Jim Cramer must be getting PR advice from Roland Burris
If it was a heavyweight fight, there would be calls for an investigation.Skip to next paragraph
As Iowa's Kent Sorenson jumps to Ron Paul ship, rat analogies abound
Could Romney 'train' be derailed by Gingrich? Perry? Someone new?
Virginia primary: Was it so hard for Perry and Gingrich to get on the ballot?
Donald Trump as third-party candidate: Will he woo Americans Elect?
Ron Paul: why racist newsletter flap could hurt him in Iowa
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
Fans would say the fight was rigged. "He took a dive!"
Pre-game hype aside, it was no Clash of the Titans. Of the two, Stewart was the Titan. Cramer, the Titanic. Actually the Titanic fared better. There were survivors.
Where was the guy who mocked Stewart days before?
"Oh, oh, a comedian is attacking me! Wow! He runs a variety show!" That was Cramer earlier in the week when asked to respond to Stewart's criticism.
There was, "I should do a better job" and "I wish I'd done a better job" and "I'm trying. I'm trying."
Any machisimo he displayed earlier in the day quickly wilted.
On Martha Stewart's program hours earlier he said of his upcoming appearance, "I’m going to have to fight back. I’m not a doormat."
Right. And Rush Limbaugh isn't the de facto leader of the Republican party.
The Motley Fool wonders, "What on Earth was Jim Cramer doing last night?'
No kidding. Who's Cramer's publicist? Roland Burris?
"If the PR conclusion was that sitting in dark room hiding wasn't an option, that certainly would have been preferable for Cramer and CNBC to what transpired Thursday," Variety writes.
Stewart had a big advantage. Not only was the crowd with him, he came armed with damning video clips of Cramer discussing how to manipulate stock prices.
How do you counter that?
Rod Blagojevich could have pulled it off. But Jim Cramer is no Rod Blagojevich.
"Don't you want guys like me who have been in it to show the shenanigans?" Cramer asked.
"I want desperately for that. But that's not what we're getting," Stewart said.
"You knew what the banks were doing. ... But now to pretend that this was some sort of a crazy once-in-a-lifetime tsunami that nobody saw coming is disingenuous at best, criminal at worst," he said to applause.
Cramer couldn't win.
Contempt would be the word to best describe Stewart's treatment of Cramer.
Is it warranted?
Probably not. But if Stewart wants to blame someone for the crisis, who else is going to go on the show? Madoff's busy.
The guys at Newsday though give Cramer a break.
"Populist rants play well in this kind of market, but I'd ask Jon: Did you ever read the Wall Street Journal, or the Times? How about Fortune? Or the dozen or so big trades like Institutional Investor that covered the Street as well, and are equally - in fact, more influential than CNBC and poor little Jim Cramer?
"Did THEY call the financial debacle a month, a year, ahead of time?
"In fact - guess what! - they didn't. So does that mean WSJ is guilty as well, or the Times? Surely they knew about the short-sellers and hedge funds guys as well. So...? That's the logical extension of Stewart's argument..."
"I forgot to e-mail and remind him that it was on, so I don't know if he's seen it," Gibbs said. "I enjoyed it thoroughly."
Jon Stewart's show will go on unchanged. Funny. Great entertainment. Perhaps with all the exposure he'll see a bump in ratings. Just like Limbaugh.
The real question though is what happens with Jim Cramer? Maybe they should change the name of his show to "Sad Money."