Bill Maher: Dumb jokes for the TV talk show set

And how.

I've long had mixed feelings about Maher but sat slack jawed the other night when he began his Obama-on-TV-too-much diatribe. He seemed to be implying that Obama controls the fact that TV cameras follow his every move. For chrissakes TV producers know that the public can't get enough of Obama regardless of what he happens to be doing.
For me it was Maher's jump the shark moment.
Actually Maher is smart, he's just lazy and settles for the cheap and obvious or focuses on the trivial. To me that's a greater sin than stupidity. Actually the greatest sin of all is that LA Times thought Maher's rant worthy of an Op-Ed piece. That really blew my mind.
Maher makes me appreciate Stewart and Colbert all the more (and Emerson for that matter).

Hmmmm. At what point should we be getting upset at the administration? (Forget about Maher for a sec, he's just in the way)Sure, I see how the "only six months" thing applies might apply to some more grandiose tasks, like the economy, or--No Screw that, I want to hit him over the head with a copy of Klein's Shock Doctrine. The guy has filled his cabinet with people who haven't been RIGHT about anything in at least 15 years. And if I tabled that little grudge? Then there's torture: Is it really so hard to hold someone, other than grunts, accountable? And why does this administration keep siding with the Bush administration when it comes to state secrets and government transparency? And gay rights? Dude, he's about to lose every gay vote, every single one. Sigh, I haven't thrown in the towel on Obama, but aside for reversing course on stem cells, why should I be impressed?
(that's not rhetorical, I'd really like to know)

JE: I was one of those people who thought Obama should get MAD during the campaign. I was wrong. They knew exactly what they were doing, and McCain self-destructed. (Can you imagine if we had Mr. "Bomb-bomb-bomb bomb-bomb Iran in office now? People who don't understand the importance of language in the Middle East???) Anyway, see the links in the original post regarding government secrecy. I admit I'm bamboozled by the approach to gay rights (but notice who filed the brief about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"). But time and time again the Obama administration has been thinking two or three moves ahead of the opposition. I need to see how those moves play out. Bush was known for his short-sightedness (NO plans for post-Saddam reality in Iraq, for example). The campaign and the first six months have shown the Obama and his people are not so ignorant and arrogant. They understand subtleties. They are willing to let inevitabilities become inevitabilities and expend their capital elsewhere. I know they are going to screw up. But I don't believe they are corrupt or dishonest or inept -- which was absolutely clear about the previous administration by this point. It's just hard to get people to actually remember eight years ago (much less 28 years to Reagan) and appreciate the difference.

Fantastic stuff Jim. You mention one of the BIG problems I have with Maher. I also hate how he pokes with a stick at a dying joke. Granted, he's only on once a week, but still, he should hire better writers instead of a bunch of yes men who think his shtick is still fresh. I also can't stand how he never stands behind his jokes...he almost will always follow one of his nasty, mean-spirited comments with "I kid...I kid (fill in the blank politician/celebrity)". And then he smugly laughs at himself and proceeds to pat himself on the back for "raising serious issues".

Even though I kind of agree with some of his thoughts on Religion, the reason his film falls so flat is because he wants to be taken seriously while simultaneously tearing down his subject; instead of making jokes about religion (which is a-ok) he's just as zealous and malicious as those he rails against. Really, his smugness and hypocrisy always get in the way of his attempts at humor.

I wonder if he realizes his act is just as played out and tired as Bill O' Reilly's, a man he despises yet shares so many traits with...

Why's Chris Matthews at fault, exactly? He seems like a healthy enough mediator. Sure, he's a little droll, but to compare him to Maher is - well, a little weird.

Hey Jim, I'm actually glad you brought something like this up, especially in lieu of Ebert's blog about Bill O'Reilly. Before I continue, I must confess that my understanding of political science doesn't run nearly as deep as it should, though I do try to stay caught up on what's happening around me.

I can say that television in general is no help in that department. It seems that it's always one side or the other, and either side just seems too in love with their own analysis and one-two jabs at the "wrong" side.

Now, I consider myself to be somewhat intelligent (even if I only REALLY know maybe one or two things for SURE) and it is kind of disheartening to pick through all the misinformation to find what's truly genuine. And even then, you can't know for sure.

Or can you? Would you mind if I pretended for a small amount of time that between you and Roger Ebert, all the answers can be found here on Scanners?

I've long despied Maher, not only for his poltiical obtuse-ness, but for mostly for his smugness. He's a hack through and through, and there's nothing more painful during his show than the part where he keeps his "panelists" out so he can do the kind of third-rate schtick and diatribing you descibe, all the while smirking to his right, at his guests, forced to laugh at his equivalent of "you know you're a red neck if..." Ugh, terrible person.

I, too, have often found Maher's delivery irritating. While I understand that he is trying to incorporate humor into what might be an otherwise boring political conversation between guests, he cannot resist interrupting some of his guests' more informed commentary with banal one-liners.

I think you're expecting too much of the target audience to assume everybody is as astute in their observation that, yes - we have a populist President who enjoys appearing on Leno and being presented as a rock star, which is what he is. Of course, I knew the romantic dinner/Broadway play stories were puff PR pieces. I know the appearances on TV shows were designed for the less-literate of his constituency, but shock/horror: not everybody understands; the majority of the population thinks this is news, and treat is as such. At my work, people went on about the dinner in New York, Leno, the freaking "Cribs"-style presentation of his White House, and Michelle's ripped biceps. They didn't speak of Health Care, the bailout, etc. All they know is what they're fed, I'm very sorry to say. You might be wise to put down the Kool-Aid and remember that our leaders - all leaders should be subject to harsh criticism and parody from either side of the fence. Maher doesn't criticize the President so much as criticizes this mass-adulation/fascination the media has afforded him. Though, it's clear you're not a fan of Maher (probably more for his snide/sarcastic demeanor than anything else), consider the message.

I disagree with your take on Maher. While I surely take his rhetoric with a grain of salt, I understand that his show is not intended to show the absolute "truth" or to have an even-handed debate of political issues. It is a political comedy show, much in the way that Michael Moore makes movies or John Stewart runs the Daily Show. They explore some serious issues but offer few solutions because they are focused on showing the hypocrisy and humor in today's politics.

Explain to me how Stewart's show is an elevated medium above Maher's? The "debates" between he and his guests are generally insult-laden diatribes (see Crossfire) and his video clips are often taken out of context which compares with Maher's "expert" guests. And I love Stewart and think his show is great. I think the purpose of his show and Maher's are to question government politics and represent the public's opinion of politics which is generally distrustful and poor by humorously exposing it's deceit.

And while I support Obama's campaign thus far, I do agree that little has been done in health care reform and his gay rights stance has been dubious. I think it's perfectly appropriate for Maher to criticize these parts of Obama's campaign and it is true that Obama and his family have pandered for the camera (this has made him appear to be approachable and transparent, which is actually good). Obama is an ivy league educated elite but he is also a regular joe who plays basketball, drinks beer, and volunteers at soup kitchens? Fat chance. So while I think that his PR campaign has done a great deal to restore trust for average Americans, I do not have a problem with Maher making fun of it.

Wow, Jim. Now tell us how you REALLY feel ;). I don't think I've seen this much vitriol from you well...ever! I admit to laughing at Bill Maher's jokes a lot ("If you're a political candidate in France and you're *not* having an affair it says to the voters 'I'm no good at multi-tasking!'")and perhaps that means I don't "know" comedy or I'm bereft of taste. Or whatever. At first I was baffled by Maher's about face on Obama and then I realized that I shouldn't be surprised at all because it's Bill freaking Maher. His the conservative side of his libertarianism was bound to resurface once he felt Obama was no longer "hip" and therefore fair game for his monologues. And you're exactly right about his condescending delivery when he's trying to be serious. His verbiage is deceptively precise and is designed to make the viewer (or listener) feel as dumb as possible which will ensure that he is seen as absolutely, unequivocally *right*. Just check out this ass backwards rant on the big bad pharmaceutical industry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHXXTCc-IVg

From that clip it's clear that Maher has never 1.) Met anyone with mental illness 2.) Experienced mental illness firsthand 3.) Opened a psychology textbook 4.) Spoken to a mental health professional in his entire life. But hey, he must be *right* because he brings up trivial talking points about how we're a nation of fat people and he even pulls out (uncited) statistics! A guy with statistics has got to be right! The truth is, roughly 80% of the time Maher has no idea what the (rhymes with "puck") he's talking about. Libertarian television pundits always try to convince people that they're level headed straight talkers that see through all of the partisan B.S. that plagues the rest of us ignorant suckers.

I met Salman Rushdie once. He was giving a lecture at school and there was an oppurtunity to have tea with him afterwards Swell guy. I'm generally a big fan of his writing; he lost me after "The Ground Beneath Her Feet" but regained my admiration with "The Enchantress of Florence". Anyway, I met him and I think I offhandedly mentioned that I caught him on Bill Maher's show whilst flipping channels. Turns out he thinks Maher is smart, nice, funny, strange and sometimes absurd. So while my respect for Rushdie is unbounded I question his judge of character and intellect based on the first two adjectives.

Also, don't be so quick to write off Chris Matthews either. His penchant for shouting down guests just so he can have his opinion heard has often been a turnoff for me. But I suggest you give his book "Life's a Campaign" a read. It cuts out the objectionable aspects of his personality and shows a very practical, level headed and agreeable side that you don't see on televsion.

And before I forget I'll admit that I think Chris Rock is funny too. If that means I have philistine comedic taste I'm OK with that. After all, there's no accounting for taste.

JE: The vitriol is intentional (and partly rhetorical) -- because it's the method Maher adopts. I don't hate. But, yes, as a performer and a political commentator he's always given me the creeps. He takes Ann Coulter AND Michael Moore seriously.

Maher is a lazy comic of late. He takes an anti-establishment pose because thats what is going to make him look smart. He also doesn't have to do more than say much on a topic beyond a clever line or two, so he never needs to come up with a point beyond the punchline (His recent film on religion might have been devestating had he actually done some research or gone for more than ridicule). Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan but lately he's too caught up in being shocking and playing to his fan base rather then saying anything of substance...then again he's a comedian and an entertainer and not suppose to be the source of information so he was never really suppose to be anything other than a ratings getter. He must speak to get ratings, nothing else- which is something most people-especially the ones printing his monologues as OPED pieces seem to have forgotten. (He's also speaking as if he's a wealthy man who has to keep his schtick going in order to keep the money coming in. Success has changed him and made him awfully bitter, but thats another matter all together) We should probably worry less about what Maher says, no matter how inane, and instead worry about the people who see him as the source of their information who may be reading and investigating even less than Maher is.

Maher is outstanding --- he brings more intelligent people on his show, discusses more issues and reads more newspapers, books and magazines than just about any other "comedian" or so-called journalist on television.

The fact that you've focused only on one joke, primarily, is pretty telling. And Maher wasn't attacking Obama -- he was attacking the media. He's tired of seeing Obama plastered all over the television for trivial reasons, like the photo-op.

He then went on to say that Obama isn't doing the things he said he was, which is a valid point. I was passionately for Obama but he's backing off key campaign promises and the Democrats in power can't seem to get things done. Maher's point is that wiht these huge majorities in both houses, if we can't get things down now, when the hell will we? Few other shows other than his simultaneously brings on people from as many points of view together for an open debate and discussion.

Yes, there are things about Maher that annoy me and that are hypocritical at times. But you're reacting pretty strongly and I think unfairly.

This entry makes a nice companion piece with Roger's recent entry about Bill O'Reilly.

