Okay, so who did YOU prefer last night - Colbert or Stewart (or Stewart or Colbert)? Understandably this can be a matter of personal taste driven (perhaps) by a whole range of factors, but I think I'm going with Stewart.
He was very good, as always (so was Colbert) but I think his barely disguised rage against the machine worked well, and reminded everyone that there is a strike and the last nine weeks or so weren't some extended vacation on a beach
His lines had real bite - a tearing-of-the-flesh bite that suggested it probably wouldn't be a good idea to have Stewart at the bargaining table during the next round of negotiations, should they ever resume.
It was good too because the guy had to establish his creds, tone, and passion immediately - no reason to pretend that nothing bad or untoward is happening in the TV industry. Scream out that something bad is happening; I always thought Stewart was best when he walked this edge, and then happily fell off into some swirling mosh pit of anger and outrage. He veered both sides of that edge, of course, but was especially effective when he hammered the Big Bad Studios. Just when he was doing his best Mr. Smith Goes to Washington rap (he'll no longer call this THE Daily Show but A daily show) he veered back instantly into the land of snark and snide, where Mr. Smith (had he ever really existed) would be as uncomfortable as a Calvinist in a casino.
Best line - though hard to single any out: This dispute," he explained to a studio audience, "is between the Writers Guild of America and the [producers' alliance] AMPTP, or NAMBLA." After that, not sure I'll think of producers the same way ever again.
This isn't to suggest that Stewart was all fire and fanaticism because of course he wasn't (and as soon as I find a YouTube clip to steal, I'll post.) But unlike Letterman or Leno (though much much closer to Conan) he instantly proved that this whole battle is actually about something other than just getting another late night diversion back on the air, or staff paychecks flowing again. It's also about settling scores and throwing punches. As a result, it felt more alive than those others.
And of course, he had a long monologue - which is all he's apparently gonna have for a while. When will the WGA complain about THAT?
Colbert was terrific but rarely declined to float out of character - smart decision because anything else would have felt false or unsteady. His interviews were best of the two (with the Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan and a Harvard labor expert), and I loved the way he sadly caressed the Chyron of "The Word" - empty of words because of the strike - like it was some dearly departed dead pet kitty.
The STRIKE, he wondered: "How does that affect ME?" Then, pointing to the blank teleprompter (also verbally depleted), "my understanding is that this little magic box right here reads my thoughts then it lays them up on the screen right there in the little words that I read. It's a labor saving device - that's how I understand how this works."
And guests? Stewart had a Cornell labor prof who told him he was actually a little conflicted about coming on because colleagues seemed to worry that his presence would hurt the writers' cause. So if they can't even get fussy profs, who will these two get as guests in the weeks/months ahead? A suggestion - they can always interview each other.
