I will start by saying that a quality debate is present here in this exchange, but it could be better. The argument we are having is essentially what defines modern-day liberalism, and more, what direction the Democrats Party should go.
However, since we start with the premise of defending/attacking specific publications -- Kos, and TNR -- we are each intrinsically linked with them and with them all of their flaws. We are defending publications rather than ideas. I would sooner start with the debate: what is the face of liberalism and the Democratic Party today? And then use Kos and TNR when applicable to illustrate a point.
Still, there are points I would like to address.
"While this crowd complains every four years that there is no choice on the ballot, the rest of us can take comfort in the fact that America will never elect a leader that's acceptable to the Kos lefties."
The Kos lefties are, by-in-large, mainstream Democrats who want to elect mainstream Democrats. Their latest straw polls for 2008 lists their picks for President in 2008. Pat, please tell me how each of these people, the top five, are too leftist for normal Democrats.
Russ Feingold: Was the only Democrat not to vote against a motion for impeachment on Pres. Clinton; voted to confirm John Ashcroft in 2000; allied with McCain on campaign finance reform
Wesley Clark: A retired four-star general in the U.S. Army; The Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO; commanded Operation Allied Force in the Kosovo War.
John Edwards: Opposed Gay Marriage, voted for the War in Iraq and The Patriot Act.
Tom Warner Considered a DLC-style "New Democrat."
Hillary Clinton: Flag burning; the War in Iraq refusal to go back on vote; proponent of triangulation.
Is this is new leftist revolution of our generation than everyone -- the left and the right -- are in some serious trouble.
As far as commenting on silence? Pat, as a writer I assume you will agree that there are more things to write about than there are hours in the day. And if my hyperbole is delicious, it may well be because it rings true. We are in the middle of an illegal war that kills thousands of innocent people. That you dismiss this as hyperbole shows a lot about the direction you want to take the debate in this country.
Consider this sentence: Pat your silence on the issue of torture says a lot about the type of conversation you want to have.
Is that fair?
Would it be fair for me to take a shot at, say, Andrew Sullivan, because he has not discussed sweat shops? Would it be fair to attack Josh Marshall for not writing enough about labor unions, or The Drug War. We are guilty to some extent of not writing about important issues.
You mention how the left attacks the mainstream media for important omissions, which is true. But the mainstream media is supposed to be objective and supposed to cover important topics. Blogs have no such responsibilities.
If I decide to waste a blog post on cats who use computers I can -- because this is a blog -- and we are afforded some personal preference to topics. Bloggers, Pat and I included, are not obligated to pay attention to all topics, nor should we be.
Moving on, Pat writes:
"What constitutes a true liberal in the minds of the Kos crowd? Feverent, red-faced hatred for conservativism (all the while chastising Bush and Rove for being divisive), criticism of Israel, isolationist military policy and opposition to globalization policies. While this crowd complains every four years that there is no choice on the ballot, the rest of us can take comfort in the fact that America will never elect a leader that's acceptable to the Kos lefties. "
Criticism of Israel need not be included on your list, and I am curious as to your motive of doing so. Every member of the Democratic Party -- and in turn, most of the Kos community -- says nothing on this issue other than: Israel has a right to defend itself. Kos specifically jumped away from the conversation when Israel invaded Lebanon.
If we want to lament bloggers for not writing about an issue enough -- this would be a great place to start.
It is also real clever to take "anti-war" and lump it with isolationism. It is not isolationism to only want to attack countries that attack us first -- that is called international law and common sense.