I have to admit that I wasn't terribly familiar with Bill Maher before I saw Religulous. It may as well have been a two hour monologue for all that he let anyone else get a word in edgewise. I doubt I would have agreed with the man's position, but I wanted to hear why a rabbi would attend a Holocaust denial conference.

I like your blog most of the time and I like Bill Maher's shtick most of the time, but on this I side with Maher. True, Maher has a frat-boy, club-circuit cheapness to him that makes him cloying and very often unfunny, but all he's voicing here is what you'd expect from ANY progressive: Obama's just another in-the-pocket politician and about as progressive as Grandma Annie's underpants. The fact he's not a malicious reactionary should no longer impress anybody.

Whatever the reasons, and whatever President Obama intends in his heart, this is so obviously the case that it's time to start kicking his butt publicly. Even by a smug, sleazy Maher.

JE: I'll be interested to hear what Maher's idea of health care reform is. He's not exactly a progressive, he's a libertarian. It's odd to see somebody so anti-government calling for more government intervention. I agree that people should openly criticize Obama's policies and make their voices heard. But don't confuse the policies with the photo-ops. The connection is... tenuous.

Good, a liberal admitting Maher often goes too far. I love people who think, and can say bad things about "one of us".

But honestly, I can't take you too seriously. Why? Because you sound like you hate the guy. And he may be smug, but he's often right. Jokes about the president going on TV too much? Of course! Obama on Leno, Obama even on Colbert... Do you really consider that to be "normal"?

Hey, Ebert's Year One review is nowhere to be found. Did he pulled it because it got too personal (like your post) or is it just a technical glitch?

I'm going to use a Bill Maher philosophy in my defense of Bill Maher. You are being loyal to a person, not an idea. Maher is absolutely correct is suggesting that Obama is not fighting for proper healthcare reform. He is also not reforming enough the banking industry, wall street, or the united state's impact on global warming. He is comfortable to reform just enough so that it won't actually make a difference, but will still create the apperance that he's a revolutionary. Take his stance on gay rights. He campaigned on repealing DADT and on civil unions for gays. Yet now, he realizes that these may not be the most popular policies. So he puts them to the side, but still wants to stand in the gay community's good graces, so he gives the spouses of gay government workers the same benefits as heterosexual ones. And that's all wonderful, but the radical reform the gay community deserves. Obama cares way too much about appearing like a moderate progressive that he forgets to actually be one. Do you think you'd be so mad if it was George Bush Maher was attacking? You defend him for not being out front on every issue because that's "not his MO." Well it should be. Obama needs to spend less time giving tours of the white house and appearing on Jay Leno, and maybe use that time to address real reform.

Jesus. You don't even think they're inept? Your definition of inept must require some kind of major screwup. The list is too long to provide here but let us simply start with the repeated failure of the vetting process. How many nominees had tax problems in their background? I lost count. OK, let's cut them some slack. After the first THREE times it happened, what would be the first thing you'd investigate about a potential nominee? Hmmmm, maybe let's start with the tax issue. Duh. That's inept, no matter how you slice it.

I think you're missing Maher's point completely and trust me, I'm no fan of Maher, though he can be mildly amusing from time to time. Maher is simply saying that every time the President is on TV or schedules a fluff piece or pointless appearance, that's time that might have been better spent actually DOING something. He's popular, he has no need to continually sell himself to the American people. Think about it: he travels the country constantly trying to sell various proposals (bailouts, health care, etc.), hosting town meetings and whatnot. This is completely unnecessary. He was already elected to handle these things and the decisions aren't going to be made at any townhall meetings, they're going to be made in Washington. Stay there and do the job you were elected to do, for pete's sake.

I'm not sure this rises to the level of corruption (not certain yet, anyway) but inept probably fits the bill. Sniff around the Americorps IG firing and let me know if you smell anything fishy, there. If you don't, then you probably believe the man can do no wrong anyway.

So, you want to give the administration the benefit of the doubt based on some notion you have that they are several moves ahead of the opposition? What opposition? Please. If you can't pass difficult legislation when the opposition is in such disarray, then you might as well give up.

Tell you what . . . it would be easier for you to list the successes of this administration. Go ahead, try it. Gay rights? Looks like that just got the shaft. Guantanamo? They're just going to open up something somewhere else. Plus, it's not really "closed" yet, is it? It's a promise to close it in the future, let's just wait on that one. TARP? Don't get me started. Automotive industry? Yeah, that just keeps getting better. The economy? Remind me, what's the current unemployment rate? I seem to recall that it was a bit higher than these geniuses predicted it would ever get. Health care? Anybody with a brain knows this is dead on arrival, even if you decide that the trillion dollar cost of doing it doesn't matter.

Oh, I'm sure I'm missing something and would love to hear about all the wonderful things that have changed in the world since late January 2009.

I hate to break it to you but Maher is actually correct: very little has been accomplished. The President travels a lot, attends a lot of summits and meetings. It looks good when you see it but then you realize nothing came of it. Somebody wake me when something actually gets done and has the desired result because so far it's been a lot of talking about what they're going to do. Stow the meaningless stream of television appearances and start DOING it already.

You hold up Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert as who we should look to in order to learn about politics? That's setting the bar extremely low. That's like saying you should watch the Mummy movies to learn about archeology. Plus, Stewart's "humor" isn't just a whole lot different from Maher's. The big difference is that YOU agree with everything Stewart says.

Stewart's humor is anything more than mean spirited finger pointing. If it were Rush Limbaugh saying the same things you'd be calling it hate mongering. If Ann Coulter had a personal vendetta with a cable news channel like Stewart did you call her egotistical.

When liberals say "celebrate diversity" they mean their own personal diversity. In reality you can't stand it if someone has a different view from you.

JE: No, that is not true. Sometimes I think Stewart's and Colbert's jokes are off-target, too -- but they have a sophisticated understanding of politics that far surpasses Maher, Limbaugh, Coulter. Stewart and Colbert assume their audience already knows at least as much as they do about politics and world affairs; if they didn't, they wouldn't understand the comedy. When it comes to political humor, what matters to me is not whether I agree, but the logical premises of the jokes and arguments. If they're sound, comedy can result. If they're not, the material won't be funny. Maher's reasoning here is naive at best, disingenuous at worst. (Maher's joke about the best season of "The Bachelor" is actually pretty good. But it also reveals how he's viewing and processing the news he sees on TV. He sees politics as a reality show, and then takes it at face value. Stewart could deliver some of the very same lines and make much sharper -- and, to my mind, funnier -- satirical points. And he wouldn't come across as a lecturer.)

I actually enjoy Maher to an extent. Well, maybe I did. I haven't actually seen him since he got booted for the 9/11 "don't call them cowards" comment. That said, the enjoyment I've had from him stems from a certain level of charm that he has. Certainly, I take his actual words much in the same way I'd take them from Rush Limbaugh - they can be manipulative and devoid of substance to say the least. Truth be told, I got some enjoyment out of Limbaugh's TV show as well during the Clinton years (but for Rush, the little bit of charm he had died 15 years ago). However, I am at a point now where I see them in a different light. I never took any of them seriously but, unfortunately, that probably isn't the case for most of the viewership and that is a scary thing.

How ethical is this level of shoddy "journalism"? This type of communication is just a series of straw man arguments. As you inferred - never mind why Obama is on TV, just attack the fact that he is on TV. In an era of overbloated communication channels, how is this even a valid stance to take on anything? Unfortunately, I doubt the common person would break down this "argument" and see the absurdity of it. Instead, it just becomes truth the moment it leaves his mouth and it becomes water-cooler fodder for people who don't know how to think for themselves.

Back on Maher in general. I think, to actually answer your question, Maher just doesn't have any ammunition at the moment. But the show must go on. This is his livelihood and he has to bring something to the table or he has no show. But ff he wants to remain relevant, he needs to update his schtick.

I regularly watch Bill Maher, and I have to say that he's been quite irritating the last month or so. It's a constant beating the guests/audience over the head with his two pet causes - there is no God, and everything you eat will kill you. He constantly brings them into conversation no matter what the topic, and then browbeats the guests for not agreeing with him.

For those who put Jon Stewart on the same level, watch his debate with Mike Huckabee in 2008 over gay marriage. The two completely disagree, but they had a calm, respectful discussion about their disagreement. And he goes after the left more than his detractors give him credit for (the continuation of the bailout, etc).

Jim, if you followed Maher outside his 10 minute opening and closing jokes, you'd know that he's for government health care and single-payer.

On his show, he did say that we should steal France's health care system.

JE: Thanks -- that's interesting. Perhaps his distaste for insurance companies outweighs his distrust of government. I just hope he didn't say "I'm sorry, but..." when delivering that line about stealing France's health care system. If there's one thing I take even more seriously than public policy, it's comedy.

Jim,

His relationship with Ann Coulter is something that I also find INCREDIBLY disconcerting. This blog post inspired me to seek out some clips of his old standup routines, and I found them extremely off putting. His act was a sort of a sub-Bill Hicks thing without the germ of truth or the insight. Take David Cross: his stage persona is in ways reminiscent of Hicks and he shares superficial similarities to Maher, but unlike Maher Cross bases his comedic rants on valid and accurate observations. I think Maher's tv monologues are far more polished (and less unnerving) than his standup because he focuses more on simple insult comedy. When he tries to inject a sense of righteousness or political/philosophical insight I'll concede to you that he gets in way over his head. Speaking of Cross, he's been on Maher's show once or twice I think, although I've never seen it. What do you think of geniunely intelligent and funny comedians like Cross, Garrison Keillor, Janene Garafolo, Sarah Silverman (a favorite of yours I belive),Paul F. Thompkins, George Carlin etc. appear on the show? Or people who are Maher's intellectual betters such as Cornel West and Gore Vidal? Most of the people I mentioned function as guests who are chosen because they're more likely to agree with Maher, just as there are guests who are chosen because they will act as a counterbalance. But do the appearances of the aforementioned people seem like an endorsment of Maher and a validation of his views? Perhaps I'm being too black and white about it...

I am a libertarian-leaning Republican. Bill Maher is much more of a libertarian-leaning Democrat rather than a Libertarian. I watch and read media on both sides of the political spectrum. I used to love watching Maher when he was on network television, but when he moved to HBO, he seemed to become unhinged.

There is little difference between O'Reilly and Maher. Both like to portray themselves as neither Democrat or Republican, but clearly favor one side. Both use hateful tones when describing those they disagree with.

There is a huge difference between those two and John Stewart. Stewart likes to make fun of politics itself and the doublespeak of politicians (and he is pretty even handed in this with all politicians). Maher and O'Reilly (and Oberman and Hannity and Gerafalo and Limbaugh) seem to make it personal, as if their opponents are intentionally trying to ruin America. As a side note, I would add Glen Beck in the category with Stewart. I disagree with him the most of all of the right-wing hosts, but he does not often demonize the other side.

Frankly, this was my issue with all of the vitriol against Bush. Say whatever you want to about intentions verses consequences, I have yet to hear an argument that is in any way convincing that he did anything that he did not consider to be the right thing. This is also my issue with a lot of the right-wing talk show hosts who claim that the Left are only power hungry.

Jim, even though you use an attack at the media -- or is it Obama -- (not like there's much of a difference in ideology), I appreciate your looking outside of the typical circle of those who have the left's target on them.

Jim, me again. Maher has backed off Coulter quite a bit, regretting doing the debates with her. And sorry, he has a far more advanced knowledge of politics than any of the folks you mentioned. He has guests on his show which are about as varied as it gets, he discusses very specific issues with them in great detail, and in a manner in which you know he has done his homework. The content itself is much better than his hit-and-miss standup comedy routines.

