Stewart easily for me. but Colbert is good. but when it comes to deeper humor i prefer john.

THE POLL RESULTS ACTUALLY DIDN'T SURPRISE ME. I AM HOOKED ON BOTH. I LOVE INTELLIGENT COMEDY AND AM A POLITICS JUNKIE. MY 80 YEAR OLD MOTHER WATCHES THEM BOTH EVERY NIGHT AND ROARS IN LAUGHTER. WHEN THEY ARE FINISHED WE OFTEN ENGAGE IN A VERY LOUD AND SPIRITED POLITICAL DEBATE ON THE PERSPECTIVE THEY BOTH BRING TO RELEVANT ISSUES.

I'm way too old for the original poll, but I go with the younger set. I've never seen anyone as quick witted as Colbert. The guy's hilarious most of the time. And he's got the most vocal of the right wing mouthpieces down cold.

I am a Baby Boomer, and I love them both. I especially like Colbert's song ("Stephen, Stephen") written by The Apples in Stereo's lead guy. (And if you don't know who the Apples in Stereo are, then you're not so cool yourself.)

Do conservatives who like Colbert not understand that he is a parody of conservative talk show hosts? If so, that would explain some things. Limbaugh and O'Reilly seem a lot like parodies to me, too.

Personally, I believe Colbert is the most brilliant satirist of our time. Stewart is great, but Colbert takes it to a whole other level.

Both of them are funny but Stephen Colbert is the best.

If you're a Republican kid enjoying Colbert, you must be a masochist, because he's making fun of you mercilessly and repeatedly

Colbert Nation

I'm not at all surprised that Republicans prefer Colbert. Stewart is unabashedly liberal and unapologetically critical of the administration. Colbert tilts liberal, but you have to watch the show consistently to get that because he is more than happy to run with jokes against liberals if they will get a laugh.

I prefer Colbert because he is an equal opportunity opportunist. He finds the laugh and goes with it; he's almost as likely to a shot at a Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama as he is John McCain (who is OLD!) or George W. Bush (great president or greatest president).

However, I give Stewart credit for being a fantastic interviewer and doing an excellent job with his show as well.

Jon Stewart has some off nights, and when it goes downhill I just turn him off. However, I am more than happy to tune in each night to check him out. I am 66 and think Jon is hot! Stephen Colbert does too good a job sounding like a Bushie . . . scary!

Man - I can never get it right! Why am I always so off in the polls? I'm 24 and I prefer Colbert and Hillary Clinton - so not my age status quo. I guess I should change my mind to fit national polls ... or I can just watch Tonight's Word ...

I, a 32-year-old female Democrat, vote for Stewart. I enjoy Colbert, but I regularly bust a gut laughing (and crying) with Stewart. My husband, a 32-year-old male Democrat, likes Colbert a little bit better. Mostly because of the infamous Correspondence Dinner where he told off Bush in Person.

This type of poll is not scientific, so don't get too upset about the results. They are both funny, but Stewart is a brilliant interviewer. Many a mainline pundit could learn a lot watching him. Maybe he should moderate the fall debates, so we can have real questions asked instead of irrelevant ones.

I prefer Stewart most of the time, but when Colbert is on he is on. I watch both along with Kieth Olbermann every day. There is more real news on in this 1 hour and a half than all the other news programs combined.

I'm 61. I prefer Stewart, but watch both religiously. I consider it a one hour block. Let's not forget that Colbert was a Daily show correspondent for quite a while before he got his own slot. I watch Olbermann, but he's not appointment tv for me, as he's not a comic...he's more of a pundit.

I am a 81 year old female and love both Stewart and Colbert but please do not put Stewart and Colbert' name in the sentance with Olbermann who is shamelessley in the pocket of Obama.

John Stewart is great. My biggest complaint has to do with his interviewing - he'd sucks at it. I know he'd be the first to admit his skills are mediocre at best, but jeez is he long winded! By the time he finishes rambling off another verbose question I'm ready to strangle him. Hey John, how about keeping the questions basic, short and simple. I know you like to throw some big words in there to highlight your intellect; but honestly, we don't care. I guess if I had to choose my favorite, it'd be Colbert. I love how he uses himself for comedy. His music video battle with Rain is something I could watch everyday and still laugh at. Colbert is silly, quick-witted and fun!

I stopped recording Colbert awhile back for no apparent reason. But I look forward to each new Stewart. What's the diff? The cast on the Daily Show are hilarious. Rob Riggle is insane. Oliver is a hoot. They all shine.

"Vast amounts of money are flooding the world's commodities markets, driving up prices of staple foods like wheat and rice. Biofuels and droughts can't fully explain the recent food crisis -- hedge funds and small investors bear responsibility for global hunger.

Not long ago, Dwight Anderson welcomed reporters with open arms. He liked to entertain them with stories from the world of big money. Anderson is a New York hedge fund manager, and as recently as last October he would talk with enthusiasm about his visits to Malaysian palm-oil plantations and Brazilian grain farms. "You could clearly see how supply was getting tight," he said.

In search of new investments, Anderson sends dozens of his employees to visit agricultural regions around the world. Back in New York, at his company's headquarters on the 27th floor of an office building high above Park Avenue, they bet on agricultural markets from Peru to Vietnam.

But in the towers above Manhattan's urban canyons, it's easy to lose touch with the ground. Hedge fund manager John Paulson was recently celebrated for achieving a record annual profit of $3.7 billion (€2.3 billion). Those who work in this environment have only one rule: Don't disappoint profit-hungry investors."

-- from Der Speigel 'Deadly Greed - The Role Of Speculators in the Global Food and Energy Crisis'

Note, Dwight Anderson has donated the maximum allowable amount to the Obama and McCain campaigns. "Associates" of is company have done likewise. John Paulson, Greg Warner, et al are solidly Republican, but have provided huge donations to the Clinton campaign. It is apparent that the various Obama, Cltinon, McCain partisan's here are committing suicide.

Depends on your preferemce -- comedy versus farce.

I find the Republican bent towards Colbert humorous. I would love to see those numbers if the same group had to watch his 2006 White House press diner performance -- which only demonstrated how thin the line between farce (Colbert) and tragedy (Bush) can be.

I'm 39, and I love them both. Unfortunately, the 2 and 7 year olds keep that sort of viewing activity to a minimum. I glean youtube for the "best of" moments.

I'm for Colbert.

And just so the fix knows, I'm 25, male, a Republican, and I am following the Presidential race very closely.

Just something for the Fix to parse!

Maybe many of the Republican Colbert fans are true Republicans who are upset that their party was hijacked by the Neo-Cons.

My 80+ grandmother certainly enjoys Colbert (and, trust me, she gets the joke) and she's a cradle-Republican who nevertheless hates Bush.

45- I think they're both really funny, I see Stewart as more politically savy, and Colbert's wit as irony in the way he professes to be a narrow minded right winger, and yet allows the truth to be expressed by making himself the brunt of the joke.
I'm not surprised republicans prefer Colbert, as Stewart is certainly anti-right wing, but it does reflect a lack of understanding / insight; but go figure they put Dubya in for two terms.

How can you choose between the two? Colbert is somewhat of a continuation of the Daily show with a great sarcastic twist. Colbert scored during the week leading to the PA primary by going to Phily and getting both Obamas, Hillary and John Edwards to appear. The question is how do the Republicans favor Colbert when he is making such fun of them?

Both are probably the best source of real commontary on this long running primary season. Nothing PC about it - just common sense with a great sense of humor and irony.

svreader - Another bloated and whining beta male for Clinton? Look, no male with their privates intact will support Clinton and, based on the hysteria and shrill voices of the Cltinon Peanut Gallery, no male will ever again support anything like a "women's issue". You people wanted a divorce. You got one!

