I have got to agree with John King here. As with most bloggers

your remarks are sound wimpy both your original words and certainly your followup. The "this is what they always say when" and so on. Next time contact King first, give him the chance to debate the issuue with you first hand rather than the back and forth,with you always getting the last word. A

tool often employed by O'Reilly,Hannity and the rest.

I am surprised you had the temerity to address a member of the Award winning Best Political Team on TV. You did the same to a member of the now Best Television Team on Cable News, Chris Matthews. Stop it, Glenn. You are asking them to be accountable? How dare you? Their job is to hold politicians accountable (the one's they don't like) and provide seals of approval (for those they do like.)

McCain, for better or worse, is a very accessible candidate.

1- Does King interview McCain because he is accessible, or because he has something of substance to ask? If the argument is: "because I meet with him so often, I don't always ask hard-hitting questions", then the immediate response is (should be): "why do you meet with him so often if you don't have hard-hiting questions to ask?" Just because he is accessible?

2- Why doesn't a journalist's work speak for itself? Why should the onus be on a reader, or a critic, to investigate a 20 year resume to judge any piece? Who's the investigator here?

I like the name Glennzilla! Says it all.

These guys clearly have no idea who you are. It reminds me of the Ali G interviews before the word got out about who he was. Andy Rooney nailed him, but Sam Donaldson and a whole group of Washington insiders were completely blind-sided by him, to hilarious effect.

I like the Gahndi quote. Since John King had no idea who you were, if he has an IQ slightly above a turnip (an issue still open to question, alas), he does now.

Keep it up, Glennzilla! You help to keep me and a whole lot of other people sane when nearly everything said in the M$M creates just the opposite effect.

Good for you, Glenn. Your initial critique and response to King's pissy e-mail was dead-on. Reporters are supposed to be skeptical and questioning, not hail fellows well met.

King ought to try to respond to the substance of your criticism and not his bruised ego.

As if!

Mr. King,

“I don't read biased uninformed drivel so I'm a little late to the game.” Nice insult! Did you learn that at the University of Rhode Island or is it something you picked up in your serious professional career?

Please do yourself a favor. Take an afternoon and read the last year or two of Mr. Greenwald’s posts. I think you will find that the “uninformed drivel” was your response to Greenwald.

I know it hurts your ego when you’re taken to task in public. However, I suggest that you take a serious look at the state of the MSM “drivel” that we see today. MSM is the only group that has been more cowardly and submissive to the Right/GOP than the Democratic Party.

I understand why the MSM hate bloggers. The curtain has been lifted and the truth is out. Too many of today’s “journalists” are nothing more than stenographers. The MSM is lazy and has little respect for the truth or the public they purport to serve.

You can do better!

... and his response took him "off message," giving observers a glimpse of who he really is, how he sees his role, and the way he responds to legitimate criticism.

In fact, you are correct that his response speaks for itself and makes your point: he sees himself as one of the pigs who are more equal than others, despite what the Constitution says, and probably expects, like Russert promised, that the conversation is off the record unless you warn him first.

In other words, you did the work journalists are supposed to do: reveal to the voting public the often hidden truth behind the images the candidates (or "journalists") try to project.

This kind of journalism is just so rare anymore that John King sees it not as the reason the First Amendment was created but as an example of a groundling not being capable of comprehending the drama happening on the stage.

As revealing as his response is, it says more about his profession than himself: The level of skepticism he shows and criticism he delivers is actually pretty typical for modern, mainstream "journalists." He isn't the problem as much as just another symptom.

While we see how much his response reveals by itself, his colleagues (assuming they were willing to slum over to our neighborhood) will probably think he silenced a heckler professionally.

His "profession" has just fallen so far that, like those correspondents listening to Colbert, most of them will miss the point. They've been invited to the club so many times that the cries of the unwashed now sound unsophisticated.

No one they know sees the emperor's nakedness, so why trust the word of some boy on the internet (that's how he sees you) who dares to point out what's obvious to those outside the privileged circle?

You've cornered an angry Beltway animal, Glenn. He spits, he bites, spittle spews from the corners of his foaming mouth.

King said: "You clearly know very little about journalism."

This kind of arrogant attitude is on display all the time lately. We are only suppose to take in whatever the "experts" tell us and never have our own independent thoughts or opinions. We are just supposed to be consumers, sitting quietly in the corner with our hands on our laps, eyes wide open and our mouths shut.

Hopefully, those days are done. And this probably accounts for his fevered reaction, because he obviously doesn't like to see the rabble at the gate.