His insult humor, by the way, isn't at all like Coulter's. He's not going after 9/11 victims, he's going up against what he views are the big evils: the Bush crowd and their followers, corporations and the entire health care industry, which he views as a sham. The "I'm sorry, but" isn't how he runs his shows.

I'd be interested in seeing you watch his shows in depth, and not just clippings you see of his opening and closing bits, though even his closing speeches are pointed, smart and on the money.

Also, here's his quote about the U.S. "stealing" France's health care system.

"...America isn't ranked anywhere near first in anything except military might and snotty billionaires. The country that is ranked No. 1 in health care, for example, is France. The World Health Organization ranks America at 37 in the world—not two, or five—37, in between Costa Rica and Slovenia, which are both years away from discovering dentistry. Yet an American politician could not survive if he or she uttered the simple, true statement, "France has a better health-care system than us, and we should steal it." Because here, simply dismissing an idea as French passes for an argument."

When did Bill Maher turn into Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog? Oh, wait; he's always been that.

I propose a New Rule: when a television talking head starts to become the celebrity he has always lampooned, it's time for a mandatory time out. Indicator for this is appearance in the tabloid magazines.

Maher (who was one of Obama's biggest supporters) makes one joke about Obama and you get all bent out of shape for it? Get over it. Hes a comedian and he has to make jokes about something, what would a good old outdated George W joke make ya feel better?

JE: That's absolutely the point I'm not making. Go ahead and flame Obama and his policies all you want -- just make your observations about something other than photo ops. Hack comics made lots of dumb jokes about Bush's many Crawford brush-clearing photo ops, too. But they weren't making false connections between them and, say, Social Security reform. It helps if satire has a point.

I noticed I used the F-word in a comment I posted last night, thus possible being rejected. Sorry about that and here's a cleaned-up version of my post:

I enjoy some of Maher's stuff, but completely agree with you on this one. He likes to act like an expert on everything, while in reality he'll often state factually incorrect spin as if he knows it to be hard fact, just because he read it somewhere.

Know what really annoys me about Maher? The way he gets all sanctimonious when one of his jokes bomb, as if the audience simply isn't appreciating his brilliance or can't handle how "edgy" he is. I suppose it works since the audience usually gives him a round of applause for telling them to [expletive] off, but it annoys the hell out of me. Like when that Dennis Miller, on his old HBO show, would blame someone on his writing staff whenever a joke bombed. If you want to bask in the glory of laughter and applause, you've gotta be willing to take the fall now and then.

Speaking of arrogance (that's what the long Miller tangent was about, right?), I've also noticed Maher's consistent indigence over The Daily Show and Colbert's acclaim. Every so often, he'll petulantly comment on how they get all the awards and attention, as if he's some poor unappreciated genius and Stewart and Colbert are talentless hacks. It's not becoming of a professional.

One quick note: While Maher has identified himself as a Libertarian on some issues in the past, I don't think it's entirely accurate to call him one. He doesn't think that all forms of regulation are evil or that poor kids shouldn't go school, and he supported Obama during the election, not Ron Paul.

Also, despite his failings, Maher deserves some credit for trying to have a variety of guests on his show to have lengthier discussions on subjects. Granted, he does tend to force a lot of jokes into those interviews and force his point of view without debating so much as repeating himself, but sometimes there are interesting conversations on his show.

JE: Yes, the Sun-Times' language filter automatically rejects some words and tosses the comments into the spam bin.

I've never enjoyed Maher much as a comedian, but I do think he often makes some good points -- although now that I think about it, I tend to agree with him less when concerning the minutiae of public policy, and more about The Bigger Picture issues: how America eats, how we keep ourselves (or don't keep ourselves) healthy, distrust of religious orthodoxy (although I don't go as far as he does on the subject), the failure of the "war on drugs."

But I have to agree that more and more the smugness of his delivery is getting unbearable, and the worst part is it undermines whatever good points he might actually be making. When he defended David Letterman, and argued he should never have had to apologize to Sarah Palin and her family, I agreed wholeheartedly. When he then immediately made a "joke" about how "For once, someone got in trouble for telling a joke on TV... and it wasn't me!" I wanted to throw a large jungle cat at my television. It's probably why I actually prefer watching him whenever he does a guest spot on Larry King, than actually watching his own show -- it forces him to be a little more mellow, and leave most of his lame jokes at home.

Because yeah, as a comedian, he's often difficult to even watch. The prop bits he always shoehorns into the middle of his shows are either unfunny or painfully unfunny, and I can't remember the last time I saw a cold-open he did that actually made me laugh. Some of his "New Rules" tend to be pretty good, but he laughs so much himself, at himself, that it ruins the bits as well.

But of all the annoying idiosyncrasies of his delivery, the one I hate most is when he tells a joke that's "Controversial(TM)," and the audience makes a kind of natural "Ooooooh!" response, and then he blames the audience for being offended, when they're often probably not even really offended but just making a natural Pavlovian reaction to a sort of "oh no he didn't!" kind of joke! (Someone here has to know what I'm talking about, right? Right?)

Bill Maher's show may deal in politics, but I've always felt it was definitely more on the entertainment side. Not sure it's worth flaming him for.

Maher's a comedian...that's it. Even he knows that. Comparing him to O'Reilly or Olbermann is to not be paying attention. He's not even on a so-called news channel.

BTW, Jim, ole buddy...if you're not going to even bother taking a decent pic, why have it on your blog? :)

JE: What I'm saying is that O'Reilly, Olbermann, Coulter, Limbaugh (who's always described himself as an "entertainer"), Matthews, Maddow -- they're all in the same business, and that business is entertainment. They're all comedians, as much as Leno, Letterman, Maher, Rock, Miller, Stewart, Colbert. Seinfeld doesn't do political humor so it's easy to see him as a sitcom/stand-up comedian. But these others are doing the same thing in different contexts. Some of their humor hits its target, some is pure fantasy. And you don't like my picture?

I watch Stewart, Colbert AND Maher. Never missed a single show.

The humor is always there. I laugh non-stop throughout all three shows.

I think you, Jim, is just put off by how the joke is told.

Stewart or Colbert could have easily made jokes about Obama being on TV too much. But, they'd have done it in such a way that it wouldn't annoy YOU. But, the message would still be the same.

You can't really blame someone for being smug. It's genetic.

Plus, smug people can be funny, too.

JE: Yes, I think smug can be funny, too. (That's what Colbert does -- but he's making fun of the smugness.) I will defend my comedy values. But I also understand where Harold Ramis ("Year One," "Groundhog Day") is coming from when he recently said: "Everyone won’t like everything. If I make a movie that 90% of the audience likes, well, that’s great. But if I make a movie that only 60% of the audience likes, that doesn’t mean it’s a failure. It just means it was better suited to that 60%." I am not in Maher's XX% most of the time, and I'm explaining why.

"Hack comics made lots of dumb jokes about Bush's many Crawford brush-clearing photo ops, too. But they weren't making false connections between them and, say, Social Security reform. It helps if satire has a point."

No. They connected his brush clearings to suggest that he was just generally unfit for his office, regardless of the issue.

I'm not here to defend Maher, but if his entertainment commentary show is now getting picked up as a newspaper op-ed, that says more about the newspaper industry (which I love) than Maher. He's an entertainer who made a joke. If you don't think it's funny, fine. But I don't think it makes him a hack.

You're correct: Obama has always been several steps ahead. And, thus, it's not just the media turning Obama into a celebrity. Backed into a serious corner, Obama needs all the public support he can get. If he can win that by appealing to the people -- looking cool on a date with his wife, looking of-the-people at Five Guys -- he should do it.

Look, Obama is the president who filled out his NCAA hoops bracket for a piece with ESPN. I'm fine with this. But the Obama-mania isn't just a result of 24/7 media run out of control. Obama is using the media. Thus the joke, while it might not be biting, applies.

JE: You bring up an interesting point: Comics sometimes used Bush's brush-clearing as a metaphor in jokes, but that's not what Maher is doing with his "Obama's always on TV" bit here. Maher's premise is -- seriously -- that Obama is spending so much time on TV that he and his administration are obviously not working hard enough. That's the hacky joke, built on a ridiculous assumption. He's misrepresenting what a president does, how policy work gets done, the nature of media relations. Of course, as you say, Obama is using the media -- and they are playing along, just as they did when Bush and Clinton and Reagan were popular first-term presidents. Does nobody remember Reagan's photo op of the day -- scheduling time or an image every day that the administration hoped would trump bad news (especially about Iran-Contra) because the media just wouldn't be able to resist it? It worked most of the time, even back in the 1980s. That's the way politics works. I just don't think Maher's take on it here is valid or insightful -- or, therefore, funny.

"Bill Maher's show may deal in politics, but I've always felt it was definitely more on the entertainment side. Not sure it's worth flaming him for."

I don't think you can let him off the hook in the name of entertainment. Maher certainly makes more of an effort to present his show as a political discussion, not just entertainment. Sure, it's comedy, but the panelists he has on are more often journalists, pundits and/or politicians than entertainers. If you want to appreciate what he does, just check out Colin Quinn's Comedy Central show Tough Crowd from a few years back. It claimed to be the same kind of overview of current events, but it was mostly terrible comedians trying to get their little bits in. If Maher makes one appreciate the Daily Show and Colbert more, surely Quinn will inspire some admiration of what Maher does.

Maher does have a point. Filming a recent bit for Colbert for his Iraq shows, the Brian Williams interivew, etc, do seem like a bit much, especially when Obama is backtracking on campaign promises. He's come under fire for the Department of Justice's DOMS brief and not challenging Don't Ask Don't Tell. He's blocked access to White House visitor records much like Bush did. He's backtracked on Gitmo now saying we might have to hold some prisoners indefinitely without trial, etc. Maher's point was that Obama seems more concerned with his public persona and likeability quotient when he should be doing the things we elected him to do. But instead, Obama backtracks and does half measures (giving only federal employees same-sex partner benefits) and is too focused on bipartisanship that he can't actually get his agenda done. Maher's point, which is agree with, is that Obama should essentially use his power and approval ratings to actually DO THE THINGS HE PROMISED TO DO and stop futzing around trying to cater to the whims of the braindead American populus and the minority, weakened GOP. Maher's point is valid and correct, and funny. I don't know why you have such a chip on your shoulder about Maher, Jim. More often than not he's correct, isn't ashamed of his opinions or being taken out of context or misinterpreted, and will point out things others will willfully ignore. And when he's correct, he's earned whatever smugness people see in him.

JE: I'm with you on all those criticisms of Obama, which are perfectly legitimate. They have nothing to do with his photo ops, however. Maher almost makes a valid point when he says that Obama should be using his popularity to keep more of his campaign promises -- again, a legitimate point. Not particularly funny, but valid. I'm objecting to the false connection he draws between staged TV appearances and policy work, and his assertion that Obama hasn't done much so far. So much of what he did, right out of the gate, was to undo a whole mess of Bush policy damage. Absolutely, he needs to follow through with a plan for closing Guantanamo (Holder said yesterday that the Justice Department has reviewed about half the detainees' cases so far) -- but to assert as Maher does that this hasn't happened -- or that health care reform isn't where it should be -- BECAUSE the president has been too busy making TV appearances is so childish it's insulting.

"If you wanted to learn something about politics (and "topical humor") from TV, you'd have to watch Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert, not Leno."

Really? Those are two of the last places I would ever try to learn something about politics. Stewart and Colbert are first and foremost late-night comedy shows. "Real Time", Maher's own show, is heavier on real political discussion than those two Comedy Central shows.

