For the first time in his life, Tucker Carlson may actually be right. A.J. may well kill Tony, although it seems a long shot now that Tony is in upstate New York, apparently. There has been a lot of screen time for A.J. in the past few episodes. Even if A.J. doesn't kill Tony, he is going to be a major factor in whatever happens. And Paulie Walnuts will not die.

Ballbuster dinged me for ridiculous late fees way too many times. I don't care if they rent movies for half a buck or deliver them electronically at supersonic speed; I will never give that company another dime. The final straw for me was when I lost my Ballbuster-rented "American Psycho." When I informed them I lost the videotape (this was a while ago), they informed me the charge was $120.00, because Ballbuster had put together its own, sanitized version of the movie.

Screw Ballbuster.

King's response is ill-tempered and overly defensive, to be sure. It is certainly another example of old media arrogance.

I don't think, though, that Glenn really addresses the substance of his response -- that this particular interview was much longer that the edited portion Glenn viewed, and King has asked McCain and other politicians tough questions in the past. Glenn's strength is that he demonstrates, in detail, with facts, how our major media figures are too often lazy conduits for misinformation, or more interested in the political horse race than substance. I don't see that detail here. (Although having followed Glenn for a while, I would guess he's probably working on it right now).

Having watched King and the other CNNers operate, I wouldn't be surprised if King is a McCain sycophant and otherwise guilty as Glenn has charged. I would love to see other examples of King's McCain worship or lazy journalism.

My post is a little confusing. I don't know whether the interview Glenn posted was edited from a longer interview. The point I intended to make was that King defended himself in part by claiming the interview Glenn criticized was not actually the entire interview. While Glenn stated at the beginning of his post that he reproduced the interview in its entirety as presented on "Situation Room," I don't see him directly addressing King's claim that there is more to the interview than what was shown on Situation Room.

Its a minor point, but I'm used to seeing Glenn completely eviscerating these guys, and I don't think he's quite gutted King, yet. So maybe my first post was more a reflection of my disappointment that Glenn didn't completely shut him down.

Ms. Walsh: Let me get the obligatory compliments out of the way before the “but.” I’ve been a Premium member for several years, and truly appreciate your efforts as editor. You take way too much crap, much of it disturbingly sexist, from some trollish Salon readers in the comments section. But . . .

I am a Chicagoan, and I saw you on “Hardball” tonight, suggesting, as you do here, that Obama does not understand California's multiracial electorate. This sort of coastal ignorance, which comes across as more than a little condescending, occasionally crops up in Salon. It is annoying, to say the least, since Illinois was turning out progressive politicians before California was even a state.

Obama earned his bones in Chicago politics. The population of Chicago is 42% African-American, 36% White, 26% Latino, and 4% Asian/Pacific Islander. The Hispanic population is mostly of Mexican and Central American origin. Unlike California, however, Chicago also has a large Puerto Rican population. There is also a sizeable Middle-Eastern population. Like California, Illinois’ Asian and Latino populations include both third and fourth generation Americans and new arrivals. Statewide, California and Illinois differ only in that Illinois has a larger percentage of African-American residents, a smaller but still very significant Latino population, and a smaller percentage of Asian/Pacific Islander residents. The Asian population is nonetheless well-established and quite visible here.

The remainder of the state is not quite as diverse as Chicago, just as much of California is more heterogeneous outside of urban areas. However, numerous large “downstate” areas (what Chicagoans call anything 50 miles or more outside of Chicago) have sizeable African-American and Hispanic populations. The Naperville-Aurora area, a suburban sprawl area west of Chicago with a population of about 250,000 people, has a significant Latino population, as do many other suburbs. I used to work for several local school districts here. Several had student populations speaking over 70 different languages.

No state is quite as ethnically and racially diverse as California. But Illinois is pretty close. In fact, I doubt any other state other than California is as diverse as Illinois. Also, in terms of overall diversity (economic, demographic, rural-suburban-urban, education level), Illinois is more representative of the country as a whole than any other state. Obama got 72% of the statewide vote in 2004. Yes, he was running against an actual crazy person named Alan Keyes, but thats still a a lot of votes.

Look, the weather here is awful most of the year, and we don’t have an ocean or mountains, or topography, really. But we do have all different kinds of people, which is one of the reasons I love it here despite the awful weather. And we really, really don't like it when coastals tell us how we need to learn to be more progressive. I haven't seen any ballot initiatives to ban affirmative action or cut off benefits to undocumented workers here.

I'm not anti-California, at all. I love San Francisco and the Northern Coast, in particular. But if you are ever out this way (we gotta real big airport!), I urge you take a drive west from Lake Michigan (its a real big Lake, too!) on Devon Avenue and count how many different languages you see displayed on storefronts. Just make sure you come in June, or I can’t promise you decent weather.