I will answer honestly. I get sick of the heels-dug-in bickering, too. I do support Obama ... and yes, I am paying attention to your larger point that /we/ (or in this case ... i) get reactive to defend "my candidate" against "anti-candidate." Your point is not lost on me, and I am honestly reflecting on this. It is difficult to do, at least in this forum (no fault of yours), because being "right" often trumps being honest and/or reflective. I think this is a pervasive problem in this culture, and I appreciate how you hightlight some of the manifestatinos in the political realm.

So ... you are right.

Are you able to take your own medicine and acknowledge that using your example of reporters on the bus is a poor argument? Are you able to move away from your need to be right? You call into question mainstream media's failings because of their inflated egos and/or their sense of insecurity. Have you somehow cured yourself of these challenges as well? I truly want you to be this champion. We are on the same team in this regard. But, you can't argue for something in others & defend wildly against when you are human as well.

GG:

Before answering your points, I'd like to ask you a question: which candidate are you supporting? Obama? Edwards?

How is that material to this? You are writing about how the press follows the leader, right? Or are you writing a post about how one candidate is getting a bum rap? Clarifying this for me will help me understand your motivations.

It isn't the job of reporters to like or dislike a candidate. That's the whole point.

Exactly, it isn't part of a reporters job. Their job is to report ... to write reports. Reporters are, for the most part, human. Which means that they are prone to liking and disliking all sorts of folks. Just like lawyers who defend neo-nazis. But, if these lawyers and the press are doing their job well, the liking and disliking shouldn't come into play. If your point is that this isn't happening, show me some data that backs that up. Conjecturing that reporters /feel/ something based on their behavior on a bus is crap. But that doesn't mean that you are wrong. Maybe just lazy in this particular ... albeit isolated ... incident. So, I refrain from calling you a lazy person.

Clearly, I'm a secret Hillary supporter finally unveiling my plot to help get her elected -- I waited until the night of the Iowa caucus, criticized the behavior of journalists towards her, and have thus bolstered her "talking points" just in the nick of time.

This is your standard, ironic, straw-man argument, Glenn. I didn't accuse you of supporting Clinton. I was merely inferring and observing based on your behavior. I hear that is fair game.

Glenn,

Your analysis and whistle-blowing around complex issues like FISA is unparalleled. Your work to highlight Washington insider pundits as talking heads is also valuable in today's PR society.

This post is 20% substance, and 80% the-problem-the-you-try-to-expose-in-others. I'm disappointed.

You often cite poll after poll to discredit talking head "wisdom" for what it is: bullshit. Why in the world would you do the same thing here?

You describe that the reporters are "adolescent, self-absorbed, (and having) herd-like behavior" when using the Clinton-serving example of her being given the cold-shoulder on a press bus. And yet, you have absolutely no idea /why/ these reporters were silent. Maybe they were in shock since Clinton has never approached them before? Maybe they were leary of a candidate bring a peace offering on the eve of an important election event, where she is in need of some good vibes because of a possible upset? Maybe they were worried about what they were going to eat for dinner? Maybe they have a good reason to dislike Clinton. The point is you have no idea what motivated these reporters Your "proof" of this is another reporters comments? Give me a break!

Your larger point that the press follow the leader is a good one. I don't disagree. I take exception that you, of all people, write a blog on the eve of a caucus that actually helps one candidate spread their talking points: that "Clinton gets a bad reception from the press." Of course, I can't conjecture about your motivations ... and conjecturing based on uninformed observation of your behavior is foolhardy. Wouldn't you agree?