And not to go all Bob Sommerby on you, but his buying into this "Clinon is racist" and running an ugly campaign mainstream meme is why I hold little hope for progressive media after this election cycle.  Sure, when someone gets something blantantly wrong like Jake Tapper or Joe Klein, they take them down, but mostly they've been way too happy to fall for mainstream media narratives.  Eight years after Gore, Drum, et al, still aren't screaming and fighting back.  

That doesn't mean Drum has to back Hillary, but it does mean he shouldn't be citing MSM crap as a reason for voting for Obama.

And if you want to see "I'm a real journalist, so even though I was wrong, I was right" arrogance on the blogosphere, check out Harold Meyerson at The American Prospect.  First, he put up a smear of Clinton based on no evidence whatsoever and what a surprised it was race-based (about an alleged phone call in LA using a stereotypical African American voice).  Then after getting called on it (and I'm proud to say I was one of many commentators, including some Obama folks, who complained as did the Clinton campaign), he took down his original post and replaced it with a post that essentially said that even though he has no proof that Clinton was behind the calls, it still must be her supporters because he's an expert on Los Angeles politics, citing his standing with the LA Times and LA Weekly.  That's right, he just knows who is behind it because he's trusted to cover politics by the LA Times, a paper that publishes Jonah Goldberg.  With self-aggrandizment and rationalization like that, who needs Joe Klein and Jake Tapper?

Kevin Drum's statement: the ugliness coming out of the Clinton camp over the past couple of weeks, which has turned me off. is made without looking at the ugliness, meanness and nastiness of the Obama camapaign. Talk about throwing darts and drawing the target afterwards.

Interestingly to me in this campaign is the fact that Klein, Drum, Yglesias and others are as bad and as guilty and mediocre as Klein, Broder, Hiatt and others.

Personally, I alarmed at the serious possibility that a con man such as Obama will be president.

Because she's so old, and the Baby Boomers ruined everything. Youth voting is inspiring. Older voters? Ho-hum.

Because she thinks the progressive fights of the 1960s and 1990s are still worth fighting

Because her campaign is focused on energizing Democrats instead of those all-important Independents and repentant Republicans (in case there are any)

Because her husband ran on that awful, triangulating "third way," unlike Obama's awesome triangulating post-partisanship

Because she's too much like a Republican, and not in some undefinable awesome way that appeals to Republicans but is really incredibly progressive

Because she supported the war since the beginning, while Obama was gracious enough to wait until he was in the Senate to support the war

And, before Obamagoobers come out in full swing, Obama stays in first class on the plane and seldom goes back to talk to the press, but when he does, he refuses to go on record with them.

"The problem is that many of the authors seem unaware of how much support Hillary has among women.  Roiphe [one of the writers] declares, 'I have yet to meet a woman who likes Hillary Clinton.'  How, then, to explain the polling that has consistently shown blue collar women have rallied to Clinton's campaign?  ...  So, not all women think the same way.  It's just that some voices are a lot louder than others."

It's kind of like the way I've seen some of my well-educated friends (most of whom had abortions in college) turn anti-choice in later life.  Everything we fought for they are now turning their backs on because they don't feel like they NEED the freedoms anymore.  Title 9, choice, the ERA?  What's it to them?  (I am hoping this will change when their daughters get to be teenagers)

And I suspect that Obama's positioning and rhetoric has helped fan this flame.

Their record is mixed. I voted twice for each of them and now, like an ex-smoker, even the whiff of them makes me sick, but I am not for McCain (who I think may be crazy), Huckabee (who is, and is a dangerous religious nut to boot), nor any of the other Gang of Empty-Headed Billionaires like Romney or the midget mayor of NYC.

I know nothing of Obama except that in the one debate I watched Hillary so badly misrepresented his remarks I had a sudden awakening that she and her husband do say and do anything.

This is a tough election. I know there are people who are enthusiastic for Hillary, but most of the heat and passion and fire and excitement travels with Obama.

According to you people, Obama is some kind of Liebocrat (and therefore like Liebocrat, a fascist, and I DO loathe Lieberman). I think Hillary has, and always has had the nomination wrapped up and I wonder why she and Bill chose to drive away long-time supporters like me. (I guess Toto always gets to the curtain eventually).

It is sad.

I wish you knew me. I would give you my address and phone number. I live in Buffalo, NY, voted for Bill and Hillary twice, saw them both speak many, many times.

I always excused what they did.

I had doubts all along, but the Clinton's were almost always better than their enemies. The murder of Rector was unforgivable. But Clinton had enemies and Democratic candidates cannot afford to be seen as "weak" on crime.

The secrecy surrounding HillaryCare was necessary, supposedly, and when it got shot down (unfairly, I think), the Clinton's retreated on the whole issue. Bill declared "The Era of Big Government is over." Which I guess meant that the corporations were our only hope. Welfare "Reform" punished the poor, yes, but he won his second term on the backs of the poorest, so it was worth it.  Real wages did go up.

He retired to make tons of money, but again, all for a good cause.

Hillary's cowardly vote to go to war was said to be politically smart, because "The Left doesn't matter." She could bask in the reflected glow of Dumbo's triumph.

None of what I say makes Obama a good candidate. But criticizing the Clinton's enemies doesn't make them good either. I wonder if there are many people like me who are sick of them. All defenses of the Clinton's begin with "Others do the same thing..."

The Huffington Post reports that last year Hillary refused to vote to ban "cluster bombs". She is tough on National Security Issues. I guess that makes her our best candidate. Some of you are excited about her and I wonder why.

Big Tent, if you write me an e-mail I will try to prove to you I am a real person. I hope I am a lone crank. Maybe the rest of the liberal and progressive ranks fall in behind her.

And for those who haven't seen it, lambert has endorsed Hillary Clinton.  Yes, hell has frozen over, go out and sin to your heart's content.  From his endorsement:

Now that Edwards is out of the race I find myself, like VastLeft, surprised, even chagrined, to find myself endorsing Hillary. But there it is. I wish this could be something other than a rambling, impressionistic post, but heck: Maybe that's how we all make decisions anyhow.

My bottom line is this:

I feel that I know Hillary. For all her faults, I know her.

I want to entrust the very challenging future of our country to someone I know. Simple as that.

I don't feel that I know Obama, and the more I learn about him, the less I like.

When I think about Hillary, I think of incredible discipline, focus, courage, and endurance in the face of constant, manufactured hatred by the same people and institutions who are also assaulting our Constitutional form of government. Her ability to "work every day" in the face of all that tells me a lot--and maybe all I need to know--about her strength of character.