First off, I wish Bill had read Kerry's old book that John O'Neill was talking about so he could have come back stronger on that point. Not that I can criticize all that much. I haven't read the book, or even heard about it until last night. I'm just saying that there was that and a couple other points that Bill kept silent on where you could tell he knew what that asshole was saying was utter bullshit; he just couldn't prove it. It would have been nice to hear Bill be able to say, "No, that's NOT what Kerry said in that book! He said ..." and proceed to tell him. OR he could have told him that yes he DID say the shit O'Neill was alleging, but he flip-flopped because that's what people with a fucking BRAIN do when they figure out they were wrong! It would have been nice to see him be able to QUICKLY dismiss EVERYTHING he said and get the train back on the track. He DID do A LOT of that. That was BEAUTIFUL when he said something to the effect of "You're answering YOUR questions, not MINE!" In that battle of an interview, to ME, Maher was the CLEAR winner. But because Bill didn't have an answer for every little thing O'Neill threw at him, the Rushes have something they can concentrate on and pick apart. Frankly, I don't know that it could have gone much better, though. O'Neill could have derailed the conversation for the entire hour if he'd been aloud to stay on that long. Ever see the Kerry vs. O'Neill debate on Dick Cavett? You can get it on C-Span's website, if you're interested. Again, Kerry was the CLEAR winner, but O'Neill just did everything he could to derail the conversation. As such, the Rushes claim O'Neill won! (I use the word "claim" because it's hard to believe that they actually believe he won.)
As far as his slamming (without naming) "The Daily Show", I don't know if that was such a great move. I don't disagree with him. But we can't sacrifice the GOOD for the PERFECT. (Where did I steal that line from? Anyone know?) "The Daily Show" is, sadly, a MUCH better source for news than ... oh, what's it called ... THE NEWS!!!!!! Maybe their interviews can be "softball" SOMETIMES. But you're not gonna see anything on "the news" where they show a clip of someone from the Bush camp saying something critical of Kerry, then they'll throw the fucking hypocrisy back in their faces by IMMEDIATELY throwing on a clip of Bush doing whatever it was they were just pretending to be critical of!!! Those are BEAUTIFUL moments! Go after "the news", go after Leno, but leave Jon Stewart alone! He's building bridges!
Lastly, you KNOW he's gonna catch some shit for inciting riots! I know he was joking (or maybe half-joking?) and I know you can't censor yourself because the stupidest people in the world won't get it. Still, I don't know that that was such a great idea. I was listening to Randi Rhodes on Air America either earlier that very evening or maybe the night before. She was telling people not to get violent or destroy businesses or do anything illegal. It was somewhere between begging and threatening. It was too ANGRY to call it "begging", but there was no actual "threat" either, so I don't know what you'd call it. But one of her BIG points was that New York has TONS of mom & pop type businesses and to set those on fire is a giant leap backwards. I noticed, and found it quite interesting, that when Maher was talking about torching businesses, he was using names of BIG national/international chains. Randi Rhodes was also talking about how BAD it's going to make the entire anti-Bush movement look if violent protests get on TV. I think Maher, if he was at all serious, might have been thinking along the lines of going to an extreme in order to get our voices heard. This isn't the Rob Lowe sex tape. This isn't a "no-such-thing-as-bad-publicity" kind of issue. This isn't one guy. It's a HUGE percentage of people who are not happy with the way things are going in this country. And there's a HUGE percentage of people that are 180° away from them. There's a SMALL percentage of both groups that have about half a millimeter left on their fuse and they're LOOKING to FIGHT! Obviously, the people that are motivated enough to get out and protest are pretty passionate about what they believe in. So is anyone that would go to the RNC. So that small percentage of people looking to fight becomes a little larger. And because of the fact that we're dealing with large groups of people, things could easily escalate very quickly and get out of control. And that's on the mind of everyone there, so everyone's looking out for someone on the other side to make the first move. Someone accidently brushes up against a cop, or vice-versa, and it's all over. I'm glad I'm not there. That shit could get UGLY!