Based on those experiences, I'm genuinely amazed at how -- overnight -- she's been transformed in conventional wisdom, largely as a result of Rosen's piece, into a stupid, shrill, out-of-her-depth Puerto Rican woman who is being considered for the Supreme Court solely due to anti-merit, affirmative action reasons. The New Republic thus fulfills its principal function in life: to allow the Right to spout any sort of invective and bile and justify it by reciting the "even-the-liberal-New-Republic-agrees" defense.
In the last 24 hours alone, Rosen's article has been used by three different National Review writers -- who, I'd be willing to bet lots of money, know virtually nothing about Sotomayor -- to declare her to be "dumb and obnoxious." That's a phrase they've revelled in repeating three times now (and counting), culminating with this: "I'm sure Mark H. is right about Sotomayor's being dumb and obnoxious, just as Derb is right about her being female and Hispanic is all the [sic] matters." The amazing speed with which so many people who know absolutely nothing about her are willing, indeed eager, to assume that she's stupid and doesn't deserve her achievements -- based on the fact that she's Puerto Rican and female and Rosen published some trashy, unaccountable gossip feeding that perception -- is really remarkable.
Greenwald then goes on to recount his personal experience with Sotomayor, which is both fairer, more credible, and more useful than any of the unsourced gossip that Rosen regurgitated in his column.
UPDATE: Via Local Crank, here's an endorsement of Sotomayor by Joe Conason.
UPDATE II: Another couple of interesting links. First, Adam Serwer at TAPPED on Rosen's particular issue with non-white, non-male SCOTUS nominees. And M. LeBlanc on how, strangely, the sorts of assertions that Rosen prints about Sotomayor are never made about white, male judges.