I just read Jeffrey Rosen's response to his critics and am surprised that even now he is unable to name any of his sources in defense of their comments.

I'm not saying that Rosen should revoke his commitment to keep the sources anonymous -that always seems to be the one ethical line mediocre journalists absolutely won't cross- rather I'm surprised that none of his sources have volunteered to come forward and support their comments on the record.

The only defensible reason those sources could have for their criticisms of Judge Sotomayor is that they fear for American jurisprudence should someone with the inadequate intelligence or temperament they attribute to her get on the Supreme Court.

You would think that at least one of them would come forward and expand on their concerns -not in defense of Jeffrey Rosen's journalism- but in defense of their position on Sotomayor. They are being loudly contradicted by many commenters and people with direct experience of Judge Sotomayor's professional qualifications. If they took their own arguments seriously wouldn't they be eager to respond on the record and justify their opinions?

That to me is the proof of the pudding that the anonymous sources are not particularly serious in their critiques and that their motives are not to protect the quality and integrity of the Supreme Court so much as to fire the shot across the bow that divisive and arbitrary identity politics are not dead yet.

Excellent post Joan.

It was precisely my fear that Hillary Clinton was too close to the -can't beat 'em so I joined 'em- Democrats that first led me to support Obama (and our only spat Joan). I have been worried ever since he clinched the nomination that Obama was going to shuffle over to the establishment and leave us crazy idealists who pay our taxes and stuff behind. I'd like to believe that Daschle withdrew himself from the HHS nomination with a little input from Obama. Only time will tell.

Meantime, thank you for your critique of today's David Brooks column. He is one of those idiot savants the right wing is so good at producing. Too smart to believe the nonsense he spews but too stupid to leave the movement.

And you're right, Maureen Dowd is just a slightly more clever member of the same species.

I can muster no sympathy for Palin whatsoever. Sarah Palin displays no respect for the job of vice president. Her refusal to display any self doubt in the face of her clear inadequacies on merit leaves me to conclude that she believes being vice president is exactly as serious as being a beauty queen. That is a clear display of contempt for the job and for the masses of people who she would affect in that role.

But what I find most galling is how she is so comfortable dismissing Barack Obama. What gives her the right to so snidely attack Obama who, whatever you think of his experience and political positions, has demonstrated himself to be a serious and thoughtful man who cares deeply about his country. To see Sarah Palin lick her finger and wave it in the air as she disparages Obama for following the political winds makes me want to spit out my teeth.

Sarah Palin is the absolute distillate of all of the hypocrisy and identity politics of the Republican movement that has destroyed this country's standing in the world, and now its economy too.