Not sure one can use the humorous interviews of Howard Stern to point towards any truths in the American public other than...he's good at making us laugh at ourselves and how some can be duped.

I think that American voters are more informed than video like this makes them seem. If the people making the show are out to entertain people, then they wouldn't go out to talk to informed people that really know the people they support in this election, whichever side it may be. If the show went out and interviewed people, I'm sure that they chose the ones that were the funniest, and those are the people that we see. I think that in the past, the American voter could have gotten by being ignorant of the issues and ignorant of the politicians that they were supporting, but today, the issues are important enough where voters need to be informed about the policies and the agendas of who they are voting for. This is a pretty important election, and I don't believe that America can survive with hordes of uninformed, ignorant voters flocking to vote that have no idea what they are doing.

Also, in today's world, there is no excuse for being uninformed! There are news channels that run 24/7, there is radio, there is the internet, and there has always been the newspaper. There is no reason for someone who can manage to vote to not be able to inform themselves on the candidates.

First off, Mr. Shock Jock sent Sal to "Harlem" not Brooklyn! Harlem is the largest Afro-American section of New York City! It's a stacked deck and no one can stack a deck like Stern can. If one bases their opinion on Americans being ignorant or informed based on the underwhelming whims of the likes of Howard Stern, I would be shocked and appalled at their ignorance.

In today's world there is no reason NOT to be informed if one wishes to be. This IS the information age. News is everywhere 24/7 and that includes all the political articles from across America we can read on the Internet if we so choose. There is also an abundance of information right here on CD which, when culled properly, can give you a pretty good idea of what's going on, who the candidates are and what they believe in even if you see, hear or watch nothing else!

Sending Sal to Harlem to interview people on the street about Obama is like sending him to Tuskegee, Alabama to establish George Wallace's anti-segregationist views! What a farce.

Please, let's not let a clever little Howard Stern piece determine our answers to this question. Often, when a person walking the streets going about their business is suddenly confronted by a guy with a microphone, the inclination is to get very nervous and self-conscious, for fear of sounding foolish. So even if the information being presented by the interviewer is confusing (i.e., mixing up the vice presidential candidates), one is apt to just jump at the quickest answer available so as to get away from the uncomfortable situation. (Stern's a professional, he knows this, and so do his minions). As for Stern's issue of black people voting for Senator Obama because he's a black man: Unless one is prepared to speak to the question of how many millions of old rich white people have voted for old rich white men, essentially for that very reason, I think one has no business "going there," to quote a popular phrase. Yes, ethnicity is an issue, racism remains an issue, and there's absolutely no doubt in my old white mind that some black people will be voting for Senator Obama because he's black; and why shouldn't they?

One last thing about Stern: I grew up in Southern Connecticut, right next to New York, so regretably I heard a lot of Howard Stern growing up listening to 66 WNBC on the car radio. One thing has always struck me about the tone of that voice: that Howard Stern has got to be the most miserable human being on the face of the earth.)

No, I don't believe American voters are ignorant. Rather, I think there's a tendency to delude one's self into believing one can make an intuitive choice, without the need for reading or studying. The issue is not ignorance but self-delusion; comforting self-delusion. And I suppose I'm somewhat of an example of that. I read a few magazine articles, I burn through the newspaper stories, then I vote. I do believe, however, that the televised debates- which I watched carefully- gave me a pretty clear impression of the Democratic and Republican candidates, and helped me solidify my decision.

But just look at Pennsylvania right now. Experts are saying that if Senator McCain can take Pennsylvania (and there's some indication he can) that it could turn the tide on this election. But how could Pennsylvanians, people with a history of working so hard yet still experiencing such economic hardship, want to choose a man who, when asked, couldn't even remember how many properties he owns; whose family thus far refuses to produce last year's tax returns for fear of drawing attention to the incredible weath they enjoy? I am a person of low-income, and it's my belief that I would have to be deluding myself to think that such a man could have my best interests at heart.

It is now 2015 and I am so happy that I voted for Obama in 2008 and again in 2012.

That is a good point...that is exactly what Howard Stern does...LOLOLOL

Sharon

~The Baby Boomer Queen~

Honestly, most American Voters are informed. The fact that you are relating this commentary on America as a whole quite honestly offends me. Most people in America know that Harlem and Compton are the 2 worst cities in the USA and of course most people who choose to live there will not be intelligent so creating this debate was a cheap-shot on America and I'm quite certain it will offend and/or irritate a large number of Americans who see this and realize the basis of your argument as trying to take a single bad banana from a tree and saying that all bananas that grow on the tree are therefore bad bananas.