What makes Maher's op-ed (or monolouge) so important is that it's the first time anyone in the mainstream Liberal media has leveled any criticism at Barack Obama. It is starting to get scary. Even Stewart and Colbert, whose shows revolve around political satire, refuse to even make a joke about Obama, let alone any real criticisms. It's getting scary. On the one hand you have Republicans willing to criticize Obama for nearly anything (eating Dijon mustard, making a lame 'special olympic' joke) and on the other hand you have Democrats blindly praising Obama for everything (and ignoring the fact that he opposes gay marriage while condeming people like Carrie Prejean). Hardly anyone in the media, whether it be on television or in the news media, is offering any substantial criticism or evaluation of Obama's practices. Whether you agree with Maher's piece or not, it's a step in the right direction.

That being said, I completely agree with Maher. In fact, way back when John McCain said it, I was already in agreement. Barack Obama has become a celebrity. It was apparent during the elections campaign. People were more concerned with his image, his race and how good a speaker he was than what his policies were. Obama played into it particularly well. The whole "Yes We Can" thing was nothing more than an extremely effective marketing campaign that millions bought into. Youth were propheszing Obama as a great president, yet ask them about any of his policies or stances on issues and 9 out of 10 wouldn't know a thing.

It was all well and good during the elections campaign, but now in office Obama is still playing up his image. Appearances on Jay Leno? Interviews with CNN? What has he actually done so far? He hasn't done anything to warrant the hype surrounding him. I do not hate the man nor do I like him, but there need to be more people like Maher criticizing, instead of swallowing, everything he does.

JE: Please note that the comment about Stewart and Colbert is (rhetorically) addressed to Maher, and is about finding ways to make jokes about politics that accurately reflect how politics works. I keep saying: Criticize Obama's policies all you like. Joke about his image (Stewart and Colbert do it all the time). But to say Obama has been too busy making TV appearances to get any work done is nonsense, and reflects an infantile view of the presidency. Meanwhile, you can easily Google what the Obama administration has accomplished in the last five months, if you honestly don't remember.

Maher is as much of a "libertarian" as O'Reilly is an "independent." Maher is about as "far left" politically as one can get and be on television. O'Reilly is as "far right" as one can get and be on television. Quit trying to make words mean things they don't mean.

Admit that you dislike Maher for his views and tone, even if his politics are the same as yours. Anything else is cowardly.

JE: I dislike Maher's views but his politics are the same as mine? Maher describes himself as a libertarian -- that's not my designation, it's his. From an interview with Time magazine in 2006:

Q. You describe yourself as a Libertarian. Is that even a political designation anymore?

A. I don't know. There's no one in the Libertarian Party who breaks through, even to Ralph Nader status. I've always thought of it as allowing people to do anything they wanted to do as long as it doesn't hurt somebody else. Sometimes people say to me, "You're not a real Libertarian because Libertarians believe there should be no gun control." I'm not a radical Libertarian, O.K.? Every party has something of a big tent. [...]

I think religion is bad and drugs are good.

http://budurl.com/apqc

Completely agree, but the worst thing about Maher is how he demeans the very concept of libertarianism by using it as an obnubliative prop to present himself as 'edgy' and 'different.' Believe me, he is an abject embarrassment to anyone who truly believes in libertarianism and egalitarianism, and his continual, desperate attempts to be taken seriously as one (often to the point of literally saying "I'm a libertarian!" over and over and over) are like slaps to the face.

Solipsism, myopia and glib know-it-all-ism are not the same thing as libertarianism. Nuts to Bill Maher.

I would call him intelligent but lazy. I thought his piece read better then a dry accounting of what we all though Obama would do with his first 6 months and what he actually did. No one expected Health Care Reform by now but i sure figured he would throw a few more rights to gays, open up the doors to reporters on some of the bush memorandums, and reverse some of the most egregious expansions of presidential power. History will vindicate him, or not, most likely he'll get blamed for the deep deep depression we're only a third of the way through.

JE: "Lazy" is, I think, an accurate description of Maher's humor. I find him too easy, too superficial. Stewart and Colbert often express ideas that are penetrating and funny (Homer Simpson: "It's funny because it's true"). I rarely feel Maher gets below the surface at anything real or true. He just has strong opinions (some of which I share), but doesn't express them with any particular insight. Colbert and Stewart use actual clips and quotes to ground their comedy in reality. They don't just string together lazy one-liners.

JE: "I dislike Maher's views but his politics are the same as mine? Maher describes himself as a libertarian -- that's not my designation, it's his."

And O'Reilly describes himself as an "independent." What's your point?

Where, exactly, do you and Maher differ in your politics? What you are discussing above is aesthetics, not politics.

What Maher espouses is on the far left of the current political spectrum. Here's a better question: does Maher espouse any politics that are libertarian that conflict with liberal viewpoints? The answer, of course, is "no." His "libertarian" status is a feeble attempt appear independent, and it is not based on his politics.

JE: "What you are discussing above is aesthetics, not politics." YES! That is absolutely what I'm writing about -- not political philosophy, but joke writing. I think that's pretty clear if you read it: The post is about comedy, about how a comedian constructs a monologue about politics, and why his connection between presidential TV photo ops and, say, health care reform doesn't work -- as comedy or as an observation about politics. Maher's political views, or mine, have nothing to do with Maher's characterization of TV appearances. That's why I was confused when you attributed political views to me -- and then said I disagreed with my own views because you claim they're the same as Maher's. The post isn't about what either of us think should be done about health care reform; it's about whether it's legitimate to draw the conclusion that, because a president is on TV a lot, his administration is not serious about policymaking and hasn't accomplished much in five months. Obama's political foes on the right aren't complaining he hasn't done enough -- they say he's done too much and he's wrong! Libertarians are saying he's spending too much government money. His critics on the left are saying he hasn't exercised enough governmental control in various areas. That's not what I'm writing about.

So, I accept your characterization of Maher as someone who claims to be "libertarian" to appear "independent." And I don't disagree with Maher that health care reform is a top priority (I know from a commenter here that he likes the French system, but I don't know any specifics). I disagree with the REASONS he gives in this monologue for concluding that Obama isn't doing anything about it.

JE: "Lazy" is, I think, an accurate description of Maher's humor. I find him too easy, too superficial. Stewart and Colbert often express ideas that are penetrating and funny (Homer Simpson: "It's funny because it's true"). I rarely feel Maher gets below the surface at anything real or true. He just has strong opinions (some of which I share), but doesn't express them with any particular insight. Colbert and Stewart use actual clips and quotes to ground their comedy in reality. They don't just string together lazy one-liners.

Exactly. Stewart and Colbert aren't perfect (the whoops and hollers of US TV audience drive me absolutely crazy) but the clips, quotes and research help the jokes sting a little more. Not having the benefit of seeing Bill Maher till recently (Aus cable started showing this year), the hackiness and predictability was astonishing in a well funded HBO show, especially one that seems to have a good range of guests.

BE: "That's why I was confused when you attributed political views to me -- and then said I disagreed with my own views because you claim they're the same as Maher's."

My objection wasn't with your politics, and if I came across that way, you have my apologies. My objection was your classification as Maher as libertarian, when he is decidely liberal. I believed you classified him as liberatarian, not liberal, because (1) you are liberal, and don't want Maher identified with you in either beliefs or aesthetics; and (2) identifying Maher as liberal has the same effect as identifying O'Reilly as conservative - fools identify the entire ideology with the individual.

And I think you are being too nice on Maher on his treatment of Obama. He isn't criticizing Obama because sincerely believes he is ineffectual. He is criticizing Obama because he has to criticize someone. The Republicans aren't exactly a viable target, given that their whole party is an endangered species. Wall Street has been effectively neutered. Blaming other nations or free trade would be labeled xenophobic. So what can he do? He'll poke light fun at Obama to generate controversy and interest in his show, and then he'll move 100% behing him when (if?) things improve.

He's just pandering to a lowest common denominator that doesn't realize it is a lowest common denominator. Which is the same thing O'Reilley, Beck, Coulter, Dowd, etc. do. They tell the disaffected that because they believe something most people don't, it makes them smarter than most people. Maher will never, never, never take a majority position, simply or that reason. Their shows are junk food for the quasi-intellectual.

JE: OK, I see what you're saying (and I'm glad you mentioned Dowd, who ought to write a lot smarter stuff, too). As for Maher's political credentials: He says he voted for Bob Dole in 1996 (because he likes "war heroes") and Ralph Nader in 2000. I think that says all that needs to be said about the coherence of his political views. And maybe about the way he thinks about comedy, too.

Thanks, Jim. My biggest problem with Maher's "reasoning" is that he somehow expects magic in six months. Silly. Not wanting to take any political side, I would also point out that there was nothing that I recall from President's Obama's campaign that indicated he was going to be a fire-breathing liberal reformer. I think he's a pragmatic, down-the-center guy and people looking for a lot of righteous payback may end up being disappointed.

JE: Yes, that's not the way he campaigned and it's not the way he's governed. As the piece I linked to about Obama's M.O. puts it, he and his people approach politics like community organizers. That said, I'm perplexed by his approach to some issues -- like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- but his timing and strategy have been pretty smart all along, so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt for the time being. Remember during the campaign when lefties were saying he needed to get mad and strike back at McCain's mudslinging? I was one of them for a while -- but it's the worst thing he could have done. He doesn't personalize or emotionalize (is that a word?) politics, and he's smart to hang back a little bit and let others pull him along. Knowing how to do that -- how to make others think it was their idea -- is one of the smartest and most effective forms of leadership. As for gays in the military -- I remember well how Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) cut Clinton off at the knees and almost single-handedly prevented him from integrating the armed forces in 1993. Obama's not about to repeat that mistake, but now even Nunn says the policy ought to be "revisited," as do many of the country's top generals, so I don't know what Obama's waiting for...

Jim, I'm baffled here. Maher is simply saying more bold strokes and less image-honing, please. You don't feel like that at least a little bit? C'mon now. If you want to vent about Maher at least use one of his less sensible spiels as a jumping off point.

JE: And I'm simply saying those two things have nothing to do with each other and that Maher ought to know better, especially if he's attempting to target adults with his material. Want bold strokes? Great! But don't pretend that TV photo-ops are what's preventing Obama from making them. That's just dumb comedy.

Airline food?

They should call it airline GARBAGE!

What's up with that?

A comedian can be disrespectful with the facts, and I can still find them funny only when they make their intentions obvious from the start. When Jim Jeffries said "This is great, I can say whatever the f**k I want," at the very beginning of one of his best 10 minute gigs(circa 2007), he immediately pushed a reset button in my brain, where it will be okay to laugh at his jokes because nothing he says will be serious. I can’t say that about Dave Chappelle who didn’t say anything to contradict his remarks about Elizabeth Smart, which were I’m sorry to say, not funny at all but borderline offensive, what was very bizarre about his joke on Elizabeth was that it was tinted in a racial lens because he contrasts his narration of Smart, with that of a younger black girl in a similar situation. He rightly praises the black girl’s courage(who sadly he does not name, maybe cause the facts elude him like it does Maher), but slams hard on Elizabeth implying she was stupid and not worthy of a news story. It’s a classic example, like your beef with Maher’s recent comments. Comedians should be more aware of the subject of their criticism. Dave in his For What It’s Worth stand-up could have just slammed the media, but he crossed a line to indecency when he attacked a victim of kidnapping. Why did people in the audience laugh at such humor? I can only assume, like Maher’s audience that they are there to see him, and not there to see a comedy show.

JE: And I'm simply saying those two things have nothing to do with each other and that Maher ought to know better, especially if he's attempting to target adults with his material. Want bold strokes? Great! But don't pretend that TV photo-ops are what's preventing Obama from making them. That's just dumb comedy.

