Yesterday, the Washington Post published an opinion piece by ubiquitous lefty political blogger Markos “Kos” Moulitsas attacking Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her prospects for winning the presidency in 2008.
According to Moulitsas, Clinton suffers from a wide range of problems. She relies too much on her husband’s old political advisors. She has no big ideas. She’s too much of a Washington insider. She hasn’t learned the all-important lessons of the all-important Howard Dean. She fails to recognize the ultra-supremacy of liberal Internet opinion makers such as the author himself. And she totally isn’t doing well in the recent straw polls sponsored by the author’s Web site. In other words, unelectable!
“Hillary Clinton has a few problems if she wants to secure the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination,” writes Moulitsas. “She is a leader who fails to lead. She does not appear ‘electable.’ But most of all, Hillary has a Bill Clinton problem. (And no, it’s not about that.)”
In printing that bill of particulars, Moulitsas instantly created his own Clinton problem — as all day yesterday and on into today his fellow liberal bloggers took turns pile-driving Moulitsas to the mat, while conservatives looked on in glee.
“Get real, Markos,” writes HeadlineUpdate. “Just because Hillary doesn’t have a Web site doesn’t mean she won’t attend to your precious netroots. Besides, how many people are really tuning into John Edwards’ podcasts or Mark Warner’s blog?”
“Is Markos Moulitsas a mole for the Hillary Clinton primary campaign?” writes the RCP Blog. “I have to ask on account of this piece on the Washington Post op-ed page today. Because, you see, the surest way to guarantee a candidate’s election is to put them on the side opposite the Kos Krowd.”
“Kos suffers from the typical ideologue’s delusion: My party loses when it doesn’t do enough of what I want,” adds the RCP Blog. “It’s a tempting delusion, found on both the Left and the Right, for sure.”
“The Daily Kos relentlessly continues to severely damage the Democratic Party establishment,” writes the right wing’s Flares into Darkness. “He still believes Howard Dean to be a centrist candidate!”
“A cynic with a sense of humor must wonder if Karl Rove is bribing the Daily Kos,” adds Flares into Darkness. “Are they possibly the best of buddies? Markos Moulitsas and his radical friends cannot be effectively marginalized. This is virtually impossible in the age of the Internet. The young man can easily raise enough money to remain a serious player. This is great news for the Republicans. With enemies like the Daily Kos, who need any friends?”
Indeed, conservative bloggers were having just as much fun as their liberal colleagues dropkicking Kos’ column through the goalposts of the blogosphere.
“All of this makes Hillary Clinton problematic to Kingmaker Kos,” writes Power Line. “An unerring judge of horseflesh, he allows that Hillary ‘is one of the warmest politicians I have ever met.’ But she’s only a rumor when it comes to the Daily Kos straw polls. Worse, she accepts the counsel of losers like James Carville and Mark Penn, who have no credibility because Bill Clinton never cleared 50 percent in his two three-candidate presidential elections. Better that Hillary should listen to Kos who foresaw that Howard Dean would sweep past Joe Lieberman in the 2004 Democratic also-ran sweepstakes.”
“Message to Hillary,” adds Power Line, “please listen to Kos.”




Kos Pummels Hillary; Left & Right (and Felix Gillete) Pummel Kos
I gather you couldnt help yourself when you wrote the snarky smary sentence: "She fails to recognize the ultra-supremacy of liberal Internet opinion makers such as the author himself."
Actually I think this column generally suffers from the author just doing the he said she said bit and listing the comments, but adding conclusory opinionated snark doesnt help much either.
Why not try highlighting what he actually said with actual quotes rather then just adding to the dismisive rhetoric with such smary conclusory hyperbolic rhetoric that adds more heat than light.
Do you really think its fair to characaterize his comment as saying his website represents ultra supremacy or does your hyperbole actually add something to the disscussion of the issues?
Why not try a factual critique the actual content without the rhetorical fireworks and helping to set up a straw man to pummel? There is plenty of hyperbole and making of strawmen out in the blogosphere already, we dont need CJR Daily to pile on.
Posted by Catch22 on Tue 9 May 2006 at 12:06 PM
We who live in Vermont KNOW that Howard Dean is a "centrist." Who's this guy trying to kid? If you want to get a Vermont Democratic laughing, just use "Howard Dean" and "left" in the same sentence!
Posted by Linda in VT on Tue 9 May 2006 at 04:37 PM
What evidence does Felix Gillette cite to justify his conclusion that the “Left & Right Pummel Kos”? He cites four blogs. Since I was only familiar with one, Powerline, which is clearly “Right” I surfed-up the other three.
The RCP blog says they sample a spectrum on opinion ranging from “The New York Times, FOX News, CNN, The Economist, Investor’s Business Daily, The Chicago Sun-Times and many, many more.” That’s a Right to Centrist selection. Add to this the RCP readership poll of G.W. Bush’s job approval which cites that 39.8% of its readers think this President is doing fine and it is fair to conclude that RCP’s readership is Right of the general population. Therefore, the RCP blog is a Right of center site and Not Left.
Next, there’s HeadlineUpdate blog which I found harder place. I looked around the site and it seems (I’m guessing now) that the author is a centrist Democrat –– that is to say a New Democrat in the Clinton-Triangulation mode. In any case, HeadlineUpdate blog is Not Left.
Finally, there is the blog which CJR author Gillette cites as “the right wing's Flares into Darkness.”
In sum, we are presented with: two Right wing blogs; one Right to Center blog; and one Centrist Democratic (wherein Hilary dwells) blog. Does this prove the case that the ““Left & Right Pummel Kos”? No. Case dismissed for lack of evidence.
Posted by CliffsVoice on Wed 10 May 2006 at 11:34 AM