If it hadn't been for John Stewart, I would not have survived the Bush years...particularly in the beginning! Even better when Stewart expanded the time to launch Colbert on his own. Shrewd and strategic move. Now balanced perfectly to reach a vast, diverse, aware, critical audience.....witness all the posts. Cheer! Either show could stand on its own, but I think Stewart has a stronger footing. Oh, I'm 82!!!

I'm just waiting for the Jon Stewart fad to pass so Craig Kilborn can return to the throne and bring back 'He said, Winstead.'

Party like it's 1997, Craigers.

Colbert is more in tune with the greatest national security threat we face--Bears.

As funny as Stewart and Colbert are, I think Bill O'Reilly is even funnier.

The Fix's official t-shirt looks like an official soccer crest... could The Fix be a soccer fan?

I'm in my early 50's and love them both! If only we could have two quality choices like this in November.

I'm 61 and I watch them both faithfully. Colbert does a great job of staying in character, but I wouldn't pick between them. Jon needs to giggle less and say "settle down" less and be nice to Williom Kristol et al, less. But it's a tougher gig because Colbert is freer to be over the top in interviews because O'Reilly is so super-hyperbolic.

"They are comedy shows, not real, who cares? You can't find something relevant to write about in this changing by the hour atmosphere?"

Considering they are two of the most watched political commentators of our day, and probably more trusted and respected than most mainstream media outlets precisely because of their critical bent, I would argue they are incredibly relevant. Therefore, as worth writing about as any of the other ridiculous crap that the mainstream media finds worthy of endless coverage of on any given day of the week.

Stewart easily. Colbert has some great lines written for him and is a great parody of a conservative. But in the end it is just a gimmick that gets tiresome, Stewart has a distinct flexibility advantage which includes a pretty decent supporting cast that can be changed to keep the show fresh. Colbert's gimmick is constraining. Maybe the reason for the age shift is simply that after two or three years of the same shtick on Colbert, those used-to-be 18 year olds have internalized the Colbert shtick so well it just isn't that funny anymore, but Stewart as ring leader can get by with 2 minutes of jokes, 5 minutes of interview, and 15 minutes of material by his ever-changing band of "correspondents".

After watching Colbert on the Daily Show for years, I still find him more hit and miss then Jon. And I am ancient, 46 years old. I HAVE to see The Daily Show but I find Colbert easily missable. Both have done amazing things...Jon is an excellent interviewer, Colbert is an excellent fake interviewer!!

I prefer John Stewart. Sometimes Stephen Colbert is so hung up on his "look at me be a fool" ac that he loses touch with reality. Meanwhile, John Stewart is always in touch with reality, mostly changing the vantage point slightly to give us a comparatively better view of what really is happening. he helps us laugh at our own politicians , ourselves and our society by re-examining what may be considered to be rather mundane run of the mill happenings in society and making them interesting and laughable. To fully appreciate Stewart, though, it helps to have some knowledge off the actual news as stated in the mainstream media.

forget Colbert vs Stewart, how about Howard Dean vs. Clinton and Obama?

Dean said Monday, either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama "must drop out of the Democratic presidential race after the June primaries."

The Dem Nominating Rules are apparently a "living breathing document". They made the rules, but won't follow them - because they don't like the results.

At this point, no one in the party wants to be the one responsible for picking the nominee. Dean's answer - one of them should commit suicide.

This entire debacle of a process has been an outstanding illustration of the how poorly liberalism works to accomplish anything.

I agree with it being an apples and chairs comparisojn, I like them both for different reasons. I like Jon's Humor better, but I enjoy the fact that Colbert actually has many republicans fooled into believing his facetious act. The thing to also remember, Jon Stewart produces the Colbert Report, so I am sure the writing staff is fairly much the same, its just a different approach. A satrircal anchor, and a O'Reilly-esque hyperbole.

Stewart vs. Colbert? That's like having to choose beteween Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. In a target-rich environment for political satire, both conduct what amounts to little more than a nightly smirkfest. By the way, Chris, isn't it the White House Correspondents Dinner, rather than "Correspondence"?

I agree with it being an apples and chairs comparisojn, I like them both for different reasons. I like Jon's Humor better, but I enjoy the fact that Colbert actually has many republicans fooled into believing his facetious act. The thing to also remember, Jon Stewart produces the Colbert Report, so I am sure the writing staff is fairly much the same, its just a different approach. A satrircal anchor, and a O'Reilly-esque hyperbole.

I'm 23... almost 24.

Colbert, by a mile. He's smarter, quicker, sharper, and funnier. Any Republican who likes Colbert either doesn't get it or is self-loathing.

"CORAL GABLES, Fla. -- Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Sunday called Democratic rival Barack Obama insensitive to poor people and out of touch on economic issues."

the guy who married the $100 million buck beer heiress calls the black guy raised by a single white mom 'insensitive to poor people and out of touch on economic issues.'

you can't make this sh(t up. but yes, republicans are dumb enough to fall for it. which is to say, really really dumb.

"The right course of action is to make preparations as quickly as possible to bring our people home. It does not mean as soon as order is restored to Haiti, it doesn't mean as soon as Democracy is flourishing in Haiti, it doesn't mean as soon as we've established a viable nation in Haiti. As soon as possible means as soon as we can get out of Haiti without losing any American lives.

"Now there may be different interpretations of this Resolution on the other side, but it is my view---and I want to make it clear and I think the majority of the American people's view---that as soon as possible means as soon as possible. Exactly what those words state."

---McCain in 1994

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq? No problem!

But in Somalia? Not so much:

"The American people did not support the goals of nation-building, peacemaking, law and order and certainly not warlord funding. For us to get into nation-building, law and order, etc, I think is a tragic and terrible mistake. But the argument that somehow the United States would suffer a loss to our prestige and our viability, as far as the No. 1 superpower in the world, I think, is baloney. The fact is, what can hurt our prestige, Mr. President, I'll tell you what can hurt our viability, as the world's superpower, and that is, if we enmesh ourselves in a drawn-out situation, which entails the loss of American lives, more debacles like the one we saw with the failed mission to capture Aidid's lieutenants, using American forces, and that then will be what hurts our prestige."

---McCain in 1993

Gas going up AGAIN -- keep laughing america.

SINGAPORE (AP) -- Oil prices hit an all-time high near $120 a barrel Monday after a weekend refinery strike closed a pipeline system that delivers a third of Britain's North Sea oil to refineries in the U.K.

The shutdown comes amid supply outages in Nigeria that have helped to support oil against a strengthening dollar.

In the U.S., retail gasoline also hit a record for the 13th straight time. The average price of a gallon of regular unleaded rose to $3.603, up four-tenths of a cent from the previous day, according to auto organization AAA.

Republicans choose Colbert for this simple reason. Laughter. What else can you do when you look at your president and his daily shenanigans? Where would Colbert and Stewart be without all this cannon fodder? If your not laughing, your crying - and when your administration has caused you to spend $80 filling your tank and caused your home's value drop $25 K TODAY - would you rather watch some satire about it, or would you prefer the eulogy? At least Colbert pretends to feel thier pain. Even if he doesn't.

By the way - Colbert all the way. He doesn't pull his punches, and the man has bigger cojones than anyone here will ever have. John Stewart hosts awards shows. Colbert roasts the President of the United States while standing 10 feet from him and on national televison at the cost of losing all future invitations to such events. Colbert will sacrifice his reputation to spout the hilarious truth. Point taken sir. Point taken.

