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.