Jim. I love your blog. I really do. However, this is easily the stupidest post you’ve ever made. Nowhere in Maher’s joke (or in that quote) is it implied that photo-ops are literally and actually preventing Obama from making bold strokes. I am baffled by the literal mindedness in which you are harping on this point. Maher’s point, quite simply, is that Obama seems more interested in image-honing than bold strokes not that you can’t do both. Seriously, saying that Maher is gulity of “ pretend[ing] that TV photo-ops are what's preventing Obama from making them” is utterly baffling.

JE: It's right there in the Lindsay Lohan paragraph I quoted: "And like Lohan, we see your name in the paper a lot, but we're kind of wondering when you're actually going to do something." Here's more from Maher's op-ed:

I get it: You love being on TV. I love my bong, but I take it out of my mouth every once in a while. The other day, I caught myself saying to a friend, "Don't tell me if he's fixed the economy yet, I'm Tivo-ing it."

Remember during the campaign when John McCain attacked Obama for acting like a celebrity and we all laughed at the grumpy old shellshocked fool? Well, it turns out he was right. Sorry, senator. I'm sending a nice gift basket of high-fiber muffins your way. [...]

And let's stop worrying so much about doing anything that might tarnish the brand. See, this is why I don't want my president to be a TV star: Because TV stars are too worried about being popular -- and too concerned with getting renewed. [...]

... The way to get renewed for your reality show that you love so much is to act boldly now.

Obama needs to start putting it on the line in fights against the banks, the energy companies and the healthcare industry. I never thought I'd say this, but he needs to be more like George W. Bush. Bush was all about, "You're with us or against us."

Obama's more like, "You're either with us, or you obviously need to see another picture of this adorable puppy!"

I may have spoken too soon about the threshold for disappointment. When it comes to civil rights, Obama's really pushing his constituents' tolerance. Andrew Sullivan writes:

http://budurl.com/syge

"We need to tell him we do not want another fricking speech where he tells us he is a fierce advocate for our rights, when that is quite plainly at this point not true."

Jim,

I still don't see where he says photo opts are preventing Obama from making bold strokes. Again, he is saying Obama is more interested in photo opts and superficial image making than bold strokes. There is difference between the two points. I don't see where he posits being on tv necessarily precludes getting anything done. In fact, when he says, "Obama's more like, 'You're either with us, or you obviously need to see another picture of this adorable puppy!' " he is clearly criticizing him for superficial image concerns not merely for being on tv.

The aesthetics of the "joke" are sound. It's not terribly funny or that insightful but it’s quite unfair to reduce Maher’s point (and seemingly on purpose on your part) to “Obama needs to get off tv and get to work” when he’s actually criticizing him for not following a progressive agenda.

JE: OK, we're definitely not reading Maher's monologue the same way. He could have left the TV stuff out entirely, but that's the first third of the piece. I think he gets the op-ed off on the wrong foot with, "President Obama should just join the cast of 'I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!' It's not that farfetched; he's been on everything else." Then he spends his first six paragraphs making jokes about Obama being all over TV -- when "we're kind of wondering when you're actually going to do something." Just watch the way he delivers the Lindsay Lohan bit on his show. That's when he gets "serious."

Jim, is this the first time you've ever actually printed the name Ann Coulter? I've been reading the blog regularly for a few years now and don't remember actually seeing the full name printed. I literally gasped when I read it.

JE: I know. I blanked her out at first, but I thought it was too distracting in the Maher context. Besides, he should have to own up to his long association with her. From now on, though, it's back to A-- C------.

The point about the photo-Ops that you're getting hung up on was silly but I don't think that's really the meat of the piece, it's just a highly visible example being used as a jumping off point. I doubt Maher really thinks this is a matter of time manegement so much as priorites. The root of the joke is was later in the monolouge where he urged Obama to kick the GOP while it was down, the way Bush would in order to get his policies through.

By virtue of the fact that I don't have cable, I may be a little out of my league in this discussion. But, reading through the comments there is one little bit that stands out to me. And I quote you, Jim:

"What I'm saying is that O'Reilly, Olbermann, Coulter, Limbaugh (who's always described himself as an "entertainer"), Matthews, Maddow -- they're all in the same business, and that business is entertainment."

Thank you for saying this. It needs to be said more and more and more.

I have had occasional opportunities (at a friend or relatives house) to see people like Colbert, Maddow, O'Reilly, and others, and the thing that has struck me about each and every one of them is that they are not reporting news, they are commenting on it, and in some cases making a circus out of it. The thing that scares me is that people are starting to use these personalities as a primary source for news information. However intelligent each of these performers may be (and some are better than others), they are not fair or balanced. Taken alone, these personalities do nothing more than encourage us to retreat into whatever views they (and we) hold. They do not promote a way of thinking that looks to any and every party for viable political solutions.

Young and old, we as a nation need to start recognizing more openly that these people are here to make us laugh or entertain us. There is nothing wrong with that, but we should be very careful not to confuse it with real news journalism.

OK, I'll try this again. All this talk about the administration's accomplishments is mostly just that: talk. I did Google a list of accomplishments and it was pretty thin gruel. Most of these so-called accomplishments were the routine reversal of executive orders put in place by the previous administration. This happens every time there's a new President from a different political party, no big accomplishments there.

I'll challenge you one more time. What has President Obama done since he's taken office that has been so spectacular? Your whole take on this Maher business is that President Obama really has been busy doing all sorts of things and not merely posing for television cameras. I'll agree that he has been doing some stuff but it has really amounted to very little given his party's control over the legislature these days.

Case in point: legislation is currently wending its way around Congress to pay for this year's operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Guess what? There's no money in this bill to close Guantanamo and in fact, the legislation puts severe restrictions on the transfer of any prisoners from Guantanamo. In other words, this administration is very good at saying what it will do but then not really doing much of anything because very few people can be bothered to follow up on what actually happens. He has the greatest political capital of any President in my lifetime and he's afraid to spend any of it on gay rights? Don't try to tell me that any of the bailouts have amounted to some daring action on part of the administration. Let's see, Congress is spending money it doesn't have! How daring.

Yes, there's something to be said that Obama's appearances on TV are mostly the work of a besotted media but you cannot ignore the fact that this President has spent more time appearing on television on his own initiative (Tonight Show, for example: sure they wanted him on but why did he go on? Because he WANTED to) than any recent President. Maher's primary point is still valid. This adminstration actually has done very little of what it said it would and, in fact, has reversed its positions on numerous issues to adopt the reasoning of the previous administration whenever it's convenient. So far it really hasn't been hope AND change, the contraction just isn't there. It's more like hope FOR change. Plenty of folks are still waiting for the change and even this compliant media is eventually going to wake up and realize that President Obama is just another run-of-the-mill politician behind that incredibly smooth demeanor.

JE: "I may have spoken too soon about the threshold for disappointment. When it comes to civil rights, Obama's really pushing his constituents' tolerance."

One of the most interesting stories of the 2008 election was the defeat of gay rights bills in several states, especially ones (like California) where they were expected to pass easily. Why did these bills fail? The massively underreported reason is because African Americans voted in record numbers. And African Americans tend not to (although exceptions can obviously be found) be supporters of gay rights.

Obama is not going to anger his African American base (or moderates for whom this is a wedge issue) by fighting for gay rights in his first term. Why should he? What are gays going to do? Vote Palin in 2012? Sit the election out and let Palin become president? Of course not. They'll make a lot of noise to stay relevant, and then they'll fall into line in 2012. I know this. You know this. Obama knows this.

JE: "I may have spoken too soon about the threshold for disappointment. When it comes to civil rights, Obama's really pushing his constituents' tolerance."

One of the most interesting stories of the 2008 election was the defeat of gay rights bills in several states, especially ones (like California) where they were expected to pass easily. Why did these bills fail? The massively underreported reason is because African Americans voted in record numbers. And African Americans tend not to (although exceptions can obviously be found) be supporters of gay rights.

Obama is not going to anger his African American base (or moderates for whom this is a wedge issue) by fighting for gay rights in his first term. Why should he? What are gays going to do? Vote Palin in 2012? Sit the election out and let Palin become president? Of course not. They'll make a lot of noise to stay relevant, and then they'll fall into line in 2012. I know this. You know this. Obama knows this.

I think Maher felt pressured to criticize Obama just so he can uphold a reputation of being non-partisan. I agree that this monologue was pointless and was just aimed at getting cheap laughs. I normally love Maher's stuff.

If the media has been focusing too heavily on irrelevant Obama coverage, that's probably the fault of the media, and not Obama.

"And that's always been the problem with Maher (and Coulter and Matthews and O'Reilly and Dennis Miller and Chris Rock and...): they're celebrities who make their living talking about politics in terms of celebrities and believing that means their opinions qualify as social commentary."

Jim, let's have a moment of self-reflection. You are an editor for a film critic and hardly anyone would read this blog if it wasn't attached to Ebert's website. I am unaware of you having any special training or experience in politics (or any access to inside information) that makes you so much smarter than all those above-named comedians. If you do, please correct me. If not, don't act like you have such a deeper understanding of politics, because you don't.

Stick to movie commentary, Jim. Do what you do best.

Good article Jim. Me thinks Maher is trying to create controversy since he doesn't have George to kick around. I agree, his jokes are stale, his delivery weak. He needs to step back and make fun of himself, like Letterman.

JE: I dislike Maher's views but his politics are the same as mine?

Jim, while I don't know what your politics are, Maher, while he may claim to be a Libertarian, is a liberal Libertarian who supported Obama, supports universal health care etc. He is closer to Bernie Sanders than Rush Limbaugh. (And he hasn't had Coulter on his show in a while.)

I watch his show every week and believe it is the best political debate on TV. Colbert, the Daily Show and the weekend shows aren't even close. He always has excellent guests that range from Nobel prize winners to rappers, sometimes on the same panel.

But the real point of that rant of his was the final line.

"I'm glad that Obama is president, but the "Audacity of Hope" part is over. Right now, I'm hoping for a little more audacity."

Maher wants Obama to accomplish everything, but feels that he is giving in too much. Maher wants him to start acting like Bush, to do what he thinks is best for the country, without caring what the other party thinks.

A call for self-reflection from somebody who posts as Anonymous? Please tell me that was a failed attempt at satire.

"JE: What I'm saying is that O'Reilly, Olbermann, Coulter, Limbaugh (who's always described himself as an "entertainer"), Matthews, Maddow -- they're all in the same business, and that business is entertainment."

Limbaugh, like many political talk show hosts from both sides of the aisle, wants to be taken SERIOUSLY until it gets a little hot...then he/they run for the nearest shelter..."I'M AN ENTERTAINER!"

I've worked in radio for quite some time, and have worked with some of the guys you mention. You've hit upon something that has always bothered me.

These "entertainment" hosts spew hate, venom, half-truths and more, stirring up their audiences who already agree with them anyway.

It's even worse when some of these yahoos stay stuff on the air that they don't even believe.

They want to be taken seriously until someone actually calls them on the carpet about it. Then they say "Aw...it's just a show!".

But they know damn well that's not how their audience perceives it. They not only know it, they DEPEND on it.

I don't see Maher in the same light. I think he can be heavy handed and downright wrong about a lot of issues...but, I don't see the same Dogma that I see in other shows.

Plus, on a personal level, I think it's pretty obvious that Maher is mainly all about Maher... Which trumps any political ideology he may be peddling...

As far as the pic goes...LOL. Had no idea you actually read and responded to these things.
The pic could be better, but I should not be throwing stones. You dress better than I do!

