Jon Stewart is the same shtick as Cramer, Olberman, or Limbaugh - he just plays to a different audience. I will never forget his hard hitting interview with John Kerry when the hardest question he asked him was about his wife's Catsup fortune.
Cramer is a clown (does anyone actually watch that show), and Stewart is a master of left spin (or Liebowitz as he use to be called)
Let's see Stewart ask some tough questions to Barney Frank (since you brought up gay prostitutes) or Christopher Dodd, or if you want to see some classic DVR footage give him an opportunity to interview Joe Biden.

LAMBERT: And your thoughts on the performance of CNBC?

Jim Cramer, one assumes, has gone home to get his shine box.

LAMBERT: Man, THAT was excruciating to watch.

Jon, to Cramer, coins the phrase of our time:

"We capitalized your adventure."

[Or put another way, "You drank our milkshake."]

LAMBERT: And I want blood.

Jon Stewart ate his lunch. I must say duel was almost embarrassing for Jim Cramer. Don't these guests understand that Stewart's rapier intellect will slice and dice them six ways to Tuesday?

First, by way of introduction, he showed Cramer on the Martha Stewart Show to which Stewart commented, that he found it astonishing that Martha was the convicted white collar criminal of the two. OUCH!

And, no question, the smackdown was a one sided affair. I sort of expected Cramer to be tough, at least shout a lot, but he collapsed almost immediately. It appeared Cramer's tactic was to be contrite and apologetic but Stewart was going to let him off with a hang-dog apology.

Then Cramer tried to pay the insider game to align himself with Stewart and say his job, just like Jon's, is to draw out CEOs and fund managers to uncover their wrongdoing. HA! HA! No way was Stewart going fall for this backslapping, glad-handling cover up. That is exactly what CNBC and all the other business commentators and reporters for WSJ, MSNBC, FOX over the last 10 years have been doing while the criminals and incompetents were stealing investors money right under their noses.

Jon's tapes of Cramer explaining how short fast money is worked by fund managers was really damning. Stewart might be a comedian but is research department does find the incriminating evidence on his guests. I expected federal officers on behalf of the SEC to come in and arrest and shackle Cramer.

I must say it was one of the most amazing moments in TV in the last 10 years. Finally and interview where the host wasn't kissing the butt of the interviewee.

LAMBERT: It was a classic, and frankly, I was impressed that Stewart was unrelenting. I thought he might play back since Cramer consented to come on. But he kept laying it on ... in ways... and here we go again ... that should be instructive for every network anchor or White House Correspondent. It helps to have a sap for a target like Cramer and his bogus financial network. But Stewart's basic question was, "Who are you working for?" had Cramer at a loss for an answer. Cramer's "target demo" ain't you and me. Stewart on the other hand knows. Can you say as much for Charlie Gibson? But yeah, Cramer might as well have crawled in on his knees.

Jon Stewart did keep Cramer to his word and actions over the past years of bad reporting and bad advice. Yet, as Stewart pointed out so vividly, "This song ain't about YOU."

The song is about all the poor business reporting we suffer with both nationally and locally; all the awful people posing as journalists and even investigators who come out of the financial services industry and then PRETEND to protect the interests of the investors and the holders of 401K plans and their retirements. When, in fact, they are simply beholden to the corporate and business inside game of fast money and often illegal practice.

In one of the tapes, I don't remember which 212 or 217 or 218 that Stewart had assembled as condemning evidence against Cramer, the man incriminates himself and might as well be issuing the indignant when he says they all do it because the SEC doesn't get it. He talks about creating a false suspicion around Apple and its stock (just an example out of many) and Stewart comes back and says, see that makes him very angry. "This isn't a F*#king game" Stewart says, because it is real people, their money and their future retirement.

Yes, I do think it is out of this world mad that Martha Stewart went to a women's prison for selling stock before it dropped and it was a $2,000 difference, when these criminals on Wall Street played with millions and billions and they are walking off scott-free with huge bonuses and a fleecing of our 401Ks never before seen in history.

LAMBERT: I ran afoul of the semantics police when I demanded "show trials" for various characters of the Bush administration. But The Great Meltdown of '08 needs at least a couple very high-profile cases -- Dick Fuld, John Thain, take your pick -- for the public (and the press) to watch clause by clause and be educated by.

Namzso should check out Jon Stewart's interviews with Tucker Carlson to get a little insight into his character. Stewart is clearly liberal, but that doesn't stop him from making quips about the Obama Administration when he sees fit. He is first and foremost a comedian, so hard-hitting interviews should really be the duty of the people that call themselves "journalists."

LAMBERT: Dreamer.

