I know what you mean. I agree with both of you, actually. We all make compromises. You wouldn't believe the stuff good teachers do in the name of getting kids to pass tests. They know better and they go home heartsick every day, but they do it to keep their jobs. But maybe I'm really arguing the other side b/c that's why I am just a sub--I can't compromise like that, so instead I go to a different class each day, offering a scintillating environment where I seize the teachable moments, lesson plans be damned, providing the occasional safe haven for kids stressed and bullied by tyrannical teachers and standards.

On the whole I really admire your columns, but I think you should have called King first. I also think that your response to his reply is very disappointing -- more like nitpicking than anything else. The impression I'm left with is that you're embarrassed to have been caught out and you're going to hit back rather than face up to what you did.

Perhaps the King would rather Glenn spend his journalistic (and I use that term deliberately) talents, on John Edwards hair - a la the rest of useless, bought and paid for, MSM.

Hey King (I know that you are reading these posts - ego boy) if you want to see how journalism is done, go here and listen to this: http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/index.html (Or just read ANY of Glenn's previous columns)

Anna Maria Tremonte of CBC's "The Current" does it old school, you know King, you shill, you twerp, you useless waste of journalistic space - the school you never went to.

You calling Glenn Greenwald anything other than a true journalist, is perfect evidence of your complete lack of "journalistic" integrity.

The horrific thing is that if John "bomb bomb" McCain ever makes it to the White House, (and he might) we can look forward to hearing a lot more from Mr. King in his new role as the White House Press Secretary. After all he sure worked hard for it.

Glenn, you should have told him that thousands ( I hope its millions) of Salon readers and Greenwald disciples think its King who spews uninformed drivel all over CNN. And, before that I thinkl it was NBC. He has always been one of the MSM's

biggest enablers.

Thanks, Glenn, for taking him to task for his McCain adulation.

Keep on keeping on! We need you now more than ever!

I'm like Ohmigod -- how can someone with that....lack of temperance have a major position on CNN? King is supposed to be a "correspondent". Unlike the "commentators", I thought he wasn't supposed to have a discernible preference on the candidates...yet his creepy affection for McCain and his rabid hatred for Hillary come through pretty much every time he opens his mouth. CNN has completely blurred the lines between news and editorials with these guys.

But his email is just too funny...how juvenile can one overpaid reporter get??? Time to boot King back to the minor leagues. Maybe he can cover high school football in some misbegotten Red State.

One of the things I observed from litigation and elsewhere is that what makes people angriest and most ashamed is when you use their own words against them.

It certainly works with the wingnuts on these boards. Eventually I expect them to go into apoplectic fits and spew death threats. So far I've only been threatened with torture.

Given the opportunity and a little encouragement they'll discredit themselves every time, and John 'Petty Satrap' King is no exception.

There's only one thing to do when one these slimeballs digs himself into a hole: hand him a bigger shovel.

And that you did.

On the whole I really admire your columns, but I think you should have called King first.

Really?

For what possible purpose?

King very much appears to have dug himself an admirable hole without benefit of any phone call. So obviously such a call wasn't necessary to encourage King to confirm his status as a complete kneebiter.

You're doing pretty well yourself.

They like McCain because he's accessible to them. What shallow narcissism.

With respect, why should Glenn have called King?

Glenn was, in effect, doing a review of John King's interview of John McCain, and he said he found it wanting.

Now King's pee-ohhed (hint to John: good actors tend to ignore bad reviews; but I know, I know; you're a journalist).

Movie and theater reviewers don't call the director before show time to ask how it's going. They review what is shown to the public. The public can take it or leave it.

Call it reviewing; call it commentary; call it a zebra.

It's a take from Glenn on Media World.

What do you figure the odds are that King would have taken or returned Glenn's call?

When a disgusting plate of food comes to you in a restaurant, do you call to ask the chef why it tastes so bad and whether he has done better in the past or do you just send it back and demand another (or walk out like me since I know someone is going to spit in the food)?

Glenn is a critic, critics judge the product as produced, not as the person producing wished it had been produced.

If John King were a chef and Glenn had been a food critic who returned the plate, do you think King could have kept himself from spitting in the food?

What do you figure the odds are that King would have taken or returned Glenn's call?

When a disgusting plate of food comes to you in a restaurant, do you call to ask the chef why it tastes so bad and whether he has done better in the past or do you just send it back and demand another (or walk out like me since I know someone is going to spit in the food)?

Glenn is a critic, critics judge the product as produced, not as the person producing wished it had been produced.

If John King were a chef and Glenn had been a food critic who returned the plate, do you think King could have kept himself from spitting in the food?