Jim Cramer must be getting PR advice from Roland Burris

If it was a heavyweight fight, there would be calls for an investigation.

Fans would say the fight was rigged. "He took a dive!"

That's what it felt like last night watching Jon Stewart's dismantling of CNBC's Jim Cramer.

Sunk

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.

Last night?

There was, "I should do a better job" and "I wish I'd done a better job" and "I'm trying. I'm trying."

No fight

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.

PR strategy

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?

Blago could

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.

Losing battle

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..."

1600 Penn

The folks at the White House enjoyed the show.  At least White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs did.  What about the president?

"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."

Next

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."

------

*We're not changing the name of our blog though or our Twitter feed (which is brand spanking new). Follow us by clicking here.*