"My family motto: Not in the Face."

Now that the mainstream media has seen fit to come out of pocket and violate the sanctity of the church, where can we go to speak our mind without having to answer to white people? There is this very colonial motif of having to filter black free voices through a sieve of white ignorance and paranoia. What you say--and what other black people in your vicinity say!--has to be state-sanctioned and approved by people who have no idea what you are talking about, and you'd be a fool to explain it to them. "Negro Tour-Guide" is an under-paid position with lots of work, but no benefits.

All indications are that The Rev. Wright is unapologetic. And Thank God for that. Because The Wright Question is, if you can't speak freely and plainly in church without consequence, where are you free? What is your freedom worth if you are not entitled to an opinion you can share--in any matter you like--among friends?

he Post goes above the fold with a four-click must-read by Eli Saslow, who sketches the scene at a North Carolina voter registration office. He profiles an ex-felon (drug charge) who learned he could register as long as he'd completed parole, a high-school senior registering for the first time, and an ex-Marine switching from the GOP so he can cast a vote not so much for Hillary Clinton but rather against the newcomer he calls "Embowa."

"From what I can tell, if he becomes president he will refuse to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and we will leave Iraq unprepared," he says. "I'm not going to sit at home and let that happen."

Jon Stewart for President!

In a case indicating that the world is going completely insane, or simply a something reminding one of the stage prop incident in Spinal Tap, Roger Waters of Pink Floyd arranged for a giant pig to fly above an outdoor concert this weekend urging people to vote for Obama however on the side, the pig said "Don't be let to the slaughter."

We report, you decide.

"Stewart, the progenitor of political news coverage with a comedic twist,"

Because Saturday Night Live and Chevy Chase never did it. Sheez.

I'm a 35 year old woman, so clearly way too old for my opinion to matter.... but I fall solidly in the Stewart camp. Colbert is brilliant, but frankly his pundit parody is just too well done - it makes me uncomfortable, although I know it's satire. I prefer to watch the dead-on satirical but fairly accurate reporting on The Daily Show.

And anyone who dismisses either as liberal leftists who just bash the right has NEVER watched the show. They bash stupidity on both sides, they bash inept and foolish politicians on both sides, and they bash (beautifully) the sad state of media from CNN to Fox News. There is no bias there. (It just happens that the Bush administration has been particularly fruitful in comedy material.)

What a pointless poll.

I live in Europe at the moment and all I get is 25 minutes of of John Stewart every Sunday on CNN. We only get Comedy Central half the day (evening/nighttime) and it's filled with South Park reruns, Scrubs, and Teachers... each shown several times a night.

You just learned about as much useful information from my post as from the entire poll.

(COLBERT4EVA!)

Colbert makes me laugh more!

Stewart is my "in-the-know" guy...he brings my attention to things I might not have already learned during my Fix day :)

I prefer Colbert a bit more.

one of them believes in himself and his opinions, the the other believes in the idea of himself and his opinions. Big difference: colbert in a landslide

madhatter wrote:

"Both are far-left liberals who get their canned laughs mostly by bashing Bush and our country."

They don't bash the country -- they respect this country enough to recognize that the ideals upon which this country was founded have been ignored and/or perverted by Bush & Co.

And as far as their politics are concerned, both Jon and Stephen are pretty moderate.

I feel a little guilty every now and then when I laugh hysterically at Colbert's wicked humor. Guilty because I love Stewart. Objectively i.e. setting aside my love for Stewart (I got my mom in India to watch Stewart on CNN International), I am 31 and I think Colbert's humor is sharp and incisive. He is on character every second of the show, although now and then the megalomania is a little off-putting. But in terms of new information, the ability to be thought provoking and conducting interviews, Stewart's my man and always will be. And who the heck are those clueless 16%, pray tell?

To all those progressives here who daily praise Senator Obama the following quote from Senator Obama turns my stomach and has convinced me that I and hopefully many of my local attorney friends will come to appreciate:

"Obama also cited a vote on tort reform that angered trial lawyers attorney"

And he is proud of that, why?

I will wait to hear an Obama supporter tell me why we should be proud of that position he was apparently so excited and quick to tell Fox yesterday.

Perhaps his friends in the insurance industry will greatly appreciate that he sides with them.

Both are far-left liberals who get their canned laughs mostly by bashing Bush and our country. To the far-left audiences they both have, this is consitered funny. I'll stick to a truly funny guy, Dennis Miller.

Jon Stewart is always funny and Stephen Colbert only has some funny moments. I like the Daily Show better b/c it mixes both humor and some serious topics in as well. It's also more informative than the Colbert Report. Jon Stewart also has much better interviews.

Well they are both so great! Like Nicole, Jon has always been "hotter" than Stephen. I prefer Jon because he truly cares for his country. That is very evident if you go on youtube and click on his interview on hardball. Stephen is brillant in his own schtick. Agian check out his interviews with O'reilly and pure brillance. Of course, theWashington Press roast is the ultimate!

Stewart panders to his audience like crazy. He barely bothers with satire anymore, he's content to take shots at Bush and have his audience cheer him on.

And I'm a Democrat.

I'm 17 and like Stewart more. I used to think Colbert was better, but I'm kind of tired of his act by now, and think that sometimes his show just isn't funny, while the Daily Show is always pretty funny and very insightful.

I have primary fatigue - there ought to be a law.............

it has got to be js for who is the best for commentary however sc is hilariously funy and i think does a better joib of making the audience feel like they are right there in an intimate conversation with him.

but js wins

If you look closely at Mr. "I am Change" Obmaba he is the most status quo politician of the three candidates running. He has been part of the affirmative action plan for his entire life, he get big government backing him (see Kennedy Kerry. I am sick of him more so that Reagan.

I find Colbert much more clever, and his funniest bits are funnier, but there's such a harshness there, that it can get draining night after night. (Holocaust docs should be draining--comedy shows . . . I don't want to be drained every night.)

Colbert is also much more narrowly-focused. I get a better view of the political situaion from Jon.

I tivo both every night, and watch about 75% of them, but find myself going to Jon first most of the time these days.

Chris,

If you're not doing it already, can you do a piece on the GOP Nevada Convention?

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/apr/27/ron-paul-campaign-dominates-convention/

It seems as if Ron Paul converted his second place into a win, but the entire proceedings were shut down?

It puts the Democratic mess (sorry, campaign for nomination) in some perspective.

What isn't a joke is that the superdelegates are not ending this race.

The Superdelegates are selling out the party for some lame personal considerations.

The truth is the superdelegates are afraid of the consequences of making a decision - most are superdelegates by virtue of other positions they hold, only the add-on superdelegates are not - it is time that they just face their constituencies and offend whoever they feel they have to offend.

Look at the bright side, the rest of the country gets it off their televisions.

Are the Republicans who love Colbert so much missing the fact that he's making fun of the right wing position...or is the right wing media just as ridiculous to them as it is to me (a democrat...and Stewart fan).

Stewart "made" Colbert and is still king but Colberto (during the writer's strike) was one of the funniest bits I've ever seen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBuGQCDyQLs

Speaking in Spanish with subtitles to Lou Dobbs, Colberto asks, "Let's talk about the war on the middle class. How do we beat those bastards?"

Brilliant. My 15 year old son and 18 year old daughter both about fell off their chairs.

I'm impressed and confused by Colbert's popularity among conservatives. I guess at some level most enjoy getting lampooned but still you have to wonder.

49% of Colberts' audience is Republican? Oh my word, that means how many of them don't get he is using the extreme to showcase the Right being off track

He is brilliant but here is a great question. What does he do when Obama or Clinton wins? His premise falls apart.

