Those who are still upset about Deval Patrick's election last November should realize that things could be worse. After all, it's not as though he won in the 1990s or early-2000s--when media glorification of Patrick would have been far more repellent than it is now.

Remember the ultra-liberal African-American Boston newspaper columnists who were prominent in the 1990s and early-2000s? If Patrick had been governor back then, those columnists would have served as a hyper-obnoxious "amen corner," defending Patrick from any and all criticism, no matter how slight.

Those of us who remember that era look back in horror upon the moonbattery exhibited by those writers. They glorified everything Democrat and demonized everything Republican; they couldn't wait to brand as racist anyone who supported welfare reform, opposed illegal immigration, or questioned the legality of racial quotas.

Had Patrick been running the show during that era, those columnists would have insisted that Patrick could do no wrong--and that anyone who raised questions about his actions was a surreptitious bigot. Democrats who raised objections to Patrick's behavior would have been attacked as being insufficiently progressive.

While one can certainly lament the seemingly blind support Patrick still gets from the progressive blogosphere and certain segments of the mainstream media, rest assured that the backing Patrick now receives isn't nearly as outrageously dogmatic as it would have been in the 1990s and early-2000s, when these hyper-partisan columnists were in their prime. They would have responded to Patrick's critics with fury, anger and hate. With their voices now largely out of the mix, there is hope for reasoned debate.

UPDATE: Left-wing Boston Globe columnist and Patrick cheerleader Eileen McNamara will leave the paper next month. More from Dan Kennedy, Robert Gavin and Jesse Noyes. Also, more on Patrick from Peter Porcupine, the Herald and Globe.

SECOND UPDATE: More from the Herald and the Globe.