The CNBC network's performance was poor, which fuels my opinion of CNBC's irrelevancy. I would no more go to CNBC for any real financial advice or insight than I would turn to Jon Stewart to "cut through the spin" and parrot some left talking points.
Like I said let's see him take some of his common man rage and call out Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, or some of leaders of the party in charge. If Frank were a Republican there would be gay jokes and "worst person" awards daily from Stewart and his ilk.

LAMBERT: I truly, sincerely don't think so.

Lando - I would be happy to check those out if you want to send a link. Just a hunch that any quip about the Obama administration from Stewart is going to be cute and in good fun. But I will wait and see to validate your claim.
A lot of time is spent diagnosing who gets to call themselves "journalists" or entertainers. Wouldn't people like Jon Stewart and Al Franken actually have to be funny to call themselves comedians?

LAMBERT: Obviously what you're missing here are the factors of criminality, incompetence and malfeasance. You have one administration (and its Wall St. mirror culture) that was essentially based on it. But you're arguing that "comedians" should attack Obama with equal fervor. On the basis of ... the fact you didn't vote for them? Whatever, I encourage your favorite "right wing comedians" to have all the fun they want. What time are they on? I'll set the DVR.

Namzso, you just pulled all that astonishing insightful analysis out of your ass didn't you? I'll bet you didn't even watch Stewart vs. Cramer.

If you did watch the interview, you didn't listen to a single word either man said. Cramer said more to indite himself and implicate all the criminals on Wall Street and the managers of hedge-funds around him than Stewart could make accusations or "left master spin."

All the gay-bashing of Barney Frank is not going to change the fact that AIG, Lehman Bros, Wachova and the whole bunch of criminals brought the entire system to its knees and a derivatives market that was leveraged 35:1 was completely out of control and headed for disaster going back to 2004 when Frank and Dodd were in the minority and Republicans ruled the financial roost in Congress and the Executive Branch.

I think you are missing what I am saying. I am not suggesting there should be an equal criticism clause or some cable like fairness doctrine. What I am saying is that to give Stewart credibility as you are doing here - it would be easier to believe if he would ask some tough questions or try to expose some of the hypocracy on the left (yes there is some). Any explitive beeps for Blago, Buris, or that congressman from Boston that had a prositution ring in his basement and also gave his buddies who support his campaign large sums of money from the TARP bill?

LAMBERT: Haven't followed the Boston congressman story. But Blago and Burris have had plenty of airtime. Its just that a multi-trillion dollar meltdown is juuuuuuust a wee bit more significant.

Jon Stewart also tore the "liberal" Chris Matthews limb-to-limb when he came on The Daily Show to promote his book "Life’s a Campaign" and Matthews was beside himself that Stewart would criticize him. That was trademark Jon Stewart. Yes he is liberal but he will take down and undress anyone regardless of political affiliiations unlike idiot ideologues like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, or Hannity.

Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing Barney Frank or Chris Dodd get taken apart by Stewart. But honestly, there are bigger fish to fry and more dangerous criminals in the defense industry, on Wall Street and the shysters who run the banks. Frank and Dodd are minor players who's positions of power are extremely compromised by just being elected officials and one voice on a committee of 12 or in a body of 100 or 535.

Anyone who thinks that a Congressman or Senator is all powerful to exact the kind of economic devastation came down last October or swamped the home mortgage inudstry does not comprehend American Democracy or the balance of powers.

Namzso, you need to go back to high school civics 101 and start your education all over again.

Also, don't forget all the coverage Stewart gave to Elliot Spitzers little problem with hookers or Rod Blagojevich lust for cash money and bribes. Supposidly all these men were "liberals" yet that did not prevent Jon Stewart from using his sabre wit, political parody, and slashing satire night, after night, after night on them.

Namzso, you see what you want to see through colored glasses of ideology. These buffoons on Wall Street stole our money and it doesn't matter if you are liberal or conservative, Christian, Jew or Muslim, red state or blue state, gay or straight, they were stealing from everybody's 401K.

Richard -

Hey - if you think that Stewart/Liebowitz "taking down" Cramer (who I am guessing most Americans wouldn't even know who he is) is some great moment in our history, then have at it.
I was not offering insightful analysis (even though it could be considered insightful) I was commentating on a blog.

Read the above post - I was not the first to bring up gay prositutes.

Michelle,

Was I defending Cramer, CNBC, the financial industry, or the spend happy Republicans? If I am not smitten by Jon Stewart's alleged hero status for using explitive language on a nobody financial goofball on a low rated cable network that makes me an ideolog?
My mistake - Stewart did poke some fun at a few Democrats the whole country was ashamed of. What a trailblazer.