Fortunately, he was funny before his extreme version of his act became mainstream. Comments?

The average Republican is ultra-rightwing. They have driven the moderates out of the party. I like Stewart a lot, but I think he's far too kind to Republicans he has on his show, especially McCain. He could actually point out some of McCain's great many hypocricies, flipflops, and lies...

Reply to Allison:
What a thoughtful comment. I must say, I now feel much more confident in the future, knowing that our youth is so engaged and intelligent.

If you don't fall in this age group, does your vote matter? Do the republican youth who prefer Colbert understand that he is just as or maybe more liberal than Stewart?

I'm 20 and I've been watching Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert for about a year. Which show do I enjoy more? Probably The Daily Show. I like the combination of news sources and correspondents Stewart uses in his program (John Oliver and Rob Riggle really are doing it for me right now, for some reason). Though I love Colbert, sometimes I find myself thinking, "but man, that's a lot of him!" Often I also appreciate the topics of Stewart's content more, but I guess that's a matter of my own political interests.

Which guy do I find funnier? Probably Stewart. Again, Colbert's character is a great representation of the conservative ideologue that so many of us have come to fear in American politics and I give Colbert himself major props for acting that I do not believe Stewart could bring off. But since Stewart isn't working behind the mask of a character, on some level it makes him seem more accountable for what he's saying and his sentiment more genuine, even though I'd bet the two of them are quite similar politically. I kind of wish they were still on the same show, because I think playing Colbert's character against Stewart's straight man really works to both their strengths as comedians.

But which guy do I admire more? That I cannot begin to tell you. I jumped on the bandwagon kind of late in the game, and I'd seen Stewart's interview on Crossfire and Colbert's speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner before I watched either of their shows for the first time. It was these appearances, far more than either The Daily Show or the Colbert Report, that captured and held my interest in these guys. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a walking stereotype of my generation who gets her news from Comedy Central -- I go to some combination of The New York Times, NPR, and the Daily Kos for that -- but I don't look to Stewart and Colbert for pure comedy, either. These guys have given voice to what many Americans feel, but will not, or cannot, say on the public stage. That takes a lot of courage, and I hope they keep sticking it to the MSM over and over again.

Both shows are brilliant and I seldom miss either of them. I agree with the comment above ("apples and chairs") that suggests that direct comparisons are not really possible. Each show has a different mission, and fulfills it very well. I am rather pleased to learn that Republicans favor Colbert, however. I'm hoping that it doesn't mean that they are as blind, tone-deaf, and self-aggrandizing as Colbert's character, but rather that they see Colbert's O'Reillyian fatuousness for what it is. It's a little too scary to think that they might be mistaking "truthiness" for truth. I was also a fan of "All in the Family," but was astonished to learn that, for every person that laughed at Archie Bunker, there was another who was laughing with him.

Hilarious that Republicans like Colbert any more than Stewart, statistically speaking. The ones who do just might not realize he's doing his schtick tongue-in-cheek. (Tune in to his Correspondents' Dinner performance two years ago, if it's too subtle for you on the ...Report.) To me, it's Stewart and Colbert are two halves of the same show.

I'm a 60-year-old white woman. If I count, I'm with Stephen Colbert all the way because he is a fellow South Carolinian. More Republicans watch Colbert because they are generally pretty stupid and don't understand that his show is a satire.

I'm 39 and don't see any reason to prefer one over the other. I find Stewart indispensable and Colbert charming--though his shtick gets a little tiresome. With these two, I think Olbermann rounds out the trinity of humor, sanity and real political satire.

For sharp wit with a hefty dose of reality - both Stewart and Colbert win out over Bill Maher. For innuendo, gutter talk, bias, and miscogny, Maher hits the jackpot.
For outright stupidity and free for all circle jerk - Matthews, Schuster, Olbermann, Scarborough, Abrams, O'Reilly, Hannity & Colmes. . .

When I do (which is rarely) watch Comedy Central, I watch Stewart. Colbert just takes his act way too far and isn't funny for me. Stewart, on the other hand, still has a bit of normality about him, and gives the impression that he really is a sane, human being, someone who realizes its all an act, a show. Colbert comes off as nearly psychotic to me.

Colbert hands down

Kudos to you, Chris, for a very very very welcome break from the endless slog. In a similar spirit, I liked the recent night that both Stewart and Colbert essentially boycotted covering the Democratic contest and covered the world food shortage instead. That was good programming. And kind of amazing they found a way to cover such a topic ironically but respectfully. Good stuff.

For the record: I'm a 20 year old Democrat and prefer Stewart.

I don't think all Republicans are naive enough to not understand Colbert's jokes. I think many enjoy him more (a) because Stewart grills his [Republican] guests more and (b) because they may view Colbert as mocking more ultra right-wingers rather than the average Republican.

So, do those Republicans (49%) realize that Colbert mocks them on a nightly basis?

"Are these the same people uninterested in the unveiling of the official Fix t-shirt?"

No, there's a hell of a lot more of us in that category.

As a 54 year old, I love them both. Stewart covers the news more thoroughly. He also manages to interview his guests respectfully, even when he completely disagrees with their point of view and shows it. I find his correspondents, particularly Wilmore and Oliver, usually insightful.

Colbert is cutting edge. He is inventive. He has done things with audience interaction and the Internet that no one else has done. He talks about ideas through The Word and his choice of interviews in a unique way. He may be the smartest man on television. I should mention that his writers seem to deserve most of the credit for The Word, since while they were on strike, The Word also did.

Colbert has his weaknesses. He can be sophomoric. He often cuts off guests and makes them look foolish. He never seems to pull his punches. The much lower level of big name bookings on Colbert's show reflect this tendency.

Here in the UK we can only get Stewart, so the question's moot.
And we can't even vote in that other election...

God Bless the F.B.I.It's time for a national/international data base.We need to break down Zion into it's individual components.Synchronize your wrist watches.

I think Colbert is funnier and more absurd (in a good way) but Stewart is more relevant. Both of them are far more intelligent than 99% of the talking heads on the MSM.

Stewart wins. Colbert is annoying. Someone said that Colbert is like Pee Wee Herman, but Pee Wee Herman does a much better impression of Republicans than Colbert. For example Pee Wee's impression of Jeb's male companion Congressman Mark Foley (Republican, Florida) is much more convincing than Colbert's impression of the RPOF backroom insiders.

In reply to those who are just ridiculing both Stewart and Colbert, they just reveal how little they understand the predominantly Liberal reaction to Talk Radio and the changing national media. Talk Radio is dominant for an older conservative generation. The internet and CC are two major reactions to talk radio. And the younger generations are tuning out to talk radio and watching shows like the Daily Show and Colbert Nation.
I prefer Colbert for his jokes on FOX News and Stewart for his political interests.
Both could have been much better debate moderators than most given the opportunity in the debates.

WHAT A SURPRISE1 MANY PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW THESE GUYS. PERHAPS THEY DON'T HAVE CABLE TV?

The Daily Show has funnier sketches and supporting players (not surprising, since Colbert's on-camera supporting team is much smaller). But Steven Colbert is a far more incisive and effective interviewer than Jon Stewart, who has a tendency to take it easy on his guests.

All in all, The Daily Show is marginally funnier, but Colbert is more biting and newsworthy. But both shows are funny and great.

If I had to vote for one of the two for President? Colbert. His in-your-face speech at the 2006 White House Correspondence Dinner was one of the most impressive acts of political courage that I've seen in the past twenty years.

