Maddow is MSNBC's current token liberal.

How long can Obama maintain Bush's foreign policies before the title of "War Criminal" carries over? He sort of implied that lots of American presidents are technically war criminals, but, eh, America. He did a good job at making me less angry towards his rally though. I get the feeling that the interview was biased by Jon towards Rachel, and that if it had been Keith or Ed, MSNBC would have been in flames by the end of the interview.

I think it would have been a little more harsh, too, if he hadn't been so obviously ill. But yeah, I wager he chose to talk to Rachel Maddow because he doesn't want to have the sort of conversation he would have had with Olbermann or any of those other guys. I have faintly more respect for her, too.

Ed occupies a warm/fuzzy Orwellian place in my heart. He is my 42 minutes of liberal hatespeak. Though I am one of the people who said she sucks at being Jon Stewart, I'm enough of a Rachel fan to feel like she called me out personally on that. Now only if she'd sign my tits and go after the CIA some more.

I think Stewart's point is that the term "war criminal" comes with so much baggage (e.g. Pol Pot), it's a conversation stopper. You can say that Bush has admitted to authorizing torture (evidence is on sale at Barnes & Noble), and that authorizing torture is a war crime, and that not even a president is above the law; those all become points of discussion, if the other party is willing to discuss. But opening with "war criminal" is likely to inspire argument instead of discussion.

I think that sums it up very well, Bort. But it still seems like a silly point, to me. It's only a conversation-stopper if you're small-minded enough to only allow Pol Pot and his ilk to define the term.

You get people making similar statements about "gray rape". Some people hear "rape" and they immediately think of a woman being pinned down at knife point by some hooded creep, and they're hesitant to call anything less violent "actual rape". And I admit, even if you can draw a solid line between rape and not-rape, not everyone will agree.

But the subject of whether or not waterboarding is torture, and whether torture is a war crime is pretty clear cut, at least legally. The U.S. has convicted and hanged people for it in the past. It's clearly on the spectrum of war crimes, albeit arguably the weak end.

Sure, some people will hear "war crimes" and think of Cambodia, and refuse to accept anything less, but I consider that a failing. It's dismissive and more than a little childish.

Yup, dismissive and childish and small-minded. But that's where we are. Stewart's opinion is that maybe 80% of people could do better, but they're so used to the left/right narrative, little things (such as a term with a lot of baggage) are enough to halt the discussion. He'd like to get people thinking in terms of reasonable / unreasonable or constructive / unconstructive, and I hope it can be done.

I think he's trying to encourage moderates because he reaches swing voters and Maddow doesn't. She's not worried about chasing them away. It's like they're using Good Cop/Bad Cop to make him look good to moderates.