I remember Rush having a daily show as well. It was very funny.
But taking little clips here and there to make a point is dangerous.
so can't take it seriously. But it is comedy.
I think Rush show was funnier.

It has swung back to the center. (Daily Show)

yeah he makes fun of Obama just as mch as he makes fun of everything else.
He just had two jokes about Hillary used the wrong Russian word in an attempt to write "reset" on a button, as a symbol of restarting the rlationship.
Then he made fun of Obama for giving someone DVD's when the occasion called for something thoughtful.
I don't know I think he just calls out things like he sees them. I think it was the election itself that was just so blatantly bad for republicans. They couldn't do a single thing right. Calling Barack a muslim, not even a member of the USA, best-friends with terrorists, Palin.... it really was a big joke, and it wasn't just Dailyshow that capitalized on it, but SNL and man many many others.

most t.v. programs go liberal during the election.
it's a good show.

But I am serious you have to watch this one, it is one of the one times he gets really hard-fucking hitting.

The worst that could come to Kramer is jail, and that's the absolute worst that could happen. It was really a difficult difficult show to watch.

Maher is very much a comedian, it's a part of his shows and his work to only a slightly lesser degree than with Stuart.  Olbermann and Matthews are probably two good examples to use though.

None of the people you mentioned or I mentioned above fail to recognize or advertise their bias though.  Rush and Hannity will tell you straight up they are conservatives while Maher, Stuart, Keith, and Chris would tell you they are liberal.  But those biases are why they have their shows.

I've seen multiple episodes of everyone mentioned here and they all make good points and they all have bad points the same as anyone.  But they also all say some very stupid things the same as anyone.  The fact is the overwhelming majority of what these guys say is completely legitimate, and the controversy comes over pointless quibbles like the recent assault on Rush and the "I want him to fail" controversy.  Pointless for two reasons: First because the White House shouldn't be launching attacks on radio hosts because they have more important things to do and second because Rush explained his position to the point that any reasonable person who actually listened to what he said in full would have no problem even if they choose to disagree with him.

Do these guys say some stupid crap?  Absolutely.  But so do you and I, they're people too after all.  And the media is biased no matter where you go to get your information.  The only suckers are the people who actually believe they're getting straight talk from anyone.  But none of these guys goes so far that they shouldn't be taken seriously and honestly it kind of disturbs me to hear that talk.  Nothing someone says should preclude them from having a voice in the future, it should certainly effect their credability but when you get to the point where people are saying "Keith Olberman said x and therefor nothing he says is worth taking serious" you've come to the point where you are unfairly marganalizing people and it is only a matter of time before it is turned into a political weapon by one side or the other or both (I would say it already has actually).

Let people turn the channel/station and decide who doesn't deserve to be heard.  If enough people listen to Rush and Keith that they can stay on the air contradicting each other then there is plenty of room for both of them and even their crazier views.

Few corrections/clarifications:

1) Gordon Brown gave Obama a Pen Holder carved from the HMS Gannet which was the Sister ship to the HMS Resolute which was the ship from which the Resolute desk was carved.  The resolute desk is the desk in the oval office.  Stuart correctly points out it is a thoughtful gift that ties the history of slavery and the history of the presidency together and pays tribute to the significance of both aspects. In short it was a priceless and thoughtful gift.  Meanwhile Obama's gift was terrible tacky and showed a lack of consideration...which he probably didn't have anything to do with it (and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he would have smacked the person who suggested it) but that's how the cookie crumbles so to speak and when you give a foreign head of state a DVD box set people are going to facepalm...let alone when they've just given you an amazing gift of infinitely more meaning.

2) As far as I know Republicans denounced people calling Obama a muslim, so completely false unless you link to a story that says otherwise.

3) This was a dumb truther type allegation that had some fairly minor legal merit but lacked common sense.  It only gained popularity because Obama ignored it which is sort of the nature of stupid rumors.  But in this case he really should have shut these people up because it would have been ridiculously easy for him to do so (many folks are still on about it actually).  Again I don't know that this was ever picked up or supported by any legitimate republican leaders or voices.

4) This was the whole Ayers mess again.  To put it simply Ayers was part of a group that bombed civilian and police buildings and caused the death of innocent people.  There is some pretty startling testimony from an FBI informant that had infiltrated the group about the types of discussions they had in their planning, including killing as many as 25 million people...so yeah the term terrorist I think applies quite lightly.  The question was how close was his relationship and the best evidence was that they had a friendly working relationship but not that they were necessarily best buddies or anything.  Whether or not Obama knew about Ayer's past is also ambiguous making it an even shadier connection. The real story was in the $100 million they completey wasted together but was completely ignored...long story and way off-topic.

The fact that people still don't know these things is a testament to the failures of the McCain campaign in getting its message out properly although lets be honest I doubt you would have taken their word for any of this anyways =P

After seeing this "feud" for the past week or so, this head-to-head meeting seemed quite anti-climatic. I expected to see some yelling, and anger expressed between the two, but they were both very professional, calm, and cool. That made him more likable to me, which was a harsh contrast to what previous clips of him showed him to be (an emotional, crazy sort of fellow).

Cramer did look foolish a few times, especially when the videos of him on that other show (was it a show........I recall hearing him saying something to the effect of "no one will ever see this on TV, so that's why I'm telling you") talking about doing, what seemed to me, rather shady stock practices. He also appeared naive when he took the words of the CEO's at face value, although I think he knew he screwed with that.

I watched it since last time I logged on.

It was a bit anti-climatic. Cramer just apologized for most of the interview. I don't think he was ready for legitimate questions to come from Stewart.

Man, wonder how many people lost money due to Cramer and CNBC. he better watch his back.