I'm sorry, but I'm kind of curious if you actually read the piece or just skimmed it. Glenn wrote a whole paragraph that spoke you your main objection:

There's nothing wrong per se with civil interaction, even with those over whom one is supposed to be exerting adversarial scrutiny. Good relationships with government sources can assist a reporter in obtaining otherwise unavailable information that the Government wants to conceal. But Abramowitz, after hailing these White House press officials as good friends, then goes out of his way to emphasize, admiringly, how "extremely discreet" they are, how they don't actually give him any information about the President that they're not authorized or directed to give him.

It's hard not to see your response as merely a journalist being thin-skinned about an "outsider" criticizing his profession, which we kind of see a lot these days. But I could be misreading you.

Ho hum.

And yet he shows up day after day after day to... wait for it... do nothing but bash!

It is a source of no small amazement to me how much self-pwnage some people can tolerate - even in front of people they supposedly despise.

Classic. Henceforth I'll be visualizing you as a bald kid in a robe...

There is no spoon.

http://tinyurl.com/5zujcq

The difference is that I am not claiming to be engaing in "serious journalism"...There's something wrong in suggesting that it is based on high ideals, principles which govern your own actions.

Sorry, but who are you referring to?

You appear to be trying to make a point. Let us know when you get there.

That is so becoming my new tagline.

You're like Wikipedia, but with a much more delightfully loopy writing style! I'm still not sure WTF you are trying to say, but I am enjoying reading you not quite saying it...

Carol Shepp McCain said "I had 23 operations, I am five inches shorter than I used to be and I was in hospital for six months."

I would say that losing five inches could safely be characterized as a "disfigurement."

Did you think that Glenn was trying to say something nasty about Carol McCain? I suggest you re-read the piece.

I'm sorry, but I call bullshit on that one.

It is the oldest, and most cowardly IMO, trick in the book to link two people together, leave an inference hanging in the air, and then act innocent when challenged.

I could make note of the fact that John McCain and Tomás de Torquemada both went to religious schools as children. What would be the purpose of doing so, however, unless there was some point I was trying to make in linking them?

get it?

You keep using that phrase, "freedom of speech." I do not think it means what you think it means.

"Shut up."

I guess I'm not sure who you're talking to. Is it me, the non-voter? Mona, the libertarian firebrand? In fact, the only commenter I can think of who's a Democratic activist is WT, who's over us, as I understand. So are you lost? Do you think you're commenting on democraticunderground.com or something?

Do you think any of the observations you posted are news to any of us?

Do you think?

Get busy living or get busy dying.

You buy your clichés in bulk, or what?

When will people wake up? The Democrats are NOT an opposition party!

A whore is a whore is a whore.

Bunch of fucking sell-outs.

Screw you Greenwald.

Whoa, dude, you and NotOrbitBoy should take your act on the road. I'm serious. A long road, maybe.

I usually have a point

Me too. In this case, I was just sick of your radical superciliousness.

Where you and I differ is that the "point" of my comments is usually different, and germane to the topic under discussion. You OTOH have one point, and one point only: that everyone other than you are weak sob-sister bourgeois whiners, who are so stupid/sheeplike/whorish as to believe x, where x is a strawman DLC position believed by (on average) exactly no one in the comments thread.

Tha's why I really think you and NOB could put together a two-man act. There's really nothing so enjoyable as being lectured by a stranger for having opinions that you've never had.

say boo and he goes away.

Dude, I'm not the One.

1. What presidential candidate holds the strongest anti-corporate positions?

I argue that the answer to that question is Ralph Nader.

Stipulated. What's your point?

Why persist in making an argument that even a child - that even I - can see is a transparent bit of concern-trollery for Walnuts? I mean, I literally don't get your game.

FWIW, BTW (OMG!) I was a proud Nader voter from 2000 (I lived in an extremely blue state that Gore won by double digits), and even I can't see the point in voting for Nader this go-'round, not even if I was convinced he couldn't bleed off enough points from Obama to push the race McCain's way.

I don't love Barry O, but if my state is close, I'll vote for him. Generally, I'm further to the left than adnoto in this... I think that voting legitimizes the power system in such a way that it's a net negative, morally speaking.

But I don't think seeing the world clearly is a suicide pact...

My remarks weren't in response to your one post, but to your opus vitae as shown in your "Read adnoto's other letters," from which I quoted some random lines.

I missed this one:

You people are suckers. Complete and total suckers. You are beyond help.

And yet, you come back to try, again and again. Greater love hath no man.