I feel queasy saying the words "David Brooks, correct" together but he sure has captured the zeitgeist of the Dem race right now in his column....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/opinio n/06brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slo gin

As much as I am generally well disposed to the concept of both a woman president and an African American president, in as much as these people might bring a needed fresh perspective to how to govern in these confusing times, I am massively disheartened by the fact that Hillary Clinton seems to feel the need to out-macho Obama to win. What a shame to take the idea of a woman president and instead attempt to be even more and bigger of the same, a saber-rattling, elitist-bashing, "I hate egghead economists" Bush lite. Hate to say it that way but this is the kind of primary campaign she has been running since Super Tuesday.

Thoughts?

MyDD has been sounding a little more reasonable after some HATE was purged over the last couple weeks. Knowing their old, blatant tactics won't fly anymore . . . we have been getting many diaries that want us to feel "concerned" about Hillary or Obama in the General Election.

Sorry . . . I think this is the wrong website to try to change anyone's mind. In fact . . . I think it is a waste of time to try to convert almost anyone on the progressive blogosphere. This site is more of a tool we can use to ensure that the reactionary forces (currently embodied in John McCain) are squashed.

Today much press was given to a venture funded by big-money donors of both HRC and Obama. HRC friend Paul Begala will consult with political mercenary David Brock to create a campaign to define John McCain. Much of the seed money for this reported $40,000,000 attack dog will come from Obama-backer George Soros.

Paul Begala

It's interesting to surf the outpourings of opinionaters on the left and right over the past few months and see what they are saying about Clinton. The role of honor includes Kristol, Dowd, Krauthammer, Herbert, Broder, Rich, Will, Noonan, Brooks, Robinson, Corns and Barnes to name but a few. So what's going on here. It can't be issues of policy or competence or they'd be disagreeing violently since they come from opposite ends of the  political spectrum. So if it's not that is it some much more petty and self interested reasons that have nothing to do with Clinton's qualifications for the presidency or the national interest for that matter.

What is it. Spite, jealousy, petty mindedness, misogyny, generating faux controversies, bitterness, alchohol problems, hysteria, any suggestions?

Ironically I think these people are digging their own graves. The decline in the prestige of the pundit classes from forty years ago has been immense. Back in sixties and seventies if a Lippman or a Reston wrote a column people, including politicians, paid attention. I can't think of a single columnist who enjoys that credibility today.

We had a great demonstration of how this media bias against Clinton backfired in NH with buffoons like Matthews having to apologize although he seems to be back to the same old Shtick. But as "journalists" like Dowd and Will further devalue the currency of their own punditry they are surely hastening the demise of the printed newspaper.