Any opinions?

In case some did not see the show

Obama and Stewart

IMO
Obama did great, had a few funny remarks. Sadly on a show like that he should have had more, maybe allot more funny remarks. I would bet being on a comedy show, he could get away with it _ then again maybe not ?

Anyway.
The Obama thought of changing voting districts - is seriously dangerous territory, more dangerous then that of changing Health Care. They tried that here and there was almost rioting in the streets.

It's called redistricting (gerrymandering =) and it happens all the time throughout US history -- no more dangerous now than it has been in the past. And it's something the President has no control over anyways -- it happens at the State level ...

As far as Barry's performance, I'd give it a B -- to his credit he was trying to be serious and did offer a solid defense of the past two years in terms of domestic policy. I'd LOVE to see an extended series of interviews with him and Stewart addressing other topics such as foreign policy / Bush admin torture / security / the wars -- with hopefully Stewart being more aggressive-yet-comparitively-respectful like he is with his conservative guests.

Sadly, it'll never happen with a sitting pres, though ...

. . . with hopefully Stewart being more aggressive-yet-comparitively-respectful like he is with his conservative guests."


I have yet to see anybody interview like Stewart. He goes for the meat, and yet, as you note, he goes there with respect. Most interviewers don't bother with the meat. They're too hell bent on framing the questions around the response they want to provoke.

Equal op criticism here. I love Tweety and Rachel, and I'm really enjoying L. O'Donnel ~ But they're just as guilty of the gambit as O'Reilly et al.

And KO still sucks humongous rocks, even with that pinched little mouth.



Edit: I miss your old avatar. It was just so much more . . . you. Just sayin'

It's called redistricting (gerrymandering =) and it happens all the time throughout US history -- no more dangerous now than it has been in the past.

Ohh really try that here and survive having a political career

Last time there was redistricting, the SOB republicans in the state house in PA subdivided my city among four districts. Why? To dilute the Dem vote. We still got one Dem rep out of the four, Tim Holden, but Holden is a blue dog with ticks.

edit: But MY rep in Congress is a scoundrel of a Rep, Jim Gerlach. He's against pork, except when the pork is to his benefit--and believe me, I know first hand because some of the pork he's gotten has been very beneficial to my institution. But if you're going to play that game, don't argue that you're against it.

If you're the President, it wouldn't really matter since you don't have anything to do with it =)

The thing about Stewart is he asks questions as if he's really interested in hearing an answer rather than just trying to elicit a reaction ... kind of like having an actual conversation instead of a sparring match attempting to score points (although he can get into those as well when provoked - "I don't want to compare you to other presidents" in riposte to Barry's quote was brilliant ;-)

Also, personal notes work -- Obamaspock retired for the time being ;-)

I completely agree about both Stewart and Obamaspock.

It's done every ten years according to the census report on population densities. We have 2 state constitutional amendments on our ballot to severely limit gerrymandering by either party. Last time they did it, the lumped a part of our city in with the one across the bay in order to limit the African-American vote.