What specifically separates Glenn Greenwald from all the other talking heads except for your own personal political view? I mean, he's pretty much the definition of a pundit.

What he says is that most pundits spit "talking points", implying that he thinks there's a general tendency towards spitting a party line rather than original thought and discourse. If you watch Glenn dismantle some of those pundits in interviews and debates on TV (ex: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XInz4i6AV8M ), you'll probably agree regardless of your political leanings that he's a cut above most pundits.

How about having 10x the intellectual rigor, more integrity, and being right a lot more often? Oh, and having the cojones to stand up for Wikileaks, too. That takes some guts in the current political environment.

Glenn's pretty impressive, most of the time. If he proves to have called this one wrong, so be it. But he sure isn't on the same level as your average hack pundit.

The definition of "pundit" from Wikipedia:

A pundit is someone who offers to mass-media his or her opinion or commentary on a particular subject area (most typically political analysis, the social sciences or sport) on which they are knowledgeable.

Greenwald seems pretty clearly to be offering commentary on these events, and not just straight fact/story-reporting.

How much you like him or find him honest doesn't change what you call what he does. You can set him apart from other "pundits" but it's hard to say he isn't commentating or offering his opinion.

What was asked was, what sets Greenwald apart from OTHER pundits? I attempted to answer that. I didn't attempt to say he's not a pundit. I happen to think he's a particularly good pundit; others might disagree.

As an aside, there certainly seems to be a lot of downvoting based on disagreement in this comment thread.