Robb,

You are trying to say that I put too much importance on a few members of congress - yet you somehow think that Jon Stewart's cute little Al Franken inspired profanity somehow has some cultural signifcance. Yea I missed Stewart interviewing Chris Matthews, yet I am guessing you don't watch a lot of FOX News however are an expert on all of their programing.

It was a more solemn confrontation than I expected, but bravo for Stewart. Very bold. Almost as bold as you getting the word "fellatio" onto the MSP website.

LAMBERT. Odd, I could have sworn it has appeared before.

I think the point is Namzso/Numbnuts (why are blowhard reactionaries so into calling people by something other than their real name?) that Stewart has NOT, as you blindly alleged, limited his jokes, criticism or satire to conservatives nor spared liberals.

Stewart did not wait to criticize Rod Blagojevich, Elliot Spitzer, Roland Burris, William Jefferson, or even Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich and Joe Biden until the rest of the country was already ashamed of them. The Daily Show was out in front of the pack in making fun of them.

Part of the problem for comedians is that conservatives have just become so firkin weird that it's hard not to make fun of them. Good material is good material and how can you ignore the stupidity of conservatives in America today?

Zowie. Stewart's interview put me in mind of the old limerick;

There was a man from Madras,
Whose balls were made of spun brass;
When he clanged them together,
They played "Stormy Weather,"
And lightning shot out of his ass.

He may be the first comic show host to get a guest indicted; the Smothers Brothers came close to getting themselves indicted, but Stewart may get Cramer before a judge.

About all that can be said for Cramer is that he didn't quite get to the access whore's final conclusion: if I don't let big shots get away with lying to me, they'll go lie to somebody else and I'll no longer be a big shot journalist.

The irony is that what Stewart did with Cramer, he could have done with any other big foot journalist. The pundit/journalists in every field have aped the vices of the people they are supposed to cover. Cramer, covering crooks, became a crook. But Stewart could have dismantled the triviality of the political class by going after the triviality of Maureen Dowd or Chris Matthews. Or he could have gone after the fanatical totalitarianism of the recent foreign policy by looking at the same traits in the likes or Gerson or Kauthammer.

I get a little tired of official media talking about journalists protecting the nation by rigorously holding politicians accountable and speaking truth to power. It's an excellent idea, but the examples on t.v. largely come from Stewart, Colbert and Letterman.

LAMBERT: "Cramer v. Stewart" was/is an instant classic because of the stark contrast between "new media" (Stewart) and old (Cramer and the usual network crowd). Stewart's fans have understood this for quite a while. But when it plays on the Nightly News and Lou Dobbs we've reached a tipping point.

What's even funnier is that when you disagree with a liberal, out comes out the name calling and the elementary school adjectives. I thought the left was the "adult" side.

Going after CNBC or Jim Cramer for cheerleading this market is like suing Entertainment tonight because they told you to check out Righteous Kill. Hundreds of world-class investors are run over by this market and turned into roadkill, our "professional" regulators wave it through like fey little matadors, but a bunch of talking heads on a cable TV channel didn't stop it??? They just sat there spouting conventional wisdom, reading press releases, acting as a loudspeaker for CEOs while they exchange what passes for wit among traders?? The outrage!!! C'mon, in real trading rooms, CNBC is just background noise to keep you company as you stare bloody eyed at the screen, trying not to lose your jock, and making sure you're not missing anything. Cramer is just the Best Damn Sports Show for the daytrading class. Anyone that was trading their retirement savings based on what Cramer said should be committed. And this fetish for Cramer is missing the main point. The main villain in this whole affair are the mature, reasonable, long-term focused "buy-and-hold" professionals that have been selling this fiction that the equity markets in general (even broad index funds) are a good place for Joe Average. The fact is that for a huge percentage of investors that aren't investing over a 100 year time frame the equities market has been their destruction. Ironically, Cramer all along has been the critic of the "buy-and-hold" crowd, saying it's a fools game. My parents, who are in their 70's, and led the charmed life of all time, seeing real estate skyrocket, built and sold their business at the optimal time, they are now getting their heads handed to them in this merciless market because some "professional" handling their funds at a large, regional bank followed some formula on his sheet and had them 50% in stocks. Some day someone with some stones (Cramer??) will pull back the curtain and expose the little men trying to tell you that equities are a really good place for your money, and not to try to time the market. Maybe we would all be better off if we just had some central bankers that would keep our money sound, inflation under control and then we all invest in bonds and just focus on earning our money by working, not in asset bubbles. But it would mean becoming more like Germany and giving up the "animal spirits" (Schiller) that may be the only thing that makes America great. (Cue Cramer "Stars and Stripes" sound effect.) So nevermind. Go Jimbo!!

