I can't wait until it's up on YouTube, I didn't watch as I heard it was pay-per view online, but it sounded like a great matchup...

The Champions of the Left and Right in the media squaring off...

A Liberal Democrat New York Jew vs. A Conservative Christian who appeals to the Heartland.

The answer, redhouse?

CLEARLY...Jon Stewart is too, too smart to run for THAT troublesome chair when he has a great gig as is.

(Anyone else want to see a sequel, maybe Colbert vs. Hannity?) :)

Maybe if Colbert were good for more than a quip or two per week. Stewart is the man.

Re: Stu for Pres: it was more in a manner of speaking, but it would be interesting. I watched the Obama Romney debate the other day and Obama didn't live up to expectations. When I watched Stewart I thought: yeah, if you put it *that way*. Point is: you *have* to put it that way. Left wing politics is simply more complicated than right wing politics, Obama needs not only to match Romney's aggression, he needs to surpass it. You can't yell "change change change" and then go on TV and act like an economics professor. Once you said "change", there's five six complicated phrases that should convince people to choose your side. That explains *why* the change is needed. It's not a level playing field. And that's exactly what Stewart did. Respect.

Also, Bill O Reilly is a moron, which helps.

*Sentences that explain, not "that explains".

Oh my God...watching it right now on YouTube...

STEWART IS *KILLING* IT!!! :D

Granted it's done half for comedy and half for the actual debate, it's definitely somewhat informal, but still... BRILLIANT. :)

As for Obama--

I thought it was more of his doing OK and Romney doing well and exceeding expectations than Obama completely fumbling the ball...

I thought he made some very well-reasoned points, he just didn't bring the rhetorical power he's famous for and clearly expected a more verbally-conservative, cautious Mitt Romney to show up rather than the bulldog who tried to bully his way into getting the last word each time--whether his statements were factual or not.

(And that's fine, by the way, I don't use "bully" or the fact that his statements didn't necessarily hold water or that a lot of it was vague and more rhetoric than actual answer...that's part of the debate game, I know when did North Korea 4 straight times for Model United Nations up and down California colleges, *I* played the role of the bully who rolled on rhetoric and intensity with little to no facts to back me up...after all, how do you factually back yourself up when you're the living embodiment of Dr. No meets Orwell's 1984? And I did WELL in those debates, I got a real reputation--every time I left my hotel room and walked around or took the elevator, someone would shout "HEY, KJI!" for "Kim Jong-Il," it was really sort of fun, lol--that most of those who came with facts and figures and were calm and reasoned--like Obama--didn't get, no one payed attention to or cared what THEY had to say, just so long as I kept up my antics and kept saying outrageous things, but saying them well and with a real energy and intensity...even if just about every single last thing I ever said in those debates are so against every single last thing I hold dear or believe in myself and I'd be sickened to meet someone who actually believed in those ideas--so I don't blame Romney AT ALL for having a factually-flawed debate, after all, in politics, it's not what you say, often, but HOW you say it...and Romney, simply put, said it better in the first debate. Obama may well come back--he still has all his negative ammo to throw at Romney, and he can turn up the intensity easily, whereas Romney now has higher expectations to meet than he did before--but yeah, Romney won, even if he didn't win factually.)