> I don't get why Stewart's comedic talent is getting so confused with
> his politics. Would Carrol Cox defend Pound's politics?
It's not getting confused. In the first place, every act (whether comedic or not) has political consequences and is subject to criticism on that basis, whether the political consequences were intended or not. Chuck seemed to think one should not criticize Stewart based upon the political consequences of his actions merely because he is funny. Second, Stewart's show's primary intent is to shape public opinion. It is funny (and I personally love it), but it is first and foremost a political show. Stewart's protests to the contrary (i.e., that his show is a "fake" news show and that he is just a comedian) are mere cover, much of which is necessary given the restrictions on political programming by corporate sponsors. He can make his serious political points only by pretending he is kidding. I can appreciate that, but I think it's pretty obvious Stewart is a political commentator as much if not moreso than an entertaining comedian.
The Colbert Report is the same, although Colbert is much more subversive and radical than is Stewart. (And Colbert's take on the Chavez U.N. speech was much different than was Stewart's...Colbert did not advance U.S. propaganda efforts against Chavez.) Like Stewart, Colbert has to turn his politics into jokes to stay on the air. If you watch either show, though, it's the political commentary that gets the most crowd reaction. And, as is obvious upon any reflection, that is the reason why any of us watch it.