How Does Stephen Colbert Keep Getting Away With It?

I just saw the Stephen Colbert's interview with Laura Ingraham, author of "The Obama Diaries," a conservative-slanted satire that purports to give readers a peek into the private thoughts of the Commander in Chief via humorous, made-up diary entries. I have not read the book myself, which confusingly features Ingraham on the cover, so I'm not going to opine about its literary merits. But Stephen Colbert sure did. The interview started out perfectly cordially, with both parties exchanging the usual pleasantries and Ingraham remarking that they'd both gone to Dartmouth. Colbert had his usual exaggerated dim-bulb conservative pundit persona in place, and the first jabs were fairly light. Acting as though he didn't realize "The Obama Diaries" was satirical, Colbert pointed out that the diary entries portrayed the president exactly in line with the views of hard-line right-wingers. Ingraham shrugged off the comment and the conversation continued.

Then came the kicker. "I know he’s not supposed to be a dumb guy, but this writing is terrible!" Colbert railed, book in hand. "I mean, it has the most banal turns of phrase!" The audience gasped, Ingraham sputtered in vain, and Colbert went on to point out "hideous, hackneyed racial stereotypes" in a passage where Michelle Obama is described spending all day eating her way through multiple servings of ribs. Ingraham tried to deflect by pointing out that Colbert had referred to her as "Ichabod Crane's banshee widow," on an earlier show, suggesting that this could be seen as insensitive to Native Americans. Several seconds of cognitive disconnect later, I realized that Laura Ingraham thought that banshees came from Native American folklore and had obviously never taken in a viewing of "Darby O'Gill and the Little People." Colbert was much quicker never lost the upper hand. The interview closed out with a Keith Olbermann joke, and Ingraham looking like she'd been blindsided by a Mack truck.

This is not the first time Stephen Colbert has so genially made mincemeat of a guest who richly deserved it, but I marvel at how he manages to keep "The Colbert Report" booked with ready targets. Ever since the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner where Colbert delivered a merciless evisceration of the Bush administration with Bush himself seated ten feet away, you'd think that conservatives would be wary of coming anywhere near the comedian and his show. Do they think they can outcharm or outwit him? Do they think they'll prove they have guts just by showing up? Have some of them been fooled into thinking that Colbert really is a serious conservative pundit? He certainly has plenty of the cultural bona fides: former Sunday school teacher, native son of South Carolina, and a staunch supporter of the troops. He even took his show to Baghdad for a week and shaved his head in solidarity. Rush Limbaugh never showed that kind of chutzpah.

Or maybe it's just because "The Colbert Report" airs four times a week on Comedy Central late night, and regularly draws a younger audience than the usual political talk shows. Though they depend on irreverent, and sometimes profane humor, Colbert's show and its progenitor, "The Daily Show With John Stewart," are some of the most high-profile platforms for promoting non-fiction books. They've also gained a certain degree of hard-won legitimacy and influence over the years, and can provide an irresistible means for an author to make themselves known to a broader audience. I didn't know Laura Ingraham or "The Obama Diaries" before seeing the Colbert interview, so the promotional appearance was successful to that extent. But contrary to the popular saying, not all publicity is good publicity. Some guests have come through interviews without a scratch, but others don't fare so well.

Whatever the reason, I'm glad that Colbert is around and that he's keeping conservative commentators and the occasional liberal ones on their toes. It's not that I dislike conservatives. I agree with them once in a while. It's that I dislike blowhards, especially arrogant blowhards who operate by browbeating or making snide insinuations against their opponents instead of debating with them like adults. Ingraham thought she was being clever and funny by painting the Obamas as awful caricatures, and revealed herself to be a far more ridiculous specimen in the process. I got the sense that she honestly thought she could hold her own against Stephen Colbert, who might seem to be a softer interviewer than John Stewart at first glance because of his adopted persona. But Colbert has been in the satire business and the humor business for a very long time and has stood his ground against far more imposing figures, and woe to the interviewee who underestimates him.