I consider Obama's media attention to be a weird byproduct of his campaign. He used it masterfully to sell his platform and now the media gives him smothering attention because it obviously makes money. Twenty-four hour news isn't about giving the news anymore, its about giving the people what the company thinks they want. CNN believes everyone is wild about Obama then we're going to learn more what he had for breakfast this morning and we're going to follow his kids to school. Hell, his wife is being considered a fashion icon and she's only been the first lady for six months. It doesn't help that a lot of the shallow optimism (a lot of it is, sorry) happens to coincide with that of the anchors and commentators. On the other end of the spectrum is FoxNews that has an audience that thinks and wants differently. Obama won't get a fair chance there.

P.S. Chris Matthews may be the first commentator I have ever seen with an actual man-crush. I imagine his bedroom looks like a 14 year old girls with a bunch of "Yes We Can" posters plastered everywhere.

A bit of semantics: Don't call Bill Maher a hack. It's on the same level as your commentors telling you to stop going back to your old targets and stick to film criticism and whatever else- it's a blatant cheap shot/name calling, and Maher is far from a hack. An idiot and a bigot, definitely. But Dane Cook is a hack. Bill Maher is not.

That being said, I've been an enormous fan of Maher in the past but this waffling on Obama's policies is just not right. He was right to not entertain the thoughts of the 9/11 truthers, bu this just isn't right. And I don't think it's entirely his fault. This is the first time in almost 10 years (I don't count the last couple years of the Clinton presidency since most of that was spent obsessing over Monica) that we've had a present who isn't royally screwing something up every single day. How are we supposed to confront that? Yes, as a gay man I sometimes get mad that he isn't doing as much as he said he would for gay rights, but for God's sake, our economy still sucks, we're losing jobs and Iran is going nuts.

JE: You're right, "hack" is name-calling and I shouldn't have used the term. I should have stuck to explaining why I think some of his comedy is (in the vernacular) "hacky," but not slapped an insulting name on him.

I was one of those people who thought Obama should get MAD during the campaign. I was wrong. They knew exactly what they were doing, and McCain self-destructed.

Yes and that's fine in WINNING AN ELECTION, aka playing politics. It may keep Obama in office, playing nice and making concessions to the criminal corporations and lobbies as he's doing. But it's not helping humanity at all, it's hurting us. I don't like Bill Maher, and his seeming to say that Obama being on TV is somehow connected to Obama being a failure and disappointment is obviously incorrect and silly, but - Obama is letting everyone down. I personally didn't vote for him (didn't vote at all) because I happen to believe in the old Gore Vidal line about there being two corporate parties with different names. And Obama is proving it. His strategy, like his strategy in the election, is fine, provided your name is Barack Obama. If you're an American who wants affordable (or: free) health care, or better education, or a reliable blue collar job, or anything else - or if you're homosexual - Obama is probably not your guy. He's not in it for you. He's no longer even really pretending to be. I would hate if people failed to notice that because they're too busy noticing how awful Bill Maher is. Maher can be an awful hack comedian, and Obama can still be an awful hack corporate president who's letting the people down. Ya know?

Dysthymia83: "Maher does have a point. Filming a recent bit for Colbert for his Iraq shows, the Brian Williams interivew, etc, do seem like a bit much…"

Colbert's Iraq show was also, if you recall, a USO show, to entertain the troops. And Obama's appearance was what, one or two minute

Your totally wrong. I'm a big time Maher fan (although I disagree with many of his opinions) but he was right about what he said. Obama's MO is to be laid back, this is true, but that rope a dope strategy is good for elections. As Bill points out, that part is over. What Bill wants is to get what he voted for, change. He wants Obama to be more ambitious. He wants Obama to show the kind of guts Clinton lacked. He wants a Left Wing president. Not a Centrist.

And don't tell me that he's only 6 months deep. A president has the most power in his first 6 months. Not to mention the fact Obama won in such a landslide that he had a huge amount of political capital to spend and popular goodwill to spare. Notice that his numbers have dropped recently? It seems many people agree with Maher.

How can you avoid politics in your post? Isn't what Maher said about Obama's plan only calling for a 4% cut, true? Isn't Maher correct in asserting that Obama hasn't changed all that much? I mean, Barack came to fix the financial crisis, yet his new plans didn't mean much for the credit card industry (that can still charge whatever it feels like charging) or federal deregulation rates (which remain pretty much the same as they did before the crisis).

And yes, Maher makes petty jokes. But he's a comedian! That's his bread and butter. The truth is, Maher's not even that funny. He's only average as guy who gets laughs. But he's the best at being tough and thought provoking. And sure he's a a celebrity himself, but that doesn't make is opinion any less valid.

And yes, what Maher is asking for more than anyone can honesty hope Obama will deliver and he wants it right now. But isn't hope what Obama sold us in the first place?

JE: OK, one more time:

A) Say whatever you want about Obama's appearances on television.

B) Say whatever you want about Obama's policies and priorities.

C) It is false to claim that A accounts for Obama's administration not doing anything about B, as Maher does.

That's all.

Hey Jim,

I noticed you didn't mind Maher's tactics and humor when he was criticizing Bush (at least not enough to put a piece on your blog about it). But now that he's criticized the Great and All Powerful Obama (even though it's not really criticism of him) you suddenly find him insufferable. I wonder if there's any connection here....

JE: Guess you missed what I wrote about Maher last September:

If you're going to preach to the converted you need to be smarter. If you're going to try to appeal to a larger crowd, you need to be funnier. [...]

Unfortunately for us all, Maher seems to view himself as a First Amendment Martyr, after his post-9/11 comment about how President Bush's term "cowards" was not appropriate or sufficient to describe murderous suicidal religious fanatics who flew planes into buildings. His network TV show, "Politically Incorrect," was canceled not long thereafter, and he makes sure that we never forget that. He spoke a self-evident truth in a scary, difficult time and was crucified for it -- along with Susan Sontag and many others -- but the holier-than-thou act has gone really stale and sour over the last seven years.

I think Maher, Moore, Stewart, and even Coultergeist and Bill-O are at least getting people in on the ground floor.
It's got You going, someone previously ignorant or plain disinterested will give this post a look, and might begin to explore something that they previously found to be "boring", depressing(which it bloody-well is)or way beyond them. I doubt there's a comedian with a 100% strike-rate, and the political ones must reflect what's being currently said on sites like Salon, Huff', New Matilda etc.(he wasn't just lying, was he?).
Vital stuff.
Good to see you're still sucking the fun out of everything, though. Consistency's important, too.

maher's right about obama, or will be, but his jokes this season suck.

Jim, you're completely wrong on this one. First, let me state that I am a fan of Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert; and with that said, let me say that yes, Mr. Maher is smug and arrogant. But doesn't the left deserve a smug and arrogant commentator/comic, or whatever he is. The right has that loud obnoxious commentator of Bill O'Reilly who screams over his guests and cuts of the mic of the people who dare to question him--Mr. Maher, at least, doesn't do that to his guests, not even his right-wing guests. The Right also has that real smug and full of himself douche of Sean Hannity. So why can't the left have Maher. You also mentioned that maybe Maher should "turn off the boob tube, Bill, and read a newspaper or a web site -- or a blog." This statement by you shows me that you don't really watch his show. If you did, you would know that Maher reads the paper on a regular basis and he consistently supports the true kind of journalism that can only be found in the newspaper. Therefore, the opinions that you expressed on your blog only reflect only a snippet of what Maher's issues are with Obama. All Mr. Maher is saying is that he hopes that Obama becomes a little more smug (just a bit), like president Bush used to be because, even though, Bush was disliked, he was able to get his way on many policies. And Mr. Maher, as James Carville pointed out on Larry King, may have exaggerated, but his point is still a valid one.

Jim, I know you've been over this with other posters, but as a libertarian it hurts for you to apply the moniker to Maher. He supports IMMENSE gov't regulation/intervention in the economy, supports gun control, disdains "states' rights", etc. He IS a progressive, despite what you said. Maher claims all the time that he wants America to become more progressive/liberal, not more libertarian. He's more in common with Nader than, say, Ron Paul.

This isn't the point of your post, but it's important.

Can I run a completely different idea on this board? The problem with Bill Maher, Steven Colbert, and John Stewart is exactly the same. We look to them for political guidance, and they obligingly provide it only to hide behind “I’m just a comedian.” That just doesn’t wash when a paper like the LA Times runs something as an op-ed or a guy like you sees fit to blog about a joke. Because that’s what it was. It was all a joke. The mock seriousness is simply the straight man to his own ensuing punch line. You wanting him to be more discerning in how he criticizes the President is like asking Abbott to come up with a better reason to hit Costello with his hat.

To me the problem lies far deeper than that. The problem is that these guys are telling jokes at all. Well, that’s not entirely true. We need comedians to tell jokes in the traditional stand up manner. But it needs to be the background noise. When John Stewart made us laugh about the Bush administration, that was a dangerous form of expression for the culture. Our emotions need an outlet. These men are making us laugh when we should be getting angry. I think this neuters us in some profound way. If the face of discourse pre-1776 had been to make fun of the British, I don’t think the people would have revolted.

And I will admit I stand guilty as charged. I watch all three men perform. But I will never forget the night that John Stewart ran a clip of a burning body in the streets of Iraq as the punch line to a funny joke. I laughed out loud. And as soon as I did, I felt ashamed for not being angry.

I don’t know. Maybe I am wrong.

Jim- what in the world are you talking about? Maher's a terrific comedian, he runs a great show and he had a valid point to make.

Your entire post is what's unbelievable. You begrudge him the fact that he made a reference to Sally Field's infamous Oscar speech? What? I know it's old to bang on her for that but everyone knows what she said and it's still brought up every time she appears anywhere.

JE: Did you read the post? What is the valid point you think he made, and what do you think my point was? I'm noticing that people aren't necessarily distinguishing between reasons and conclusions here. Should Obama be pushing harder for his agenda? Are his TV appearances evidence that he is not doing so?

The media is to blame too for manufacturing Obama's charisma before and after the campaign. But I also think it's a conscious effort on the part of his staffers to continue building up his celebrity persona and how he so different than Bush AS A PERSON, when he hasn't been so different in policy. Like the speech he gave in Egypt which essentially meant nothing to the Arab world untill they see some action from him. But Americans who have invested too much in him reversing Bush policies will eat it up. So in a way his enactment of policies, of failure to do so is related to him being so much in TV. If you view it as a distraction for the masses. And it works because the electorate is dumbed down and vote based on personality all the time.

Hey Jim,

I have never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever liked Maher.

It would be one thing if he were wrong, but he's not funny. Be wrong, whatever, but please at least be funny. At least entertain. His ego is too big to be funny.

Jim, I know you've been over this with other posters, but as a libertarian it hurts for you to apply the moniker to Maher. He supports IMMENSE gov't regulation/intervention in the economy, supports gun control, disdains "states' rights", etc. He IS a progressive, despite what you said. Maher claims all the time that he wants America to become more progressive/liberal, not more libertarian. He's more in common with Nader than, say, Ron Paul.

Do you people (Libertarians) honestly not get that to claim Libertarianism in a capitalist country where there is an incredible disparity in wealth, and in which living is increasingly expensive, is inhumane and stupid and obviously evil? I mean you're saying - Freeze! - you want to take a snapshot of the nation as it is, with all its gross inequalities of wealth and privilege, and its extremely high cost of living - and then you want to scrub away the few things in place to make sure the rich don't literally wipe the poor off the face of the earth, the few things that give the poor the chance even to survive - and then: "Ok, time in - fight!" As if it wouldn't just be more of a landslide in favor of rich white people than it is already.

