Maybe more ethically challenged, if that is possible.

Your evidence for this seems a might thin at this point.
The problem that lead to the whole ‘culture of corruption’ argument was not just the seemingly scandal a day Republican party of one election cycle past, it was the party response to that corruption (circle the wagons). I think that you are doing a bit of stretching for partisan gain at this point.
The Democratic response to Jefferson was to strip him of power, run a candidate against him in the primary, and give him virtually no support in the general election along with blanket condemnations from most highly placed Democrats. What more should they have done? A public flogging? Egged his house?
Rangel will be investigated and we will see what happens then.
Blago is an idiot and he is getting what he deserves and I see no Dems running to his aid.
Governors typically replace lost Senators, why the sudden distaste for this practice? Why does it stink of corruption and banana republic politics now? Would you expect a Republican governor to forgo Senate seat replacement in favor of a new election? I haven’t seen that happen. In fact recently a Republican governor replaced a lost Democratic senator with a Republican replacement. Did you cry foul then, or did you support that as his right?

Or Harry Reid again, rumored to have been encouraged to intervene to save Al Franken’s failed effort to be elected to a Senate seat in Minnesota. Nice work, Senator Reid – have you considered sending your resume to someone like Robert Mugabe?

Someone is rumored to have asked read to intervene on Franken’s behalf, he has not done so, and so it follows he is like Mugabe. Really? Your going to go with that? That would indicate to me that you are stretching more than a little bit.

Caroline Kennedy is now being promoted as the supposedly logical replacement for Seantor Clinton. Froma Harrop has a nice response, noting that not only is it a case of establishing a hereditary political seat, but it also shafts a hard-working Democratic female candidate who has years of actual government experience, but not the Kennedy name.

Again the typical replacement process in progress and you cry foul. Your evidence, someone else wants the seat too and her supporters think she is better qualified? And the mere possibility of replacing a Clinton with a Kennedy is a case of hereditary rule being imposed on the voters? If Maloney were the front runner you would no doubt be criticizing her and her supporters rather than using them to bolster your argument. In fact I have a felling that no matter the replacement chosen (other than a Republican?) you will find some great fault with the person and the process.

They haven’t even taken office, and they are making some of my liberal colleagues begin to think fondly of a time when we had clean government, and a reasonably effective President. George H. W. Bush was actually the president one of them said she was thinking kindly of.

Somehow I doubt that. Bush has certainly made many on the left think more favorably on his father’s time in office (even Nixon’s time in office), but I doubt that you could find many who would prefer a return to Bush 41 over the not yet in office Obama.

All that said, corruption is endemic to politics, not party and more power breeds more corruption. I think more transparency is on order and have been sorely disappointed with Democrats in congress for not going far enough in their initial legislative attempt at increasing transparency and decreasing allowable gifts. They bowed to senior pols in their midst who were eager to feed at the recently vacated trough and it was shameful. There should be a very public campaign to move forward all of the initially proposed transparency and gifting legislation and those who support and oppose this should be highlighted for all to see and the voters should place this near the top of their list of concerns when it comes time to vote next.

No, particularly not because of the specific corruption charges. Sorry if I was unclear on that point. I don’t see anyone of any political ideology saying that Blago should make the appointment now. I have seen no Democrats support him since the indictment or even offer much support in the period shortly prior. Contrast this with the behavior of the Republican leadership towards it more ethically challenged members during and immediately prior to Dems running against the ‘culture of corruption’.
Reid’s request prior to Blago’s indictment was above board and typical response by the leadership of either party to a vacant Senate seat when the governor is of their party. To imply otherwise, as OB did, is not a supportable assertion.
If Dems were circling the wagons around their ethically challenged members after indictments were handed down (Delay, et al), or especially after they were convicted (Libby et al), then I could see the whole equivalent (or worse) ‘culture of corruption’ charge being attempted. Absent that, I think OB’s case is weak.