Which is, I'll admit, a sad commentary on the state of American politics: that a truth-to-power speech by a comedian to a criminal President and criminally negligent Washington press corps ranks as a major act of courage. Nonetheless, it does.

I set my Tivo to manually record Jon once a day, four days a week, since otherwise it gets confused by Comedy Central's multiple showings of "new" episodes. But then I set it to record for an hour, since Steve follows Jon.

Who needs to choose? Watch them both.

I'm glad so many 18-24 are watching. That gives me hope for the future.

I wish both shows were on 5 nights a week.

President Barack Obama of the USA!!

Because America wants the Barry best!!

Hillary Clinton is a neocon kamikaze sent out by Cheney, Rove, Murdoch and Mellon-Scaife with the purpose of destroying the Democratic party.

This, my friends, is the Republican strategy for stealing the 2008 election.

We are SICK of the phony manipulation of facts by ad agencies and moronic think takers in order to "fool" the people. They are the fools. That ad will cost McCain everything. It will cost the repubs more seats in the congress and open up repub candidates for the same treatment...by "independent citizen action groups."

Chris, I am 82 years old, full of life, fun with a terrific sense of humor and I truly enjoy both Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert. And I am an intelligent, retired MD. Count me in among the educated and a bit wiser than the young in your polls. We both enjoy Stewart and Colbert but I am a Hillary Clinton democrat.

My husband and I, political junkies raised in the 60's, prefer Jon Stewart. And I agree, it's the best source for news around.

It seems clear to me that someone is behind this promoting of comics. I wonder if by promoting these guys into big time, it will happen that their promoters will make big time bucks. You are being duped to root for these guys so you will watch them like your favorite ball team. My God.

I prefer John Stewart, though his politics is waaaaaay LIBERAL!

I'm 147 years old, so I still like Mort Sahl, dadgummit!

I love both. Colbert's comedic timing is priceless though.

@ tiger: Nice to see that some Republicans fully discern what Colbert is doing and still have a sense of humor. He is a caricature of the loopiest wingnut version of the GOP. There are still thoughtful and intelligent Republicans, though their numbers seem to be dwindling, unfortunately. I happen to be a liberal-leaning Independent, but the only people I demonize are, well, demonic--no matter what their politics are,

I am 17 years old and I love both shows. I have nothing but respect for both Jon and Stephen. That said, I do prefer Jon.

Stephen is a wonderful performer, there's no doubt about it- it's clear that his character is the product of a tremendous amount of work and thought. I admire what he did at the White House Correspondent's Dinner because that took some serious cojones but, my loyalties lay with Jon.

Jon Stewart is a voice of reason amidst the madness of the world. His show is not a vehicle for a performance but for honest political satire. He is a friendly face, one who doesn't grate on the nerves as "Stephen" has a tendency to sometimes do (remember his recent interview with REM? Awkward.). He is witty and smart, calm and rational, and- forgive me ladies of the Colbert Nation- in my opinion, far more attractive than Stephen. Yes, his correspondents aren't as good as they once were (save John Oliver and Demetri Martin who are brilliant), but can he help it if the best ones keep leaving him to become stars?

I'm 59. Colbert rules. (He's also got a LOT of range: Remember his portrayal as the expert forger on Law and Order?) I like his social conscience: Providing a vehicle for wrist-strong donations for injured veterans, and school-aid contributions for SC and Penn. His turn as the Press Club emcee is destined to become a classic of American political humor (and--indeed--an illustrative footnote in American political history). I think he's flat-out brilliant. (I do wish, however, that he would dial it back some during the interviews...)

I like Stewart. Some of the ensemble work on his show is first-rate. He is, in general, a better interviewer than Colbert. I loved the way he utterly dismantled and exposed Chris Mathews. I literally applauded at home during the interview. I was wonderful to watch Tweety being taken apart in neat, surgical slices. (But he is uneven; the Clinton interview prior to Texas was dreadful--leaden and obsequious.)

My three demographic groups all go for Colbert, so I guess it is no surprise that I am completely favoring him! I could go on for paragraphs about how great Colbert and his show are, but I won't, at least not here.

I'm surprised that so many people think that Republicans enjoying Colbert are tricked or confused. I am both a Republican and daily viewer of the Report. Colbert still comes across as the "well-intentioned, poorly-informed high status idiot" that he sets out to be. Remembering that he plays a character works both ways, so I'm sure you all know that conservatives don't actually reason and behave like Stephen Colbert!

Also... to answer why Stewart and Colbert are so important now, I will tell you this:

A few days ago, the story came out the nearly ALL Top Administration Staff chaired torture meetings in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions. You'd think this would be news? HA!

Only Helen Thomas pursued this topic. Everyone else ignored it. At the end Helen could be heard asking. "Where is everybody?" to a room full of reporters.

FYI... Jon Stewart is a Libertarian.

Colbert's much more talented than Stewart, on both a comedic and charismatic level.

Actually, the biggest(Immense even) Joker of them all, the one who must be the the best Dead-Panner out there, the one NO-ONE should ever take SERIOUSLY;

Little Keithie Droll-Bermann! ;~)

Actually, the biggest(Immense even) Joker of them all, the one who must be the the best Dead-Panner out there, the one NO-ONE should ever take SERIOUSLY;

Little Keithie Droll-Bermann! ;~)

three questions:

#1: how many of those polled knew that Colbert's show is a spin off from the Daily Show with Jon Stewart? (my guess: less than 50%.)

#2: will either of them accept the 2nd spot on the ticket behind the other? (I think Colbert could live with a Stewart-Colbert ticket more than Stewart could live with a Colbert-Stewart ticket. But don't blame me, I voted for Bill and Opus.)

#3: who is going to tune in to watch whether Fonzie jumped the shark?

I used to think that Stewart was better and that Colbert was repetitive, but Steven has really stepped it up. I think both shows are excellent now and Tivo them both.

Stephen Colbert is the person I will write in for President if Hillary Clinton wins the democratic party nomination.

I like both for different reasons, but prefer Stewart. However, Stewart sometimes makes sexist remarks that are quite offensive.

While either can be very entertaining, I think it's a tad delusional to think of them as a real source of news. I might agree that "The Daily Show" is one of the better television news programs, but that really isn't saying anything.

The full script of any 30-minute American news program is comparable to what you might get from perhaps half of the front page of a typical newspaper. Of course, it would only take 5 minutes to read that much print, and you wouldn't be subjected to commercials, and good grief does Comedy Central pile on the advertising.

So as entertainment, fine. As news, piffle. The bandwidth is insignificant. And do you honestly think "The Daily Show" is a superior news program to, say, "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer"?

I'm 30 and I watch em both if I can. If I don't have time I'll skip Colbert, but theres not a difference in who's good or bad, it's all good entertainment. Both cover the news, both are funny. It's also not really fair to compare Stewart - who has a team of correspondents to bounce off of - with Colbert where it's just him.

The one difference I see in their style is that Stewart will get into serious, productive interviews and analysis that you wont hear on Colbert. The conversation - especially with Republicans - seems more .... important. So I look to Stewart as a real news commentator, preferable to most of the bozos we have on the "real" news networks. As a result I watch him more regularly, because I expect the news of the day from him. I may miss some entertaining spin on the news if I skip Colbert, but if I miss Stewart I feel like I miss an actual news story that could be covered up by other networks.

So when do we see the newest poll of Stewart vs O-Reilly where they see who's audience knows more about current events?

Well at least they don't tear each other down all the time, right, Hillary?

Love 'em both, but prefer Stewart who sticks better to the news. Colbert can get off on tangents, but I do enjoy his role-playing; Has O'Reilly caught on yet?

