Roger Simon has some depressing thoughts on press partisanship, and (what he hopes isn't) the coming end of the Enlightenment:

As one who is fundamentally disinterested in whether one is a Democrat or a Republican - or even a liberal or a conservative, since those terms have been reduced to intellectual rubble - I found what Glenn wrote terrifyingly dark. Because even though I don't much care any longer for political parties - they come and go and rename themselves, etc. - I care passionately about the Enlightenment, free speech, separation of church and state, freedom of assembly and the rest of that short but delicate list that makes life decent in the West.

And I agree with the commenters. I don't think that Glenn was saying it was a good argument for electing a Democrat as president--just that it was the best one.

I think it's mostly dead already and have been for some time as the vast majority of people simply couldn't care less and can't connect it to anything that happens. It survives across any labels and boundaries amongst those that think the issues are important on their own and not as social markers of "getting it" or identification. However it seems that makes for a suprisingly tiny minority.

There's a lot more to this and the various possible consequences down the road but I might as well stop there.

It's not a matter of party, it's a matter of foundational world view. That is, if you believe that any flaw makes you as tainted as anyone else, then you're screwed. This is how the news media paints the American soldiers with the same brush as the terrorists. Americans have flaws and make mistakes. So do terrorists. What's the difference?

Glenn is wrong on this one. Electing Hillary or someone of her ilk will just give you two groups in power morally equating the two sides.

The fact that this REALLY IS the best reason is the scariest thing. Western civilization is arguably in real, imminent danger.