Well not really, I don't know him at all, I usually enjoy The Daily Show and watch it very frequently, but it always bothered me is when it took himself seriously and if you watched his interview tonight with Jim Cramer, he took himself much too seriously. There is nothing wrong with taking an issue like the financial crisis seriously, however if you are going grandstand and not make valid arguments, while being serious you look like a douchebag.
In the interview he jumps around making different arguments, sometimes even directly contradicting himself. He begins by saying both him and Cramer are snake oil's salesman, but he admits he is; given that he ends up spending the whole interview appealing to emotions or showcasing his misunderstanding about the markets, instead of creating real arguments I found this pretty funny.

Stewart begins by blaming the media for the collapse, this is such a typical move for pundits; members of the media, whether they are Limbaughs or Frankens or Bayless' tend overstate their own importance. So of course it makes more sense to blame other media outlets for not reporting what is going on, instead of the people responsible for what is happening. I think what a lot of news channels do are stupid, but they are clearly catering towards an audience; blaming CNBC for the economic collapse is similarly to blaming music or television for corrupting the youth. If CNBC didn't exist people would still be aware of others getting huge returns in the stock markets and they would attempt to replicate them. People are not losing money because they are following Cramer or any other pundit de jour. They are losing money because they don't know anything about financial markets; however if their neighbour had a hot stock tip he would still probably be investing. Stewart said he wants CNBC to be a watchdog and "a powerful tool of illumination" this is ridiculous. They are a business trying to make a profit; it shouldn't be their responsibility to perform tasks others are failing to do. This flawless idealistic news channel is a great idea in theory, but until someone feels paying for that ideal it won't happen.

Stewart proceeds to say that their are two markets; a 401k market and an equity trading market. He makes it seem as if the equity market consists solely of day traders and corporations preying on the weak and the bond markets consist solely of little old lady's living off their 401k; this is false. There are individuals who trade in equity and tons of corporations/traders are active in the bond market. He is creating a false dichotomy where you are either Joe everyman or the monopoly man. He is ignoring that equity returns are correlated bond returns and on of the reason individuals can live off their 401k is because of this evil market. I am not saying that super gambly borrowers are justified, but that ignoring the correlation between the two is intellectually dishonest. Eventhough there is very little risk in retirement plans, ignoring any sort of risk is either stupid or ignorant and while it sucks when stuff like this happens; ignorance or risk should not be a defense when **** happens.

Throughout the whole show Stewart acts as if the only greedy people are the wall street traders and ceos; most of the people are greedy. People are investing for a safe retirement, but they are also attempting to make a profit. Just like any market their are fish and the fish in this market are trying to make profits as well. There are traders who lost tons of money; there are fish who made a ton of money, pinning this greed on traders and ceos, while victimizing everyone who lost money in the market is stupid. A lot of people knew what they were getting into. If they didn't know what they were getting into that is their own fault for not doing due diligence, while that may seem callous it is necessary for the market to work.

The climax of his stupidity comes when he compares the stock market to infomercials and get rich quick schemes; promising certain returns. He is ignoring that the stock market as a whole serves a purpose. It allows businesses to raise money so they can hire workers, so they can manufacture products, etc, while there are flaws in the market for sure it serves a very clear useful purpose and comparing it to infomercials or get rich quick schemes ignores the social utility created by the market. Just because people will get hurt/lose some money for making bad decisions doesn't make the system wrong or unfair.

All this being said I don't think Cramer won, he didn't answer Stewart's questions, he appeared weak and wasn't compelling at all. Cramer did seem genuine and even kind of likeable despite getting railroaded throughout the whole interview.

That was therapeutic