Like to know how the 65+ group of which I am a member votes. Probably 80% would ask, "Who are these guys?"

Nice break from the mind bending campaign Chris, thanks.

Well this 48 year old NYC native lives for them both, when they are on break the only good thing is I get to catch up on some sleep, having to get up early for work.

I find they both have a different approach to handling their satire. Stewart tends to stick to irony, while Colbert's spoof of O'Rielly can wear a bit after a while. Still I love them both.

Funny how a survey last year found that people who read 1-2 major newspapers or watched Comedy Central were more knowledgeable than those who watched the local news or FOX.

By the way, younger people in the poll may like Colbert more, but when I saw him live the average age was much higher.

dumbest post ever

they compliment each other, and i don't compare the two.

no one makes congress squirm like stephen colbert, i can only think about senator barney franks first appeance. then there's the final question, "george bush: great president or the greatest president?".

registered non-partisan forty-three year old male here.

I am not one of the kids who are most represented. In Sept. I will celebrate(or
at least acknowlege seventy-six years.) Often I have the best chuckle of the day with Jon Stewart. I honestly feel that the surge in young people voting is directly related to Stewart--he cuts through all the garbage that pretends to be serious reporting but amounts to a bunch of egos trying to outshine each other in front of the camera. For serious news I never miss BBC World News on Public Broadcasting and Stewart provides the humor behind it all.

I'm 61 and I love them both. I watch both every night considering both of them as a package. I revel in th 11:00 to 12:00 Political Satire Hour.

There is always so much truth in satire from Gulliver's Travels to Mark Twain's works. I consider this hour a modern visual form of the art.

I'm so glad to see other oldies chiming in here. I'm 54. I love both Stewart & Colbert but must go with Stewart. I think he is more insightful; I love the way he tweaks the MSM. I would rather miss regular news than the Daily Show. And also, he is cute.

I used to like Jon Stewart better than Colbert. However, he has become less of an equal-opportunity basher and seems biased towards Obama. It takes the fun out of watching his show. However. Colbert keeps a very even hand and his insight and therefore his comedy is more piercing. By the way, I am a 63-year-old woman. They don't just have a youth audience.

either one, just keep Conan off the airwaves... he's NOT funny at ALL

he jumps on the stage, says nothing and the crowd goes wild for him.... is his audience all graduates from the geo.w. bush school of communication?

I'm well beyond the age demographic of interest, so take it for what it's worth. I think Stephen Colbert is 30 minutes of unbelievable cleverness. How he has managed to stick with his O'Reilly persona for so long is truly a mystery. He's got the best writers on TV, no doubt about it.

Jon Stewart is hilarious, except when he's not, and that's when he falls back on his pecker jokes. Colin Firth must be scratching his head, trying to figure out how his whole interview focused on that part of his anatomy. Having said that, he (Stewart)picks up on stuff that the MSM just refuses to. And he does it in a way that attracts younger people. Finally, I love that he has smart people as guests, and actually (seems to) read their books! And he goes toe to toe with McCain (even though he has him on too much and is too cozy with him).

I'm a 40s+ WF and I watch both religiously. However, if I were absolutely forced to choose just one, it would be Jon. I laugh (usually, though I don't love all of the correspondents)AND I learn something. It has helped me remain sane through the awful Bush years.

It would be nice, however, if JS could find a truly funny female correspondent. Samantha Bee isn't without talent, but I usually tune out whenever she's on. In fact, Jon's lost his best correspondents the last few years (Colbert being among them) and the show has suffered a bit. But I still wouldn't miss it.

I think that the joke is on the mainstream media. Who would have thought that the best news show (Stewart) and the best news commentary and analysis show (Colbert) would be done by comedians? I mean the ABC debate was a pathetic, lame joke, but that is not what I mean.

Entertainment and gossip have become the main reason for "news" I get better analysis and better scoops from these two shows and the blogs than I ever get from the newspapers and the networks. Is it any wonder that more people are turning to the new media rather than the old media for news?

Perhaps this is why newspapers are closing all over the place and network news ratings are dropping. Maybe if you guys hired someone from these shows we may get to the real story.

My best wishes to these two gentleman. Like the fool in King Lear, they are the only ones telling the truth, not repeating truthiness.

BTW, I am 45 years old.

Speaking as a Republican, I sincerely doubt Republicans prefer Colbert over Stewart because they "don't get" that Colbert is a parody. If you think that, it's probably because you are the type of person who loves thinking that all Republicans are ignoramuses, so you choose to believe something that supports that.

I much prefer Colbert over Stewart. My reasons are based more on styles of humor (I just think Colbert is a much smarter form of humor), but if I had to pinpoint a reason why more Repubs prefer him over Stewart -- and let's not forget we're extrapolating from an unscientific, online poll -- it's because, even if it's only in character, Colbert takes a lot of shots at liberal policies and states, however bloviatingly, a lot of ideas that, well, Republicans agree with. Furthermore, when he has liberals appear on his show, he asks them awkward questions that typical hosts -- whether on the Daily Show or actual news shows -- don't/can't ask, because they're afraid of seeming too un-PC or otherwise not getting other guests on their show. Because Colbert's character is an act, he can ask really tough questions that make liberals squirm, even if it's all a joke. And conservatives get a kick out of seeing liberals squirm.

Another reason I think Repubs prefer Colbert over Stewart is because of the nature of the jokes and the studio audience reactions to them. Stewart's jokes are more straightforward and just making fun of conservatives (usually), which causes the overwhelmingly young/liberal crowd to hoot and holler. Colbert's humor, even though it makes fun of conservatives, is subtler and more sophisticated, and the same type of audience doesn't always get the jokes (particularly when, in character, he makes fun of a liberal policy), so there's less derisive laughter from the gallery.

Political music is back:

dlsxpatriate.blogspot.com

I am a 73-year-old female college grad who loves both and never miss their broadcasts!!!! If I must choose, I guess I would favor Stewart, but consider Colbert to be an incredible genius!

Colbert has forced Steward to step up his game. Both are brilliant and among the only sane voices dealing with political matters. Thank goodness for them.

Obama, free us from the "Clinton Machine" -- all those blue-collar, Hispanic, Asian, Jewish, gay, middle-aged-woman and senior citizen manipulators who sit around in smoke-filled rooms forcing their "old politics" onto America.

Obama help free the Democratic Party of the tyranny of these "old Democrats". Free the left-wing, affluent white elites and college students from this oppression of diversity!

There is only room in the rainbow for two colors: black and an elite, cool white. (That would be a bluish or lime white, not one with peach, bisque or eggshell tones in it.)

What America needs in 2008 is a change in STYLE and TONE, away from all these dumpy "old Democrats" with their "old politics"!

We need unspecified change brought about by someone who acts and talks cool!

union member, on the article subject itself, based on when I used to watch these shows, I would say I always enjoyed Colbert, but more in the smaller doses he used to come in on "The Daily Show". A full half-hour of that character tends to get a little old for me, and the sycophantic tone of his audience is also a little grating. Yes, sometimes "The Word" is clever, but in general I find it doesn't merit the riotous applause it usually receives. "The Daily Show" also benefits from a more varied format, whereas "The Colbert Report" seems a little too constrained to the talking-head-followed-by-abusive-interview plotline, IMHO.

girldreams,

Much as I've enjoyed Oliver's work in the past, I'm afraid I just don't what you're disputing in my prior statement. Yes, he purportedly couldn't strike because of his work visa. So what? Bottom line is that he chose to work in a way that undermined the WGA. If he technically wasn't a scab, it might be perhaps because he was already on staff, and didn't come in after the strike began to take a previous writer's job. But I don't see how anyone could pretend that his action was harmless.

