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 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.)

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.

King's "deer in the headlights" fiancee, Dana Bash, is just as bad when she interviews Republicans, especially Bush.

I also love the "both sides criticize me, which proves I'm credible" argument. Once again, the same false equivalency that dominates their reporting comes into play. Being criticized by freepers because you didn't ask Hillary why, as a lesbian, she had an affair with Vince Foster before murdering him is not the same as being criticized on the substance of your reporting because you fail to ask any real questions of a candidate you practically admit to drooling over.

And even if he were right, and the rest of the interview were better, that wouldn't justify the verbal blow-job he gave McCain at the end.

Amazing how the response to honest criticism is "HOW DARE YOU, YOU FILTHY PARTISAN!" over and over again from the journalists. And they all seem to pull together to form a unified front against the evil bloggers and blog readers.

If they had one tiny little bit of pride or professionalism wouldn't they start to police each other a bit? Even when I was a waitress, if a co-worker showed up and acted badly or dressed terribly or something like that, we would say something to them, because that person made us all look bad.

But these people think they should be immune to criticism. I was very naive until recent years concerning how arrogant and full of contempt for ordinary people the journalists were. I'm glad this has all come to light so we can see.

I remember seeing the cable news during the start of the Iraq war as they cheer-leaded and acted giddy and jingoistic as men, women and children were dying and suffering. I thought, these people are very, very low people, because how could they act so unserious like this if they had any humanity?

Seriously,

the note was 'touching' and I thank you for kind words and a invite to Austin.

Next time, if there is a next time (I hope not), please don't seal the envelope with red-lip stick kisses. The scotch tape had hair stuck to the sealed envelope.

I'd be happier, and think better of you,

if I thought the NSA opened your correspondence.

If the government opened and resealed it with a darn old Cleopatra kiss?

Now, bamage, don't get Dirigo getting into why Cleopatra bought lip-balm-red-lipstick by the 144-gross-case.

I'll not read his post about pretty Miss Cleopatra.

Plainly it is not easy to be part of the Best Political Team on Television.

Plainly the GOP is getting quite desperate trying to salvage any of these so called "GOP front-runners" who want to follow the 'Decider' into the WH Oval Office.

In a contest where John McCain comes off as being "fresh news and an exciting contender" one is left wondering how that is possible?

Clearly the "kooks" are not igniting the GOP faithful and it is clear no one in this GOP contest is very eager to be seen with G.W.Bush either.

It is a political briar patch that the GOP so richly deserves.

Wolf Blitzer likes to tell his "audience" who he is very often and also that they are watching the "Situation Room" too.

I gave up on Wolf and the Situation Room a long time ago as being of much real use in telling anyone about "news". CNN and this so called Best Political Team are much more interested in framing the selling of "news". The SR tends to be vapid far too often.

I will give Jack Cafferty some credit though.

Too bad about John King and Anderson Cooper.

They could be better. Are not.

Lou Dobbs? Do not go there either.

I have gone over to MSNBC just for KO. He is fun to watch.

As for CM and Tucker? Sheesh.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

-- Mahatma Gandhi

the second stage with some third stage too. This is excellent progress.

Chris Dowd:

"Thanks AI. I wasn't sure if it was possible to parody Russert effectively. I was worried my invented dialogue was too close to reality and no one would appreciate it."

Well, you were effective as hell in this case! It's a little masterpiece.

My being able to enjoy a hearty belly laugh in the process of experiencing confirmation of my own painful perception of Russert as a master of unconscious bufoonery was positively cathartic.

Thanks again.

Ken

Go read the whole thing:

While it is the intention to bring marginalized voices to the airwaves, the aim is not to establish a left-wing echo chamber. Representatives of the government agency or corporation under discussion are invited, although they often decline. Recent participants have included former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and the president of a trade association for private mercenary companies.

One uninvited guest was then-President Bill Clinton, who called into the show on Election Day in 2000 as part of an effort to encourage radio listeners to vote for Democratic candidate Al Gore. Goodman seized the opportunity and asked: "You are calling radio stations to tell people to get out and vote. What do you say to people who feel that the two parties are bought by corporations and that ... their vote doesn't make a difference?" From there, he was quizzed for 30 minutes on issues such as sanctions on Iraq and Democratic Party members' support for the death penalty. An exasperated Clinton finally lashed out at Goodman for asking "hostile and combative" questions. "They've been critical," she replied.

Goodman says that the following day a staffer from the White House Press Office called and berated her for violating the ground rules. "What ground rules?" she asked. It had been an impromptu call, and no rules had been discussed. Goodman's transgression was to stray to topics beyond getting the voters out -- and to keep Clinton on the phone too long. She told the staffer: "President Clinton is the most powerful person in the world; he can hang up if he wants to."