But then most of you (those of you who aren't obviously psychopaths, anyway) are well-off white males. So I guess you'd want there to be a country with no rules and no mechanisms in place to make sure people don't starve, or otherwise get a chance to better themselves. Libertarianism is a monstrous thing in that that - and not freedom, not the Henry David Thoreau stuff (Thoreau would laugh at you and see you for what you are, I suspect) - is what it's really all about. But you all go on lying about your motivations. You and the Randians should find a nice island someplace and go there and not come back. See what the 'freedom' you talk so much about is like when you're all starting even, and have nothing.

"Two words:stem cells".

Umm... actually, it's three words. "Embryonic stem cells." You know, the type of stem cells that have NEVER worked, that NEVER WILL work, that billions of private funds got flushed down the toilet, not to mention the ethical conundrum that destroying an embryo entails (if you're aware of such a thing). Stem cells, by in themselves are not a problem, and are a fantastic resource for medical advancements--so long as the cells are adult stem cells.

Talk about misinformed.

Hi, Jim.

I don't get the channels that Bill Maher is on, so I haven't seen his show. I don't usually read his op-ed pieces, though I've read a few. I do enjoy seeing him on Larry King, mostly because he eschews the comedy and makes straight commentaries on issues (although there are a few clips from his show).

So, from that base of relative ignorance, I will say that I really liked his op-ed piece that one of your commentators cited (Frank on June 18, 2009 6:41 AM), about how candidates in France who don't have mistresses are demonstrating they can't multi-task. That op-ed piece was a complaint about American politics; about how elections never seem to be about issues, but always about something else, something actually irrelevant to the campaign or the issues facing the country. And it was shortly after that op-ed piece that McCain & Palin stopped talking about issues and started mudslinging - just more of the same.

And I think that this op-ed piece about Obama, which is giving you indigestion, is in the same vein.

Given the higher level of expectation most had for this president, why is he spending so much time schmoozing? Reading the parts of the op-ed piece you've cited, I think it's more about the fact that President Obama seems to be already trying to position himself for 2012 than trying to accomplish something. And it isn't so much that the time in front of the camera is taking away from policy, it's the mindset of "we can't do anything that will hurt us in 2-3 years" that is taking away from the opportunity to execute policy.

But if that's so, Mr. Maher could have been more explicit about it. No argument there.

@Chris

I couldn't have written it better. People overlook the valuable assistance Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert gave to Bush by making torture funny. By conditioning in people the urge to giggle when they hear "waterboarding." And Maher is doing a lot of good for Obama right now. Whenever people complain that Obama isn't doing anything, the instinctual response won't be anger or indignation, it will be a chuckle.

It should make my cry that Jon Stewart is now the most respected news broadcaster in the United States. What does that say about the state of the news in this country, that people look for truth in humorous exaggerations? What does it say about me that I only find it funny?

Ayn Rand, whatever you think of her, wrote pretty perfectly about this:

"Kill by laughter. Laughter is an instrument of human joy. Learn to use it as a weapon of destruction. Turn it into a sneer. It's simple. Tell them to laugh at virtue. Don't let anything remain sacred in a man's soul — and his soul won't be sacred to him. Kill reverence and you've killed the hero in man"

Chuck Palahnuik also did a pretty decent job describing it:

"The sound shivers through the walls, through the table, through the window frame, and into my finger. These distraction-oholics. These focus-ophobics. Old George Orwell got it backward. Big Brother isn't watching. He's singing and dancing. He's pulling rabbits out of a hat. Big Brother's holding your attention every moment you're awake. He's making sure you're always distracted. He's making sure you're fully absorbed... and this being fed, it's worse than being watched. With the world always filling you, no one has to worry about what's in your mind. With everyone's imagination atrophied, no one will ever be a threat to the world."

why does anyone care what this hack thinks? He made a poor film about a great topic; the worst sin a "creative person" can commit. His show is 100% contrivance and self agrandizing. His grating and smarmy delivery is mistaken even on this blog for smarts.

When was the last time you didn't know exactly what the joke was going to be? When was the last line he used something truly fresh? Then next will be the first. I have discovered a great but terrible truth; no one ever tires of being agreed with. People who watch that show and excuse its stale and tired faux angst and venom agree with the host. Period.

Cudos to you Jim for seeing that yes, there are times when you should shoot the messenger.

Completely agree with you here Jim.

Bill can be hilarious, but he comes of as an egomaniac, and I prefer John Stewart, who offers more insight in his political satire. He's also more funny.

Can we all accept that the media just loves covering Obama and his family's every move? The same thing can be said of the Kennedys, and I don't think they did such a bad job. Also, why would you base a leader/politician's abilities and competence soley on what is portrayed in media? I have ceased to rely on the likes of CNN, let alone Leno, to provide me with real news. I mean, come on!

I for one am sick of the media relying on celebrities for political commentary.

Excellent analysis on Bill Maher and his increasingly tired style.

I was a fan of his in the past, but he wore me down with his nastiness. I honestly don't think Bill believes most of what he says. He just says it for effect and waits for the storm of reaction.

Those storms are fewer and far between now, probably because Bill Maher is perceived as being just a highly visible troll.

Good for you, Jim.

Our emotions need an outlet. These men are making us laugh when we should be getting angry. By Chris on June 21, 2009 8:13 PM

Is one exclusive of the other? Is "getting angry" tantamount to building a cohesive political rebellion? To having definable goals in regards to what government should be doing?

Stewart et al are certainly not creating movements but they're not hindering them either. Goodness knows, if they didn't exist, I often wonder whether people my age who aren't already politically active would decide to be informed about anything political at all. It takes activists and organizers to make something happen with that information, not just people getting independently "angry".

Of course, this all comes with an asterisk to the current Iran situation. What impresses me most is that they have all decided in what seems to be a very short amount of time that they wanted a revote or a recount. And they have organized effectively around that idea. They are angry about something concrete, and they seek a concrete solution.

I guess I'm on the "Maher is a hack" bandwagon, and it's been made clearer by comparisons to Stewart et al post-Obama election. Stewart certainly started out a comedian, but it's clear that he's challenged his knowledge and assumptions over the years to be able to match the variety of his guests. And yes, he is consistently humble in the face of what he doesn't know.

Maher is smug, and contrary to just being a personal quirk it detracts from his ability to further his insights beyond "people in power are corrupt and I'm agin' 'em" schtick. And this rant was kind of an example. Stewart has already skewered Obama's tendency to preen before the cameras, but he's also attacked the media for taking the bait (see: burger runs). And he separates that from serious policy concerns like the frustration over gay rights, helath care reform, and escalating the war in Afghanistan. Because these are all different issues. And yes, even as a "comedian", Stewart can separate them even if they all seem to emanate from one eminently mockable public figure. So Bill Maher, riding high on HBO money and the freedom to cuss as will and an hour's length of time, should be able to do that too.

@Paul

It is pretty ironic that you posted your attack on a blog discussing the continual dumbing down of discourse through polemic. You are misinformed (to use a polite euphemism) about (1) the state of the American economy; and (2) the politics of libertarianism.

We live in an era in which the chasm between rich and poor is becoming increasingly wide. We also live in a time in which government regulation is becoming increasingly onerous. You wouldn't believe a correlation if proven to you, but no matter.

I am willing to wager that you have never had to provide for yourself. That you're undereducated despite being in college. That you think that merely believing something makes you smart, when it is *why* people believe something and not *what* they believe that denotes intelligence.

Almost every libertarian I've met started poor. The rest started dirt poor. That's because people who have earned money honestly know its value. What do you think is the biggest impediment for the poor? Is it rich people somehow getting in their way (how exactly they would do so, I'd be interested to know)? Or is the grasping hands of millions of beggars like you? A government taking 50% to 60% of a paycheck in income taxes, sales taxes, FICA, etc. to feed those beggars is the biggest obstacle to those not born rich. People like you are more dangerous to those seeking to escape poverty than even the Enrons of the world.

Libertarians, ladies and gentlemen! Anyone who posts a pretty obvious critique of your evil, childish belief system must be a 'grasping beggar'. Good luck with that. I see you guys winning a lot of elections on the strength of your charm and subtlety.

John, I am in fact somewhere between a democratic socialist and an anarcho-syndicalist. These are movements and belief systems that actually care about poor people, and actually want to eliminate poverty. You'll note that when trying to convince someone of this, I would not three sentences later refer to poor people as 'grasping beggars'.

Seriously, find an island. You and the Randians. Go all John Galt on us. You people are just too damned hard-working and smart for this society. You're providing way more than your share! Leave us to rot!

Somehow I missed that John L. was the one who'd posted quoting Ayn Rand and Chuck Palahniuk, two of the worst writers (and thinkers) I can think of - as if what he'd quoted was some great insight.

John, maybe if you were reading books by grown ups, for grown ups, you would be one. I look forward to reading your reply, which I hope is peppered with Dean Koontz quotes.

@Paul

For some reason, you think your insults are witty. And you still don't see the irony of posting insults instead of ideas under this topic. Maybe it's because all you have are the insults.

Despite what you may want to believe, the anarcho-syndicalists and democratic socialists are, unfortunately for you, not winning a whole lot of elections (although the national socialists won a few). I don't expect Libertarians to win many either. Again unfortuantely for you, truth isn't a matter of popular opinion. And I don't know why you think I'm a Randite. I'm not. But I do like that quote.

I'd be interested to know how you think the poor will be helped by raising taxes. I'd be impressed if you even thought that far ahead. And believe it or not, I'm not even claiming to be interested in helping poor people. I come from poverty. I know the sort of poor who have their hands out. They're the sorts of people who have no interest in anything other than satisfying their present hungers. They'll eat until their bellies burst and still claim to be hungry.

I'm willing to wager even higher now that you've never had to support yourself. You would have boasted of it if you did. My bet is that you're a college student. That your parents are comfortably middle class. And that you don't see the moral conflict with their paying for your education and your current political beliefs.

Well, you see, taxes pay for things like libraries and public transportation and the Vocational Rehab program I'm participating in to try and get a job.

And it's not a question of whether the poor deserve help, though every human being on the planet deserves some basic standard of living. It's better for social stability if the worst off people are provided for, and if there's a safety net for when misfortune strikes. (Yes, there is such a thing as bad luck.) Tends to have a positive effect on crime rates as well.

Government's imperfect, but so's the Invisible Hand of the Market, so any ideological system which COMPLETELY discards one or the other as useless is suspect.

@Evan Waters

I appreciate the civility of your response, although I disagree with much of what you wrote.

You'll find very few people (libertarians even) who disagree with taxation in terms of those services available to all citizens. For example, a library is (theoretically) open to the richest and the poorest citizen. So is public transportation. So are parks, military, courts, roads, etc.

It the redistribution of wealth using progressive taxation that is evil. The thing people like Paul refuse to believe is that people with money work for it. As he has never worked, he thinks money is causeless.

And I know that luck, that opportunities, that physical characteristics and a host of other accidents have an awful lot to do with materal success. And you have my sympathies and best wishes in finding a job.

But people don't "deserve" a basic level of anything. What you are saying is that people who work should be forced to support those who don't. Why? Why do you have more right to what I earn than I do? Why does anyone?

Progressive taxation is the only way you're not taking disproportionately more from the poor. The rich can afford to give more, because there's only so much you can increase the cost of living (without being M.C. Hammer, at least)- you're going to end up with more leeway. If you had a purely flat tax, the poor would suffer. If you made exceptions for the poorest, the middle classes would suffer. The rich can shoulder the burden the best, and somebody's gotta pay.

Giving the poor (those who "don't work", as you dismiss them) a basic standard of living is better for everyone- it lowers crime and leaves you with fewer people wandering the streets. It's in society's best interest.

"Progressive taxation is the only way you're not taking disproportionately more from the poor."