Jon Stewart RULES! His political and media commentaries are essential watching. Indecision 2008 is the best political show on TV. His interviewing has improved - and I, too, treasure the memory of those skewerings of Bolten and Chris Matthews.

He gets really interesting authors, many of whose books I have bought after hearing them on The Daily Show. One of his best was with Kurt Vonnegut.

The Colbert Report wears thin fast. "Adorability" is not a quality I enjoy, having known too many others who think they have it. But his talk at the Correspondents' Dinner was solid gold.

Colbert, the new kid on the block who starred so famously (or infamously) as the keynote speaker at the 2006 White House Correspondence Dinner???

It was famously and you know it. Man, your such a tool!

antibozo and girldreams:

My biggest point with my first post was really simply this: Why re-open the strike wounds? It was a complicated situation, without a clear right and wrong.

Everyone is absolutely entitled to their own opinion about it, of course, but the controversy surrounding Stewart's return is really not so pressing that it should be brought up every time a passing reference is made to the strike.

So I'm done on the strike subject. But back to the subject of this post (Jon vs. Stephen), gun to my head, not sure who I'd choose. Why should I have to choose: they're both talented, intelligent, and witty, they're on the same network, they clearly admire one another, and one show follows the other. No need to pick -- just enjoy.

girldreams,

I didn't assert that Jon didn't discuss union issues in the first week. I pointed out that this discussion became increasingly desperate and culminated with his featuring of a guest no one had heard of that happened to be an expert in labor.

If I seem flippant about "collateral damage", I assure you I am not. But I don't see how you can argue that "The Daily Show's" violation of the strike didn't harm a lot more people than it helped. If you can, please do.

I certainly have not asserted that it "would have been easy for Jon" to do anything. Please don't put words in my mouth. I recognize the difficulty of the situation. Nor am I pressing the point on anyone else; I was having a discussion of fact with union member. If you feel I have misrepresented any facts in this discussion, please point out where specifically (without, please, claiming I said something I did not). Believe me, I'd be delighted to know I'm entirely incorrect and that "The Daily Show" staff were just as supportive of the writers' strike as were the staves of any of the other shows I watch.

I laugh more with Stewart. Colbert is smarter. Like 'em both...

I'm 45 ...too old to comment?

antibozo:

First of all, you've already stated some facts incorrectly. Jon didn't spend a "week of lameness" floundering before discussing the union issues. He discussed them on the first show on air during the strike.

Secondly, he didn't turn John Oliver into a "scab." Oliver works with a green card, and was therefore not permitted to strike with the WGA.

Thirdly, I really have a problem with the easy way folks toss around the term "collateral damage" during a strike. The Daily Show and the Colbert Report have 30 writers between them, tops. At the same time, they have 200 technical and support staff, none of whom were allowed to strike in sympathy with the WGA by their own unions. I'm glad you think it should have been easy for Jon (or any late night show) to release them to the unemployment lines after the networks fired them (which they clearly threatened to do).

I appreciate your right to feel it's morally wrong to watch the Daily Show. But I think it's wrong for you to press this point on anyone else here.

>>On April 26, 2008 2:34 PM StreetSense wrote (quoting me): "Like Colbert, I have a refined sense of irony that gives me an overarching vision from which I can look down on others and dissect behavior so that people can laugh at them." Ms. Keller, I hope you're overtly kidding in this remark! ...It works for him, but to praise Colbert by imitating his persona's judgmental superiority is no more than "monkey see monkey do""

StreetSense, I suppose that is a critical review of my wit! Since I am a longtime student of the "monkey see monkey do" school of improvisational comedy (thanks to my snappy mirror-neuron circuits!), I take your criticism as a compliment.

Thanks for your comment, and here's a pitch (I wrote this one without imitating).
________

Keep the "Clinton Machine" in the Money!

Look, $50 helps keep the "Clinton Machine" cigar-filled-back-room filled with those blue-collar, Hispanic, middle-aged-women and senior-citizen power-mongers that Obama wants to save the Democratic Party from.

You can stop Obama from freeing left-wing, affluent white elites and college students from their oppression by these "old politics" Democrats!

Please send a small donation (even $10!) Clinton's way at www.hillaryclinton.com.

I think Republicans like Colbert because they like to consider themselves middle-of-the-roaders and it's hard to be to the right of Colbert's character.

Personally I think the middle of the road is the perfect spot for Republicans and I can't wait to catch one of 'em there.

union member: "It wasn't just his own personal needs: he had the needs of his non-writing staff to consider, staff who are for the most part (other than the producers) not as well paid as the writers, and who had nothing to gain from the strike."

Certainly. The entire television industry had varying interests. But if the non-writing staff of "The Daily Show" suffered as a result of the writers' strike, that would have been the fault of the media companies for refusing to negotiate with the writers, not Jon Stewart's, and some collateral damage is the inevitable consequence of any labor action. And I don't mean to single out Stewart--all of the writers on "The Daily Show" should share the responsibility.

The simple fact is that "The Daily Show" staff's failure to respect the strike undermined the union's position, effectively reducing the pressure on the media companies to come to the table to work out something with the writers. This prolonged the strike, and, while the non-writers on "The Daily Show" may have fared a little better in the short run, the non-writers on all those *other* shows that didn't cross the lines were unable to work for even longer as a result.

If instead, after a week of lameness, Stewart (and Colbert, for that matter) had made a public statement that he couldn't continue without his writers, and would have to refrain from producing any more shows in the interest of quality, it might have had a clear impact on strike's visibility and done a lot more good, even for his own staff, in the long run, than turning John Oliver into a scab and ultimately degrading the respectability of his entire show. And I can say he lost at least one viewer in the process.

Look, I wasn't happy to have to stop watching "The Daily Show"; I enjoyed the show immensely and I doubt I had missed a single episode in at least three years before the strike. And I still miss seeing the show. But when Stewart & Co. showed their true colors, I had no choice but to stop watching "The Daily Show". If you feel comfortable watching the show knowing all this, that's up to you. But I don't see how anyone who supports labor can in good conscience continue to watch this show.

We watch and love them both -- an antidote to living in conservative South Dakota. Colbert gets my vote for being cleverer and my undying eternal admiration for having the balls to say what he did at at that White House dinner. Heroic, in my book.

I watch both daily and prefer Colbert's POV though enjoy both shows equally. It's interesting to see how Republicans prefer Colbert. Either they don't realize that he is making fun of them or they like laughing at themselves. Hopefully it's the latter.

Full disclosure: W/F/53

Antibozo:

Understand that I agree the writers' demands were absolutely reasonable. And no, I don't think that a disagreement with leadership gives you the right to cross a picket-line. I was merely pointing out that Jon's criticism of the WGA was warranted.

I, too, wish that the hosts had stood their ground and not gone back, but I don't blame them for making the choice that they did.

First: whoever loaded your 'unveiling' video to YouTube (that Indiana politician who couldn't spell 'potato', perhaps?) can't spell 'debut'. It doesn't have an 'e' at the end. Fix, fix it!

As for choosing between stewart and Colbert, why choose at all? It's like choosing between Burns and Allen. Laurel and Hardy. Abbott and Costello. Gleasona nd Carney. Cillizza and...never mind.

The Rolling Stones or The Who?

Some nights Colbert brings his A game when Stewart brings his C game; other nights it's the reverse.

On balance though on most nights both bring some good laughs and biting commentary -- they help to put the absurd and useless world of cable news journalism into perspective.

Both shows have their place.

