To be sure, not everyone is happy about the Clinton pick. Many bloggers at the liberal Daily Kos Web site have been venting frustration, decrying her campaign attacks on Obama and her repeated defense of her Iraq war vote.

Eh, come again?

Granted, many people at Daily Kos are not happy about the Clinton pick. Many Daily Kos users are extremely happy with it, as well. Indeed, here's what some of the editors have had to say about the choice. From DemFromCT:

I think she'd make a terrific Secretary of State, but I'm getting tired of the ink wasted on whether she will or won't. The public really doesn't care, and wants to get on with it. But fact-checking and learning about the issues (this is your chance to study up, reporters) is hard, and it's so much easier to talk about the Clintons.

From Scout Finch:

Hillary Clinton as SoS is a win-win. And given the fact Obama has repeatedly talked of admiring Lincoln's ability to bring even his most bitter rivals into his administration, it makes perfect sense.

From Markos, quoting Michael Hirsh:

Seriously. "Ablaze"? The blogosphere has been ablaze on the idiotic Lieberman decision. The Clinton thing has been a mere afterthought.

From myself:

Personally, I think she'd be an outstanding choice, but then, I've always liked her

So contrary to the narrative that Fouhy would like to push, the front page, at least, has been either supportive of the pick, or not overly concerned with it.

Which begs the question - in their assertion that "Daily Kos bloggers" are overly hostile to the Clinton pick, did anyone actually bother, you know, asking the guy whose name is atop the site what he thought about it?

No, they didn't, because if they had, and they'd gotten a direct quote from Markos, they would have used it. They used direct quotes from David Axelrod, Michel Gerson, and Wesley Clark. But maybe they don't think that Kos himself speaks for Daily Kos.

So who exactly are these "many bloggers" Beth Fouhy has in mind? It's awfully hard to tell...because she doesn't actually quote any diary or any blogger, just uses the weasel word "many bloggers".

Given that everything on Daily Kos is public, I'd like for Beth Fouhy and the AP to source exactly who and what they're referring to. Because while we have a number of users who are opposed to the Clinton selection, the only people who represent the site are Markos and the other editors. It's fine for them to quote diaries, of course, but they're at least tasked with actually sourcing them.

And as such, to use Daily Kos as a case study for opposition to the Clinton pick is extremely sloppy, inaccurate and misleading journalism - especially unsourced, as it is.

I'm inclined to agree with Kos and DemFromCT on this one - the traditional media has a far worse case of Clinton Obsession and Clinton Derangement Syndrome than most bloggers do, and now Fouhy and company are apparently trying to transfer their guilt onto us.

Here's Jeff Jacoby:

If black voters overwhelmingly reject the claim that marriage amendments like Proposition 8 are nothing more than bigotry-fueled assaults on civil rights, perhaps it is because they know only too well what real bigotry looks like. Perhaps it is because they resent the assertion that adhering to the ageless meaning of marriage is tantamount to supporting the pervasive humiliation and cruelty of Jim Crow. Perhaps it is because they are not impressed by strident condemnations of "intolerance" and "hate" by people who traffic in rank anti-Mormon hatemongering.

Or perhaps it is because they understand that a fundamental gulf separates the civil rights movement from the demand for same-sex marriage. One was a fight for genuine equality, for the right of black Americans to live on the same terms, and under the same restrictions, as whites. The other is a demand to change the terms on which marriage has always been available by giving it a meaning it has never before had. That isn't civil rights - and playing the race card doesn't change that fact.

And here is the same point from Matt Barber, who explains it all in the reasonable and classy manner we've all come to expect from him:

For decades now, well-organized, well-funded and highly influential "gay" political pressure groups have, with impertinence, hijacked the language of the authentic civil rights movement. In what amounts to a sort of soft racism, self-styled "queers" have disingenuously and ignobly hitched their lil' lavender wagons to a movement which, by contrast, is built upon the genuine and noble precepts of racial equality and humanitarian justice.

An illegitimate offspring of the '60s sexual revolution, the newfangled "gay rights" cult is today's postmodern, sex-centric cause célèbre. Its core tenets include, among other things, mandated moral relativism, social androgyny and forced acceptance of a pleasure-based, though demonstrably destructive, lifestyle. Apart from practitioners of "the sin that dare not speak its name," its devotees are in large part institutional fringe elitists confined to blue-state America who almost universally suffer the insufferable pangs of white guilt.

Like an addict jonesing for a hit, they long for that rush of self-righteous affirmation associated with belonging to something perceived as larger than themselves. Central to the movement's success is the ability to draft adherents who are easily manipulated through superficial slogans, appeals to emotion via anecdotal parades of horribles, and a mindless propensity to conform to nonconformity.

By drawing artificial parallels between the systematic persecution experienced by blacks over centuries past to the inherent aversion most have toward biologically unnatural, traditionally immoral and objectively perverse sexual behaviors, the homosexual lobby trivializes and diminishes the African-American struggle for civil rights. It's dishonest and offensive for people who choose to define their identity based upon aberrant sexual proclivities to compare sexual temptation and volitional sexual conduct to immutable and innocuous biological traits such as skin color ... Understandably, blacks want all this nonsense to stop.

Of course, the real explanation is a bit more complex, but if you are looking for an explanation that is simplistic and insulting, well, there you have it.