Not to be rude, but that makes no sense. Taking the same from everyone does not equal taking more from someone else. I remember reading a study once. An economics professor asked the class whether they would rather adhere to an economic system where (1) everyone was paid the same wage; or (2) everyone was paid different wages, but the lowest wage was higher than the one they'd be given in (1). Almost everyone chose the first option. And I can't do anything but consider those who choose the first option to be fools.

"Giving the poor (those who "don't work", as you dismiss them) a basic standard of living is better for everyone- it lowers crime and leaves you with fewer people wandering the streets. It's in society's best interest."

It lowers crime? Have you ever lived in or near the housing projects in Baltimore, Chicago, New York, New Orleans, LA, etc.? They are the highest crime areas in the country. Don't you see the correlation there?

"It's in society's best interest."

Who is society? It isn't in my best interest for people to take what I earn and give it to others. It isn't in the best interest of anyone who works for a living to give up half their paycheck to support those who don't work.

The basic philosophical difference between me and you (and one were not going to solve on a movie blog) is that I support individual rights and you think individual rights should be trumped by the rights of "society." And you consider yourself "society" and not me. Because you stand to gain from me and I have nothing to gain from you.

"Not to be rude, but that makes no sense. Taking the same from everyone does not equal taking more from someone else."

It does when you consider that at a certain level, costs of living become fixed- you can buy generic food and live in an apartment in a crappy neighborhood, but you can't get discount electricity or off-brand gasoline or cheap water.

The poor need more of the money they make just to make ends meet. The difference between making 10,000 and 8,000 a year is much bigger than the difference between making 100,000 and 80,000. You know the phrase "living hand to mouth", right?

"It lowers crime? Have you ever lived in or near the housing projects in Baltimore, Chicago, New York, New Orleans, LA, etc.? They are the highest crime areas in the country. Don't you see the correlation there?"

That America's safety net is full of holes and loads of people live in substandard conditions? None of the cities you mention have spectacular reputations for taking care of the poor. Housing projects tend to be poorly funded and maintained, though I imagine the crime rate would be much higher if you replaced them with shantytowns.

It's all true, great post.

It's all true and a great post and I promise it did nothing to change the mind (such as it is) of the fellow he was talking to. You can't reason with such a person.

@Evan Waters

Of course it is harder to live on $8K than $10K a year (or $80K or $100K). And you're right that the difference between $8K and $10K is much greater than $80K and $100K. But you're missing my point.

You think that because people need what I make that they have more of a right to it than I do. I think that people who work for a living are better than those who don't. That is because people who don't work need people who do, and not vice versa. I doubt that you and I will ever see agreement on this.

And you're wrong about housing projects. They aren't terrible because of "safety net is full of holes." They're terrible because they are full of people who would rather live without effort. No matter how much money you give to people like that, it will never, never be enough. A person who is willing to go through life being fed, watered and housed by others doesn't have the self-respect to be considered a human being. He or she is just a zoo animal in a cage.

@Paul

You still think that insults are a replacement for ideas. I can only assume this is because you have no ideas. I at first thought you were a college student. Based on your sentence structure and tone, I'm revising that downward to the 12-14 age range. Am I getting closer?

You think that because people need what I make that they have more of a right to it than I do. I think that people who work for a living are better than those who don't. That is because people who don't work need people who do, and not vice versa. I doubt that you and I will ever see agreement on this.

Perhaps you'll fail to ever agree on this because he's a thinking, compassionate adult, and you're - you.

People who need have a right to what they need, because they have a right to live. Life is a basic human right. And people (some people - I suspect most people), thankfully, will not wait for you to agree with them that they have a right to live, but will simply assert their right to live by, when they require something in order to live, taking it - which is one of the real practical reasons the government has mechanisms in place to avoid forcing people to that point. You getting this? Or do you think the crime rates in impoverished areas are just incredibly high because blacks live there, and blacks are inherently criminal? People will do what they need to live. And that's as it should be. People have the right to live, but in this particular capitalist country, some people are denied the means to live by the socio-economic system. That the government steps in to help these people survive is good, not bad. Got that? Good, not bad.

Then there's this childish, simplistic idea of 'work'. Working good, not working bad. But what is work? CEOs work. Technically. They're very much employed. But not really. And they're compensated incredibly well for not really doing, producing, providing anything but more wealth - wealth which no one in this country could do without, but which still doesn't mean they're 'working' in the childish sense you use the term. What about pro athletes? What about actors? Matt McConahey sold baby pictures to People Magazine for millions of dollars. Was he working? Was that work? Do you see why your work/not work distinction makes no sense in the real world? You can't even apply it. Meanwhile plenty of people on welfare and receiving other aid work, many work very hard, very unpleasant jobs. But they get almost no compensation for their time and effort, even after government aid is factored in. But of the two, between them and the CEOs, you would consider the person getting aid but also working two minimum wage jobs "not working", while saying the CEO who spends all day golfing is "working". And you would attack the person who works his ass off but also receives some help just not to starve.

JE: I cut the last paragraph of your comment. Let's dial back the name-calling and concentrate on the arguments, OK? This particular thread has gotten out of hand and I should have stepped in earlier. Thanks.

You know, Paul, everyone else is managing to be polite but yourself. I know you believe that you're in possession of ideas you believe to be true, and that places you above civility. Believe me. It does not.

"People who need have a right to what they need, because they have a right to live."

What do people need? Do they need food, water, and shelter? Are there people who are willing to work who are deprived of such? If so, who?

What you want isn't for people to have food and shelter. What you want is for me to provide it to them. My problem in doing so is that my experience is that people who lack such things usually do so of their own volition. No one wants to be hungry or homeless. But some people would rather have drugs, booze, or just plain not work than support themselves. I have no sympathy for such people.

"Then there's this childish, simplistic ide of 'work'. Working good, not working bad. But what is work?"

Only someone who has never had to support himself would ask such a question. Work is creating goods and/or services to other people that they desire. I don't blame celebrities for selling photos of themselves to people dumb enough to buy them. Becuase I'm not dumb enough to buy them.

Do I consider the lifestlyes of celebrities and crooked CEOs to be equal to an assembly line worker? No. I respect the assembly line worker more. Do you think the average assembly line worker agrees with your perceptions of work and social justice? Of course they don't. They know what work is. And you don't.

I've been a big Maher fan for quite sometime. He was one of the few speaking the truth during the depths of the dark W era. His panels are/were quite interesting and helped articulate the horror many felt was perpetrated by the previous administration.

I echo some of the comments here. I was disappointed in the man when he came out with his irrational criticisms of Obama. My take is that he knows what is right, but fears being seen as a sycophant. So, he feels compelled to poke a sharp stick at Obama every now and then to justify his self-image as independent.

He does have quite an ego. Lately, he bristles at the audience when they don't laugh at a joke. Bill, they don't laugh because it's not funny, not because they don't get it.

God only knows why he continues his sick relationship with Ann Coulter. Maybe it's similar to the old joke as to why sharks don't attack lawyers: professional courtesy. Is it because Maher and Coulter are both in showbiz and realize an economic opportunity? This is sad.

Bill Maher is a libertarian like I'm made out of cheese.

It's too bad the stars in your eyes are preventing you from seeing why people are feeling some very real frustration with the Obama administration. Leaving aside the economy, which I don't think anybody expects him to be able to turn around immediately, Obama has been AWOL on gay issues, he's proposed indefinite detention without filing charges for terror suspects, and he's committing us to remaining at war in Afghanistan.

Moreover, he's shown himself to be completely in the pocket of Wall Street elites with their milquetoast approach to dealing with corporate malfeasance over the past several years.

I was an enthusiastic supporter and donor to the Obama campaign, and I'm sure that there are many of us out here who are experiencing some disappointments with the new administration.

Oh, and Maher is funny, and he brings important issues into the spotlight like the environment and Americans' collective sense of entitlement.

JE: Is that the same thing as saying Obama has been on TV so much that he hasn't done anything yet? Because that's what Maher said.

The difference between Maher on one side and Stewart and Colbert on the other is that Maher is just a comedian who uses politics as his schtick, while Stewart and Colbert, from slightly different directions, satirize politics. I have nothing against comedians, but satire, to my mind, is a higher order of humor, because it doesn't just seek to skewer, but to find the underlying absurdities and hypocrisy. Colbert gets a little over the top for me, I enjoy Stewart more, but both are far more interesting and far more willing to even go after those that one suspect's they admire (Stewart has hardly spared Obama).

This sort of reminded me of another guy, but from the other side of the political world: Michael Savage, who tries to defend -- or avoid, really -- the irrationality of his argument when people call him out on it by simply explaining what his conclusion was.

For example, this is a portion of when Glen Beck was interviewing Savage on Larry King Live:

They played Savage's quote, when he said: "You know what autism is? I'll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is. What do you mean they scream and they're silent? They don't have a father around to tell them, "Don't act like a moron. You'll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don't sit there crying and screaming, idiot."

Beck: "It seems pretty clear you don't think that autism exists?"

Savage: "No, no, no, again, you took what they gave you but not the preceding material. Preceding this, Glen, was a discussion of the Medical Academy of Pediatrics, which has had the nerve to say that children as young as two years of age should be given anti-cholesterol drugs. There has been not one study about the damage that this would, or potentially do, to two year olds, and yet you’ve had doctors who say that these drugs should be given to the children. This was in the broader context of the over-medicalization, over-diagnoses of diseases, using our children as profit centers."

Saying that autism is in "99 percent of the cases" a child who was a brat just sounded fun. Indeed, it is a terrible argument to justify his viewpoint, but as with every TV and radio host, who have more time than they should to expand on their opinions, it just sounded catchy. If people agree with the conclusion, then the argument can be anything, it seems.

Jim, you're pretty transparent. Maher dared to insult your guy, Obama, so you're laying into him. He was just fine when he was going after W, wasn't he? He was just as superficial then but he didn't push any of your buttons because he was criticizing someone whom you loathed. Maher hasn't changed; only his target has-and you don't like that. It's a lot like Jon Stewart going after Jim Cramer. Cramer had had his bells and whistles shtick for years but Stewart decided to take him on only after Cramer had criticized Obama's stimulus package.

For someone who routinely expresses outrage over hypocritical behavior, doesn't your double standard make you feel just a little bit hypocritical, yourself.

BTW, do you think you can tear yourself away from your earth-shatteringly important blog long enough to have someone fix the video of the review of "Reality Bites". I've written three or four notes to you over the last couple years and it still hasn't been fixed.

Man, do you have a lot of free time on your hands. It must be nice.

P.S. Bill Maher is about as libertarian as FDR. I think even he has stopped calling himself a libertarian and has finally owned up to being what he has been all along, a liberal.

JE: Paul, is this robo-spam? A form letter? Because it's been submitted (with minor variations) about 20 times in a row to a post that's four months old. I've written quite a bit about Maher, before and since then, but since your spam doesn't actually address anything in my post (just your suppositions about what I've been writing about Bill Maher since the Clinton administration), I thought I'd print this one as another example of the techniques used by Palin, Beck and others to avoid dealing with substance -- creating a false impression of inconsistency by referring to a hypothetical situation for which you have no evidence. As they say, you're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Thanks for the exemplary critical thinking FAIL. You reveal yourself with your snotty ad hominem insults and the great importance you put on labels, rather than on reasoning. Meanwhile, you don't seem to know what site you're on. There is no video for a review of "Reality Bites" hosted on RogerEbert.com or associated blogs, and never has been, so that may be why I haven't responded to the (also imaginary?) requests you've probably been sending to somebody else. Thanks for reading. The spam filter will recognize your barrage of posts from now on. (For anybody who is interested in reading, Roger Ebert's review of "Reality Bites" is here: http://j.mp/157bKH .)