It wasn't just his own personal needs: he had the needs of his non-writing staff to consider, staff who are for the most part (other than the producers) not as well paid as the writers, and who had nothing to gain from the strike.

Hosts are in a uniquely difficult situation, because (1) they are BOTH management and labor, responsible to both their employees and their fellow union-members, and (2) the powers-that-be of the big media conglomerates have determined that talk show hosts are capable of going on-air, unscripted (or at least without writers), even though that's arguably a violation of the rules, which contemplate no new creative material (whether technically written or not). The result is that big media (Sumner Redstone, etc.) expects the talk shows to come back and forces them back by threatening to fire non-writing staff members.

That's a situation I don't face. When I go on strike (and I've been involved in one strike), I only have my own personal needs (and those of my family) to consider, and no one expects me to cross picket lines until the strike is over. Everyone knew the hosts would come back -- it was just a matter of when.

Hey Jon, hey Stephen, if you're the real deals, why don't you prove it? Since anyone could post a picture of 'you' next to their posts, the only way to settle this is by groinal comparison. As a right-wing groupie, I can vouch for the implacable size of the tumor on Stephies' member, and Jon (as a Jew, must i spell it out) must have some coupons stapled to his. Let's see who's the real prick, pricks.

Colbert is a satirist like Pope or Swift. More biting and witty than Stewart.

Stewart does too many funny voice and bad language jokes, low brow.

The Colbert Report is more enjoyable to watch than The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Both men provide a funny, satirical view of the world, but Colbert doesn't rely on a supporting cast as Stewart does (and Stewart's supporting cast just isn't what it used to be, when Colbert, Carrell, Nancy Wall, and Mo Rocca were on the show). Otherwise, both would be equally enjoyable to watch. Also, Stewart, we get it, Dick Cheney is evil and Bush is stupid...come up with something new...we've heard it for the last 6+ years now.

"...why Colbert is so funny. Like Colbert, I have a refined sense of irony that gives me an overarching vision from which I can look down on others and dissect behavior so that people can laugh at them."

Ms. Keller, I hope you're overtly kidding in this remark! All of the opinions expressing "Stewart is lame and unfunny, Colbert is a rapier wit and we're such smart it-getters because we understand and appreciate him," is the least attractive facet of the fandom Stephen Colbert has inspired. It works for him, but to praise Colbert by imitating his persona's judgmental superiority is no more than "monkey see monkey do" -- a joke many of his most fervent supporters here don't seem to get.

union member:

First off, I don't care what Letterman would have done, since I find him more or less detestible. But Letterman already had a deal when the strike began, and there was nothing unethical about his behavior regarding the strike.

As to Stewart, yes, he was in a tough position; that's the point of a strike, after all. How someone behaves in a tough position is exactly how we find out the content of their character. Stewart caved to Viacom and Comedy Central, instead of showing solidarity with the same union that has been protecting him and his writers for years.

There's nothing difficult to understand about any of this. Stewart put his own personal needs ahead of the collective needs of the artists that make his job possible. You can apologize for the difficulty of the situation that makes you feel better about watching the sellouts on the Daily Show. Or you can do as people who understand the importance of unions in protecting the interests of the people--artists in this case--do, and boycott the shows that didn't respect the strike.

The writers had a legitimate dispute here: increasingly scripted material is being offered in its entirety over the Internet, and within a few years, this may well become the primary mode of distribution, largely replacing DVD boxed sets. The writers were not being compensated for this new delivery mechanism. No doubt an ephemeral offering such as "The Daily Show" suffers less than, say, "Lost" or "24" in this scenario, since, comparitively speaking, "The Daily Show's" watchability declines rapidly with time and repeated viewings. So, draw your own conclusions.

As a union member, would you say that, if you are angry with union leadership, crossing picket lines constitutes supporting the union nonetheless?

Wait, republicans favor Colbert? Is the meaning of parody completely lost on them?

Please send a small donation (even $10!) Clinton's way at www.hillaryclinton.com.

And $50 helps keep the "Clinton Machine" cigar-filled-back-room filled with those blue-collar, Hispanic, middle-aged-women and senior-citizen "old politics" power-mongers that Obama wants to save the Democratic Party from.

You can stop Obama from freeing the left-wing, affluent white elites and college students who back him from our oppression!

union member, I'm with you.

Stewart and Colbert are the Bogey and Bacall of political media satire, and have been ever since Stephen's correspondent days on The Daily Show. Hits and misses aside, they are both essential.

Please send a small donation (even $10!) Clinton's way at:

www.hillaryclinton.com

And $50 helps keep the "Clinton Machine" cigar-filled-back-room filled with those blue-collar, Hispanic, senior citizens and middle-aged-women "old politics" power-mongers that Obama wants to save the Democratic Party from, freeing the left-wing, affluent white elites and college students who back him from their oppression!

antibozo:

Get over it. Jon, like the other hosts, was in a tough position. You don't think Letterman would have come back without writers if he hadn't been able to work out the deal with the WGA? Please: he came back to work during the last strike in the 80s -- without a special deal.

And Jon and Comedy Central did try to get a deal with the WGA (for both the Daily Show and Colbert Report), but the WGA wasn't interested unless ALL Viacom shows were willing to make a deal. Letterman was only able to make a deal because he fully owns his and Craig Ferguson's show.

He wasn't being anti-union, he was just mad at his own union, which he had a right to be. I've been mad at the leadership of my union before, but I still support it. Intelligent people can disagree about how to handle a given situation, and intelligent people occasionally get angry at one another. What's so difficult to understand about that?

They are both great. Stewart says it like it is, e.g. when he ripped hillary's win in PA and showed her up for the hypocrite that she is. Colbert is a parody of the right wing and satirizes the absurdity of it all. Stewart and Clobert rule!!!!

To those who comment that the writers' strike demonstrated Colbert and Stewart's differing improvisational abilities, I would say the writers' strike demonstrated clearly that Jon Stewart has no respect for unions, since after less than a week back on the air he was using written material. Initially, he started exploiting a loophole by giving scripted parts to John Oliver, who ostensibly couldn't participate in the strike because of his visa requirements. At the end of the embarrassingly lame first week, Stewart invited a labor expert as guest in order to pretend to be supportive of the strike, while, cognizant of the special arrangement the writers union had with Letterman, pleading "What can someone do when the union won't negotiate an exception with someone who wants to work with them?" The following week we were watching a fully scripted video segment by Samantha Bee, in clear violation of the strike.

Can't say whether Colbert did the same, as I wasn't watching him at the time. But I swore off Stewart permanently after his craven yeah-I'm-so-supportive-of-the-writers-but-screw-them-anyway performance. And so should you.

That Republicans watch Colbert only proves what we all knew -- they are born lacking of sense of humor and don't know they're being mocked.

I can't choose between Colbert and Stewart though, both are required viewing for this 40+ year-old couple. They are SO much more informative and thorough [and yes, credible!] in their news coverage than the rightwing, corporate self-important sheep in the DC press corps and MSM.

They both do a great job -- but let's face it -- they have so much to work with. Political discourse in this country has become a parody of itself. You really couldn't make this sh*t up.

I like both of them, and rarely miss either. Stewart is more insightful, while Colbert is more a master of parody. I laugh harder at Colbert, but Stewart hits closer at reality. Both of them can be hit or miss at times, but thats the nature of having a daily show. I'd have to call it a tie.

Let's not be dour about the need for laughter. Humor is an essential tool for coping, as well as being an excellent tool for stripping away the spin and rhetoric.

The only place I saw any mention (on T.V.) of the recent Pentagon pundit relevations was on Stewart's show. Of course I watch little of the T.V. news anymore. The