I keep trying to have a soft spot for Stewart, who is a W&M grad, but his condescending style still irritates me. Except when I completely agree with what he is doing and skewering someone who really deserves it, in which case I love his style. Which is a pretty clear indication of character flaws on my part.
I do start to feel sorry for her toward the end, against the time when she realises what an ass she is being, and how she might feel that night. Yet she seems so impervious and well-defended that I suspect that moment might never come.
Here is the extent of my generalisation: I don't believe that all liberals are like this, nor even that most are. I do believe that there is a significant minority that is pretty close to this level of denial, and I believe that of the convinced liberals, the 16-19% of the American population identified by Pew every few years, a majority have much more of this jaw-dropping lack of insight than they have the faintest clue of. There are folks with similar levels of denial among the other political groupings, but much fewer and less intense. This is not because they are inherently nicer or more honest people, but because liberalism - the set of ideas itself - lends itself to denial of reality in favor of what we might wish were true. It is a one-step-forward, two-steps-back set of ideas in all realms: transnationalism, environmentalism, government incentivizing and redistributing. All of these are ideas that have some strength, and can be made to perform if they are used wisely. Absent that, they depend on deceit to stay afloat.
Thanks to Philosophical Fragments via Tigerhawk