Joseph Palermo of the Huffington Post gets so incensed that Jon Stewart mocked Obama's decision to opt out of public financing that he denounces Jon Stewart as having led us into war:
Sometime during the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq I remember watching a comedy bit on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart that drove home what a big joke the United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq were. The segment featured the UN inspectors, who were at the time charged with unearthing Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, as a bunch of Keystone Kops running around Iraq tripping over their own equipment and being led around by their noses by the Iraqis who were obviously hiding banned munitions. The thrust of the satirical news story was to give viewers a laugh while they nodded in agreement that anyone who trusted these UN clowns to uncover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq must be a fool.
Slamming the UN weapons inspectors as ineffectual twits dominated right-wing talk radio at the time and The Daily Show was in effect regurgitating the talking points of those who wanted to bring the country to war. Dissing the UN's efforts on Comedy Central inadvertently helped in make the case for war.
And that's why proper libs shouldn't mock Obama now, since it inadvertently makes the Republican case for McCain.
Groan. Does this mean the next four (or eight?!?) years will be humor free, at least from the left? Not as long as Huffers step into the gap with quips like this:
Second, absent from the discussion about Obama's "betrayal" of his principles because he's not foolish enough to tie his hands in the general election is the fact that he has broken all records in American politics for the amount of money raised BY SMALL DONATIONS. The vast majority of his campaign cash, about 93 percent, has come from donations of $200 or less.
I urge Mr. Palermo to leave the math to others. Obama has a lot of small donors, but they are giving small amounts (Coincidence? I think not!). Consequently, the fraction of cash raised from small donors is (and must be) lower than the fraction of small donors in the donor base. Per the Times:
The Obama campaign highlighted Thursday the fact that 93 percent of the more than three million contributions it had received were for $200 or less.
And what does that mean for his total fundraising? The Times again:
But by showing that he could raise large sums from small donors — 47 percent of the $263 million Mr. Obama received has come in amounts of $200 or less — Mr. Obama has made the argument that he has achieved online what the public finance system has been unable to do.
Still very impressive relative to what other candidates have accomplished in the past, but not quite as impressive as presented by Mr. Palermo. Oh, well - math is easy; comedy is hard (OK, dying is hard, too). The Jammie Wearing Fool has more on the Obama campaign as a humor-free zone and the Huffington Post as its content-free counterpart.