LAMBERT: I think I said Cramer is just shtick, and that blame-laying at CNBC belonged with others. I agree with your argument for the most part. But Stewart's point is that those who claim to be gimlet-eyed assayers of capital are not. They are "snake oil salesmen" no different than him, except that they are in fact encouraging the fools who watch them to play the chump game you describe.

Here's a prediction for you. Five years from now, Stewart will have to go on Mad Money and kiss Cramer's wrinkly behind. As my prior, rambling, tinfoil hat post postulates, "buy and hold" will be seen here as the real villain once the dust and gotcha video clips settle. And Cramer has been beating that drum and giving it legitimacy for years. Read Fortune's article on the topic on October 29. (btw, the market's down another 20% since then) Then mix in (nobel winning) Shiller's new Animal Spirits book saying, essentially, you know what, you can't assume away idiot human behavior!! Joe Sixpack, and even Joe hedge fund guy, will not invest like an automaton! so when you calculate expected returns in equities you have to factor in that on occasion, even the finest among us like Brian Lambert will on occasion buy into that hot mutual fund, or sell some in disgust when he gets tired of being diced like the basil when he makes his pesto sauce. Against all their wise and sage advice, yes he will sell low, buy high. And you know what? It will suddenly dawn on everyone that equities may not be the best place for Joe Sixpack. I am setting my DVR to record Mad Money on March 9, 2014. Payback's gonna be a female dog, Stewie.

LAMBERT: "... diced like the basil when he makes his pesto sauce." Can I steal that?

Why does Namzso repeatedly refers to Jon Stewart's given last name of "Liebowitz"? Is this to remind readers of this blog that Stewart is Jewish? I'm not trying to pull the outrage card, I just can't figure out why that fact is material to this discussion. Kind of a strange strategy to cut down someone's credibility, Namzso. Stewart is an self-described entertainer. Entertainers routinely change their name.

Does the Namzso Strategy give people on the left carte blanche to refer to Bobby Jindal by his given first name "Piyush" when discussing his policy decisions, you know, just because?

Well Ed, we know you get your talking points memo's and between Hannity and Beck, you haven't got a single original thought or opinion. That's the life of a second-rate talk radio jock. There is nothing you can say about Jon Stewart's credibility since you have none in this market or any other.

Jon Stewart's real name was Jon Leibowitz. Just wanted to make sure we didn't confuse him with John Stewart Classic Rock artist.

Liebowitz, or whatever name he is going by, is but another lefty chatterer bent on ratings.

He won some this time. Yawn. He's a "comedian".

O'Reilly is still the King.

Bold, fresh, and...TRUTHY!

Why can't Geithner staff Treasury?

Why have we lost nearly 40% of the stock market's value since The One was anointed?

Absolutely unprecented, and the torches and pitchforks are coming soon, trust me.

LAMBERT: I trust you've sharpened your torch and lit your fork.

\

As for Stewart picking on Cramer... guess what, Paul Kane, this didn't start with Cramer and it did start with Rick Santinelli screaming on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade calling mortgage holders "losers" when the really big losers were those people standing behind him on the floor. Cramer jumped into the fray by calling Stewart names.

Stewart's indictment was precisely aimed at CNBC and all the poor business reporting on CNBC and you might as well include the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and any business section with corporate inside strategies to protect corporate interests rather than the interests of the investors, the readers and the balance of the market as a whole.

Stewart said to Cramer on the show "This song ain't about you" and he was calling upon networks like CNBC who claim to be "trustworthy" and important information for people in business when in fact they distorted, covered-up and cheerlead for CEOs and hedge-fund managers who took excessive risks, leveraged money at 35:1, and then took outrageous bonus along with a government bailout.

Even Cramer admitted these people were criminals and their actions indictable. The trouble is Cramer knew, CNBC knew, and Cramer even acted in the same way they did when he ran a hedge-fund.

You might be easily seduced by hoping for irony but I cannot imagine anyone having "trust" in Cramer anymore -- now or in 2014 -- and you didn't need Stewart to point it out. The guy was always a clown, jumping around on his set, screaming and blasting horns and clanging pots and pans. Cramers words are indictment enough.

Yeah, right, Namszo. God, what a weasel.

Anyway, Lambo, speaking of weaselly prevaricating, did you see Cilliza's sniveling blog re: Stewart, in which he resorts to quoting Tucker Carlson, of all people? What comes over these people after they've been in the District a few years?

LAMBERT: They're playing a combination of the "balance" game and the "independent iconoclast" game.