I must acknowledge that I wasn't sure myself if it was a great idea, though a) not being sure also means I also saw the positive side of it and was just undecided, and b) I most-certainly wasn't even close to being outraged. And I did find it very funny -- albeit odd. Of course, in the end, it turned out quite successful effort, with traffic at the healthcare.gov website up 40%, which was the whole point and greater good.
If you haven't seen it, here's the show --
Mind you, the funniest outrage of all came from Bill O'Reilly telling us what Abraham Lincoln would have done. Given that Lincoln was known for his ribald humor (and disparaged for it by his opponents), I think Mr. O'Reilly is on shaky grounds under the best circumstances. But given how much society and technology has changed, it's pretty hard for anyone to assure us what someone from 150 years ago "would have" done today. Especially someone like Bill O'Reilly who got plenty enough wrong in his book about Lincoln. Let alone wrong in what he says about President Obama.
Two of the best rebuttals to the Far Right "outrage" came from Rachel Maddow and Stephen Colbert. I think I liked Maddow's more because it cut through conservative claims with facts to show how actually-wrong they are. But there's a lot to be said for Colbert's pure ridicule.
First, here is Rachel Maddow's segment, "Debunktion Junction." One clarification -- she appears to bunch Richard Nixon appearing on Laugh-in as another example of a president going onto a comedy TV show, but in fact Nixon was not president yet, but was the official Republican nominee for president. Not the same thing. But certainly of a related stature. (To anyone on the Far Right wanting to say "That's TOTALLY different and not the same AT ALL -- I ask what the reaction would have been if it was Barack Obama going on a show like Laugh-In? Methinks it would be outrage at demeaning the office of the presidency...)
The segment continues on after she finishes the "Between the Fern" segment, so you can stop at any time.