I don't know the guy, but I was really turned off by his arrogant, and outrageously snide attitude.

So much so that I couldn't watch. I don't love the medium, but it does allow more indepth discussion than you ever get on tv. I was pretty eager to watch before it started...and then Ben Smith behaves like a prick on tv, interrupting GG, and dismissing sans response GG's points.

I had to turn it off. I GG does a few more, in a room with carpet and a better microphone.

Ben's an idiot...a perfect corporal representation of the problem with the D.C. press that GG writes about.

Didn't Ben Smith read David Brocks' book? Why are we repeating the 90s??

First, this was a worthwhile debate. There were a few brief moments scattered throughout where genuine dialogue took place, and it's always heartening, in any context, when two people find some common ground, when they succeed in causing a person predisposed to dismiss them to listen and understand. But these moments were rare, causing much of the dialogue to be tedious and frustrating.

Maybe it's my bias, but I felt that for the most part, Smith, far more than Glenn, did not respond to the questions asked, but responded to genuine efforts to communicate with comments designed to obscure and block the question, because to answer honestly would be to open himself to changing his entire frame of reference.

As a professional in the field of health and human services, for example, if I asked another professional in my field to explain the purpose of their profession, what it is they were setting out to do, and that person deflected the question, I would hone in. If they further said they hadn't thought about the function of their profession, what they as a professional were setting out to do, I would be dumbfounded.

But this is what Smith did. On the most obvious questions, on the questions that should have been the easiest for a good journalistist to answer, i.e., What is your purpose in doing what you do? What is your objective?, Smith pleaded ignorance. He even said it wasn't part of his job to reflect on why the press got it so monumntally wrong in the run-up to the war. Amazing.

Obviously, then, he has no idea why, for example, he chose to report on Edwards' haircut instead of the firing of the eight US prosecutors, or the NSA wiretapping scandal. He has no criteria, it appears, for deciding what is worth reporting about and what isn't, given that he can't even articulate the basic purpose of journalism.

This is the point that Glenn tried to bring home to him, but I'm not at all sure he got it. It might jeopardize his career advancement if he saw his work in a larger context, after all. And to avoid this, it always helps to go on the offensive and attack the very people who are raising the questions that have such uncomfortable answers, as Smith did in this dialogue whenever Glenn put forth questions that required clear answers. Smith's defensiveness spoke volumes.

The problem is they ARE the enemy. To paraphrase JC, we'll always have storm-troopers. But the brown shirts are completely helpless without the acquiescence and assistance of all the nice, moderate, centrist folks, decent people who just want to do their job.

And if that means thinking that the stench in air is just a soap factory, well they can handle that kind of cognitive dissonance.

It's only when they're broken of that - when they feel a moral responsibility for the crimes committed in their names that they can be treated as even neutral. It's All Quiet on the Western Front - and without making those people responsible for the crimes they assist in, it will always be followed by the camps.

As someone who rarely pays more than $10 (+ tip) for a haircut myself (buzz cut, actually, and it doesn't look half bad for the first month or so), I couldn't have said it myself.

Vapid twit. Nuff' said.

Although he could do with a better 'do himself, come to think of it.

And I noted with interest that the Night Descended on Glenn's half of the screen, whilst Young Ben seemed to be in a Timeless Land of Flourescents, with no clue as to time of day, season of the year, location on the globe or anything. These atmospherics are far more meaningful to me than the various quirks of style displayed by the participants. Glenn was in a Real Place, whereas Ben was in a TeeVee Place. If you catch my drift.

There is no reason whatever for Glenn to moderate his style of presentation in my view. Even though I get antsy when he gets all het up in Closing Argumentative Style. By sticking with his assertiveness, he's actually moving well beyond the standard of passivity and irrelevance that has been adopted by far too many "lefties" on the Toob. It IS discomforting, because it isn't familiar. But he is serious and informative, and dogged in making his points, something too many "lefties" have no conception of.

Did you all notice all the things that Young Ben didn't want to talk about? Gee. Didn't want to discuss corporate structure or the political backgrounds or interests of the owners and executives of The Politico, didn't want to get into the issue of serious journalism vs gossip (we serve our market!), and what did he say at the end? "I'm spent." "Let's Move On" indeed. Vapid little twit. Glenn wore the poor thing out.

But look, though he knows nothing and will say less about it (I heard him muttering about not wanting to get fired, and he seemed to start to say something harsh about Jim Harris and then bit his tongue. No doubt Glenn's contemptuous attitude about the Right Wing Crazies for which the Vapid Little Twit works was a bad influence on him. Oh, but let's move on.) he will defend to the death the right to be... vapid, inconsequential, and, well, partisan. And Glenn will defend his right to those very same things. But I'm not sure Ben heard anything about how it's inappropriate to then claim to be nonpartisan.

The Edwards Haircut Issue should be all we really need to know about the contents of the addlepates of the Establishment.

What's this? The Politico's target audience is Democratic Staffers?

No wonder Dems continue to flail and there is constant leaking and backstabbing in the Dem ranks.

But then, if nothing really matters...