Glenn:

Many times, people here mistake that for being "defensive" or even angry that what I wrote is being criticized. It's actually the opposite. I tend (as a general rule - with some exceptions) to respond to criticisms that I believe merit the most respect and I ignore the ones I think merit the least respect. But the fact that I disagree with the objections and even do so aggressively isn't a sign of "defensiveness."

I find it somewhat puzzling that Glenn has to explain this over and over again. He was trained as a lawyer, spent 10 year working quite successfully as a lawyer. His style of blogging is clearly deeply informed by that professional experience. He also has a fairly active community of commentators who ferret out a high percentage of weaker criticisms.

All this combines to produce a situation where he's free to respond much like a lawyer making oral arguments on appeal. The vast majority of arguments are already dealt with in the written briefs with footnotes and citations out the wazoo. Anything he says beyond that is, therefore, of particularly high importance. And that's how you should think of it when you get into a debate with him.

Actually, now that I describe it, I understand perfectly why it has to be explained over and over again. Some people are going to realize what's going on here right away. Others simply won't, because there aren't a whole lot of other places like this. So it might be a good idea for Glenn to write a little helpful hints piece that the rest of us can refer new folks to when they start to get confused.

Just look at them parroting the GOP nonsense about Nancy Pelosi.

They will only get tough on the Administration when a Democrat is elected president.

What's needed is for progressives to invest a couple billion dollars in building infrastructure, the same way that the right has. Then we'd have the muscle to lean on the media "big time" as America's #2 war criminal would say.

Until then? Rotsa ruck.