I know I'm a little late in posting on this, but I'm intrigued by this whole exchange (including both the Daily Show critique pieces and the interview) between Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer on the Daily Show. My dissertation is going to be a rhetorical examination of the economic meltdown and bailout through the prisms of privilege and identity (What does the economic crisis do to what we think of as privilege? Who is privileged now? How do we discuss the privileged and privilege itself? How do identities get constructed and negotiated in a major economic crisis such as this?). Part of this deals with questions of blame, but I'm also interested in the way that rhetorical responses have materially impacted various flows (capital, for one), both in terms of signification and other forms of articulation. After seeing the smackdown of Jim Cramer, I'm seriously considering doing a chapter on the Daily Show vs. Cramer exchange because I think that it hits on crucial questions of identity and privilege that I'm looking into here. In this spirit, I'm posting the unedited interview Jim Cramer gave on the Daily Show where Stewart takes Cramer to task for embodying the worst aspects of CNBC's reporting. What do you think? Does this idea make sense for a study of rhetorics of privilege as they relate to the economic crash/bailout?