN. Hollywood also made Meet The Spartans for those people and they can't eat that shit faster than their cornmeal.

As for the Oscars, middle america didn't go see No Country For Old Men. Those with any genuine interest in Hollywood understand his brand of humor perfectly and there are plenty of those people that come from your so-called middle america.

I was as shocked as Stewart when Kerry lost. It was a pretty sad moment in American history, don't you think Mr. Liberal as anybody?

"thinks he's more important than he is"? He's constantly making self-depricating comments, remarking on his own immaturity and poor acting skills, and often reminds us of his own context - that of a late night mock news network comedy show.

When he was on Crossfire he specifically outlined his role very well when they began to take him to task for not "asking the tough questions" of Kerry. "The show that leads into mine is about puppets making prank phone calls!" Stewart said. How important does that make him sound?

Thanks for the info; just watched Kingston's attack on Obama for not wearing a flag lapel pin (while not wearing one himself) on Dan Abrams' show.

Of course it's fine if you help give us a senseless $3 trillion unpaid-for war that slaughters and mutilates tens, maybe hundreds of thousands, and deregulated, corporate capitalist economics while working Americans fall further and further behind, year in year out, and send pretty much everything else you touch down the toilet. All that's fine, but don't dis the lapel pin!