Yes, Jon Stewart. Television worth watching.

Jon Stewart for President?   Surely, I jest.  Right? He is just an entertainer, a guy who people watch on television, not someone serious, right?

He is serious. And electable.

Yesterday's post got lots of positive feedback from readers.   Jon Stewart?  He is a comedian and social critic, not a politician.    Politicians put themselves out there, they advocate for things in the first person, without irony or comedic distance.  Comedians make glancing blows then run away:  "just kidding!"   A politician stands upright and states a position.

I mentioned Jon Stewart to put an idea on the table of public discourse.  But so as not to be like a comedian and say it was "just a suggestion, never mind" I will go ahead and assert that Jon Stewart would be an excellent president and that I see signs that he is exploring the possibility.   He has not committed himself and he may well back away, but he is doing what a comedic celebrity would do:

Strengths and Suitability:

  He cleared his plate.  He is no longer tied to a job with responsibilities and entanglements. He is free to speak his own mind.
  He wrote a book.
  He talks seriously about the issues of the day, in an engaging way, in the first person, earnestly.  He strategically put himself out of the line of fire during the previous battle so that he comes into the new battle as a fresh observer.  He has established familiarity and likability.  He has a political base (Democrats, urban, young, ethnic).  He has a political record, having taken a position that was forceful and principled but popular with a broad swath of the electorate (medical care for 9-11 First Responders, against Republican gridlock.)
  He is not a media person any more, nor he is a politician, but he has been involved with each of them and therefore has credibility in that space.
  He is still interesting to watch and he has the native skills of an entertainer.   He has a high "Q Factor", the media's measurement of familiarity and likability.   People tuned into Stewart.  There is something about him--something that was missing from Hillary.

Weaknesses and Problems:

Realistically, he has a couple of problems that I consider meaningful:  He is short.   Jon Stewart behind a desk wearing a dark suit looks authoritative, but standing next to average sized women and nearly all men he is short.   One rule of politics is that the taller candidate wins.  People "look up" to leaders, literally.
  His likability comes in part because he was funny, and people who are funny are read as "unserious", so he will need to stifle his most visible gift (ironic humor) in order to be the new-Jon-Stewart who is earnest.  Al Franken did this.  Franken isn't funny anymore and it makes him less interesting.

Castro

  He has a thin--but not zero--track record in politics.  He criticized "Crossfire" in his own voice earnestly and the show got cancelled.  He let a fight for First Responders but he had no organized opposition, only inertia.  We have not seen Jon Stewart bloody in the arena.  Any reasonable person hates being there which is why politicians are self-selected from a small group of people.  Stewart may not be in that group.

Harris

Democrats have a small bench of aspirants for the next generation, but it is an impressive one if they can command the attention of the public.    Jon Stewart may emerge precisely because that bench is small and the 2016 campaign showed that the public is drawn to a candidate to is interesting.  Hero or anti-hero is less important than that the candidate is watchable.  People who disliked Trump watched him and they voted for him.   

Booker

The Obama-Hillary style of politics elevated people who have minority associations:  Corey Booker, Kamala Harris, Julian Castro.  These are strong candidates: attractive, young, very well spoken, electorally successful, and they are "people of color."  Democrats may want to lean back toward a white candidate, Jewish, to choose someone un-tainted by public office.