These issues become news NOT because right-wing fanatics are droolingly eager to make them news. They become news because even us liberals & moderates (note that this was NOT just a FOX news item, but broadly reported) are appalled by the hypocrisy that John Edwards exhibits relative to his "two Americas" theme. A rich, ambulance-chasing litigator, who exemplifies the filthy rich among us. He's a plaintiff's attorney, not a true believer.

Your droolingly silly non-sequiters (9/11 vs. John Edwards' haircut) and your inability to discern the difference between continuing $400 haircuts and tv makeup just makes your article silly. You can do better. Let the discussion about the hypocrisy go on; focus on the bigger issues. Most of all -- stop whining!

"Should I have copy/pasted his articles on this subject that I agree with? "

He has never addressed the point that I make so you could not do that

--scoob

You asked about journalistic standards. If I had any or if Glenn has any. The above quote from me was my answer specifically regarding that question. Glenn has posted specifically detailed posts on that subject.

You are either being completely disingenuous or extremely fat-headed.

I don't know how much he cares or doesn't care about how much his actions appear hypocritical to you, and neither do you.

Maybe he has "not tried to defend himself" because he sees no need to defend himself in regards to the complaint you are making. Maybe he sees no reason to defend himself partly because he is under no obligation to Salon beyond writing his posts. For you to accuse him of hypocrisy because he doesn't write about something you think he should write about seems absurd and self absorbed to me.

-- Kitt

That was my first reply to you. You have asked the same fucking question over and over again since I answered it right there. I don't know what the hell it is that you want. I've told you that your accusation of hypocrisy is overstated, and in fact, incorrect.

I later asked if you expect Glenn Greenwald to comment on every Salon post he is in disagreement with. You said that you didn't. Only the one in question. That shoots your whole argument full of holes right there.

Frankly, I don't know what the hell it is you are expecting to hear. Your questions have been answered, tenfold.

"Aside from all of that, I have addressed your comments directly, in as much as they deserve. Which isn't much."

You did not address my comments at all. You said this:

"I don't agree with you, your points are absurd and bogus, if you want to know why I think that, then read Glenn's posts."

That's what you have said in a nut shell. You have not articulated why you believe that my points are absurd and bogus, so I can only infer that you just enjoy insulting people with whom you disagree.

"Should I have copy/pasted his articles on this subject that I agree with? "

He has never addressed the point that I make so you could not do that.

"Should I have copy/pasted comments that I have made in the past that might address your questions? Why do you need so much repetitive input?"

You have not addressed my questions so it would not be repetitive.

You are the one who is being absurd.

You are telling me to read his articles, which I have already done, and then say that after reading them I will find your answers to my questions there? That's your way of making your point?

Is there something difficult about that?

Should I have copy/pasted his articles on this subject that I agree with? Should I have copy/pasted comments that I have made in the past that might address your questions? Why do you need so much repetitive input?

Aside from all of that, I have addressed your comments directly, in as much as they deserve. Which isn't much.

"The bolded sentences should give you a pretty good idea why I think your approach here has been absurd and bogus."

Once again you make claims with no reasoning or argument to backthem up.

"Glenn has posted many an article about journalistic standards. I have learned a great deal from those articles. Feel free to look them up and then you can feel safe in assuming that what you have read answers your questions addressed at me."

You are telling me to read his articles, which I have already done, and then say that after reading them I will find your answers to my questions there? That's your way of making your point?

"The Politico is a blog that has proven itself to be a bullshit artist of a blog. Salon is so much more multi-faceted that there is no comparison between the two."

The one point you make that actually says something. I comend you for this paragraph. It has actual points with premises nd conclusions. But, I believe it is irrelevant to my point.

"Glenn explained to you why he didn't spend time on the post in question. You couldn't take his explanation as satisfactory."

I did accept his explanation. It was your posts that I have been replying to.

"Just as you can't seem to take my answers as satisfactory."

You have no answers. You only post your opinion and expect me to accept it.

"I've told you all that I can or want to about what I think of your reasoning on this subject."

You haven't told me anything about my reasoning.

"Maybe you should start your own blog so you can use your exemplary standards to impress us all."

Thanks for the sarcasm, it's your best reasoned argument yet.

Absurd, how?

You answer me by saying that you consider my standards bogus and absurd. You give no examples, and you do not explain your reasoning. Are there any standards of journalism or punditry that you do ascribe to? Do you feel that a media critic has ANY standards to follow, or do you just accept any behavior by those that say what you want to hear.

-- scoober620

The bolded sentences should give you a pretty good idea why I think your approach here has been absurd and bogus.

Glenn has posted many an article about journalistic standards. I have learned a great deal from those articles. Feel free to look them up and then you can feel safe in assuming that what you have read answers your questions addressed at me.

The Politico is a blog that has proven itself to be a bullshit artist of a blog. Salon is so much more multi-faceted that there is no comparison between the two.

Glenn explained to you why he didn't spend time on the post in question. You couldn't take his explanation as satisfactory. Just as you can't seem to take my answers as satisfactory.

I've told you all that I can or want to about what I think of your reasoning on this subject.

Maybe you should start your own blog so you can use your exemplary standards to impress us all.