Condescension really does stifle the desire to have a dialogue and as you point out so wisely drinkwater, it does imply the commenter cares more about being right than learning anything from the dialogue. I’m impressed saburai that you listened to drinkwater’s constructive criticism and acknowledged your regret. I’m not impressed saburai that you seem to be judging Glenn based on rather superficial evidence. The archives are available for you to examine extensively what Glenn has produced on UT. After doing that, then tell us what you think about the quality of his work. You were premature in your criticism based on what you have told us today.

It's perfectly reasonable to question my knowledge of Greenwald, since I'm a new poster. But in fact, I've been reading his blog on a daily basis for several years, so whatever the flaws in my criticism, they are not based on a lack of familiarity with his background or his work.

Let me confess an off-topic predisposition. I HATE partisanship. Nothing irks me more than listening to a buffoon like Rush Limbaugh spend 8 years of Clinton's presidency bashing the dangerous power of the executive branch and then falling directly asleep for 8 years of Bush. Either executive power is dangerous, or it isn't. The office holder doesn't matter, because he/she will eventually change.

During changes of political leadership, I tend to follow the pundit class carefully, to see who reverses their arguments of the past to favor their new friends in office. Those pundits are not reliable sources of truth, at least not while their favored party is in charge.

I'm still trying to decide how Greenwald is doing. He obviously has affection for Obama; will it influence his thinking on Obama's actions? If McCain had picked Emanuel, would Greenwald have said "I don't find this revealing or interesting", as he said to me above?

If I have a weakness in my thinking, it is perhaps that I am TOO skeptical of liberal or conservative writers who ignore the warts on their own guy. Maybe I'm too angry about this Emanuel thing. I fully admit that possibility. But it's because I'm too intolerant of even perceived hypocrisy, not because I don't understand Greenwald's oeuvre.

PS: I'm not substantively comparing Greenwald and Rush Limbaugh. They aren't equivalent; I just needed an easy example.

And finally, while you are not being rude, you are also coming off as defensive, even if it's unintentional.

I often get defensive when I write 10 careful paragraphs that are dismissed with a sarcastic and/or caustic one-liner. I wasn't cut out for the Internet age, I guess.

Thank you, though, everyone for some stimulating discussion.

Mr. Greenwald, I'm flattered to have merited a further response, and I mean that sincerely. I don't have much to add or refute, but I would just say that:

1. I don't think asserting that you "have affection" for Obama is a particularly strong accusation of bias. Even I have affection for the man, it's damn hard not to. His charisma is not a media myth. Obviously, frothy Obamoids can find fault in even the most vaguely lukewarm supporter, but it would be silly to use that as the standard for measuring yourself. Heck, I have a good friend who would probably criticize you for not getting a big enough Obama tattoo on your forehead.

2. I have read you carefully for some time, and I honestly believe you will TRY to measure Obama by the same standard you would measure a Republican administration (especially on civil liberties). I think you deal with your readers in good faith, in other words. But that doesn't mean that I'm convinced you'll be fully successful, being human and all, and on this ONE PARTICULAR TOPIC of Rahm Emanuel--which I vow I will never mention again until it rears its ugly head in the news someday, if ever--I think you're missing something if you claim it's no big deal. Are you just being cautious? Blinded by a glint of Obamania? I don't know. Maybe I should be more cautious myself, but I think this thing stinks to high heavens. I'm sorry that expressing that opinion came across as an attempt to censor or control your blog, or dictate your topics, which is fairly ridiculous. I just think you're hitting this topic wrong at the moment. If that means I read you with a more skeptical eye in the future, well surely that's healthy?

Thanks for the talk; I'm curious if you have any further thoughts on these subjects, but either way, have a good night.