Aside from it needing to be said, perhaps Stewart's piece on Cramer and its timing was implicitly something of a glass house thing. Not to mention "let's review the judgment and credibility of the source," an exercise sorely lacking in the media.
INCREASEnow, the best and effective attack wasn't a direct or a serious one but the one camouflaged through a joke. That way the target person can't really counter-attack since it's a joke.
And yet it took a comedian to bring Cramer down to size while the rest of the media continues napping.
If you came out with a well documented presentation, with irrefutable evidence presented in a professional way, and you're target had no defense except "uh, well, maybe, well, perhaps, should have, maybe, done a better job,", I'd give youcredence. Why not Stewart? He was phenominal. I know how phenomenal. Because I made cogent presentations to reporters. They did nothing.
I agree with this theory 100% --and Cramer was already in the Whitehouse crosshairs when the Cramer Vs Stewart fued started-- but it was actually Santelli that was targeted by Stewart originally. Cramer just got caught in the net because he was insulted and shot his mouth off. And to those who don't take it seriously because Jon Stewart is an "entertainer", the sad fact is that most of America's youth get all of their news and knowledge of politics from The Daily Show, SNL's Weekend Update, and Michael Moore movies.
the sad part is, the MSM is so lame, the kids get their news from entertainment sources. What good is the MSM? Stewart just had to haul the water. And he did a tremendous job.