Nah, I'm just kidding. But here's the first part of the Rachel Maddow/Jon Stewart interview:
I have respect for what Jon Stewart does, and I get what the point of the rally was and the bigger picture of trying to defuse the "tribal" atmosphere. The narrative of "red" America versus "blue" America, which has some very silly, self-identifying aspects--Hummer vs. Prius! Iceberg versus arugula? which are basically personal preferences hyped out into political "statements"*--goes too far. Liberals watch these tv shows, conservative watch those. Liberals drive these cars, conservatives drive those. Getting people to drop the game of lumping all people into the "godless hippy" or "angry bigot" categories is a huge start in getting people to find common ground. It's just that, well--
Sometimes the harsh criticisms are true. If people are reluctant to use words like "war criminal" or "racist" because they just sound so incendiary--what do you you call people who really are? Maybe not every war criminal is in the "Pol Pot" league--but then again, not every murderer is Dahmer. You still have to call those people who've killed only one person something: murderer. It might not be a "two sides" thing. If someone authorized an invasion of another country on a dodgy premise or authorized torture, even if they aren't Hitler, we still have to call it what it is, even if it's offensive to some ears. The same thing with the neo-Confederate people--they have earned the right to be called racist. That someone is in the CCC may be a trifling difference from being in the KKK, but really?
Also, I don't see a conservative equivalent to Rachel Maddow or a liberal equivalent to Glenn Beck.
Anyway, those are my sketchy thoughts on the thing.
*(Note: I know they are also political statements--but often not intentionally.)