More disingenuous BS!

I guess all Hillary Clinton needs are better advisers! Yeah, Mark Warner is known for his principled stance.

What's strange is that he must think people are incredibly stupid. He credits Dean with getting lots of internet money and support. Then says Kerry won because he lent himself money. From numbers at the time, Dean blew everyone away by raising $40 million. Kerry lent himself $6 million. So, Kerry won because of the $6 million. I sort of think the Rassmann reunion was probably worth more than the $6 million - though Kerry needed the money to continue.

What's strange is I think the RW may see Kerry better than Kos. They see that he is anti-war, and hate him for that. They also see that he can reach people, which is why Nixon was against him. They also see that Kerry, who would never say so, may be building the real netroots - the silent netroots who don't throw temper tantrums, but sign his petitions, read his messages and keep informed that way.

what he does is go out to people rather than waiting for people to come to him. (In essense, if you don't click on dailykos.com you don't know anything they have there. But Kerry's emails go to people and he invites people to get involved and to share with friends. And even if you don't donate, you're not excluded or anything.

I'd venture ot say he never really was. He's just a prick who has a stupid vendetta against Kerry and while he fundraises money well. His candidates never win. I just don't like the man, I find him arrogant and I think its a shame that he's the most well knwon liberal blogger. I hate that the htinks he speaks for every single Democratic activist.

I thought Kerry was bringing in the dough for him every time he posts there at Kos.

was very nasty towards Kerry becasue he had the nerve to beat Howard Dean in the 2004 Primaries. I just don't like the man aside from his irrational hatred of Kerry.

that. What he actually knows about getting elected and real politicking could fill a thimble. Let him keep on misstating Kerry's positions, most astute people can see right though him and it helps Kerry get additional supporters.
No offense to Warner supports, but he isn't exactly the type to call out the President or give a passionate speech on patriotism and dissent. He is middle of the road and careful not to be bold in what he says. He is also DLC which isn't to keen on the net roots and as part of the DLC that makes him an insider.

Warner's fine but I understand what you're trying to say. If Markos like his buddy Jerome Armstrong supports Warner and Kerry also runs, and Kos attacks Kerry for not being liberal enough then it's going to be even more official what we already know htat Markos is a hypocritical asshole. Nah what Markos knows about electing and politaking can fill an electron. Sorry I am being a geekazoid point is that this guy is a hack who is what he claims to hate.

Electrons are even smaller than atoms. Either way we're on the same page regarding Kos I think he's a moron.

On the one hand he is saying that the reason Sen. Clinton can't be 'the one' is because her personality is hidden and she is being robotized by her evil bunch of minions/overlords into saying nothing and doing nothing that rocks the boat. Yet, as remedy, Markos picks two people who are sort of opposites of what he is saying. One, the able and talented Gov. Warner is specifically talking to people as a 'third-way' candidate who doesn't want to really rock the boat and would run as a sort of Clinton-esque candidate. The other candidate, Sen. Feingold has staked out a very liberal position and has started down the 'lone wolf' path that doesn't seem to have much to do with what Gov Warner is doing at all.

I am confused. Does ideology matter to Kos or not? He seems to fundamentally believe that all candidates are the same, except for the ones that he likes, only he likes them for their feistiness and personality, only they have to stand for something, unless they don't and can just win. Then all it's okay. Because the elusive and definable only to Kos 'netroots' will magically congeal around that candidate who manages to sound like they have ideology but really would chuck it all to wind up in the winner's circle. Bravo, Mr or Ms. Democrat, you have found the key. Be all things to all people, be a strong and definable Democrat and no matter what happens, if you lose, it's because you failed to engage the 'netroots' because you were both too liberal and too wooden and too mushy and you were, btw, an insider and DLC. (Which Kos actually likes because taking strong stands that involve 'the netroots' means never having to say, I have consistently believed in something.' Kos is a centrist who hates centrists and a liberal who hates liberals. How can he be both? He is Kos, the great and powerful.)

WTF?

Kos has met the enemy and he is, ahm, him. Nothing matters or is consistent in KosWorld. Feingold is not the same as Warner. You can't take a strong stand by firmly planting yourself on the middle of the fence. What the hell does Kos want, other than to finally back a winner. (Isn't he like -18 or something?) What a muddled mess of nothingness. He is exactly what he cries against and is an empty suit to boot.

This is other than his crappy demeanor why I don't like him. I don't think ideology matters to him at all to answer your question. I think Markos loves rhetoric which explains why he liked Dean so much in 2004 even though Dean is considerably more centrist than Kerry though his rhetoric of anger with Bush appealed to Kos and his Kossacks. Now that on the flip side is why I prefered Kerry strongly to Dean since I felt Kerry ran a much more positive campaign than Dean and he is the more liberal of the two.

You can like one or the other but not both. From left to right, here is how I see it:

Really left: Feingold
Traditional liberal: Kerry
Conservative turned more liberal: Gore
Populist although with a rather conservative Senate record: Edwards
Traditional conservative fed up with the neocons -- now has more solidly liberal positions: Wes Clark
Clintonesque triangulator: (surprise!) Hillary Clinton
Centrist: Mark Warner

I think we should judge more by actions than words; on that account, the only two real live liberals in the bunch are Feingold and Kerry. The others may have moved to the left, but, for example, Gore and Edwards do have rather conservative records both in the Senate and for Gore as VP. (Not sure about Wes Clark since he doesn't have a voting record).

So Kos likes Feingold and Warner. Note who's MOST liberal and who's MOST conservative. Sorry, that's nuts. Obviously, he is basing his views on personality and style. What an idiot.

I think you all know that I'm a moderate, but I also look at "resume action". For me that counts out Edwards and Clark. At this point, Gore isn't running, so I suppose he's a wild card. But if I had to write an opinion piece, I would only mention 3 names:

Kerry, Warner, and Hillary

Warner gets high marks from me because he went in as a governor with obviously NO political experience, and cleaned up our state while brilliantly dividing Republicans in the Assembly in a very red state. And Hillary has a ton of experience, and is extremely smart. Kerry sits way above either due to his unmatched Senate record of sticking up for the little guy over the powerful and his foreign policy credentials. He's also had a record of fiscal discipline, a moderate position that is important to me. And, yes, character does count.

I would like to see how Kos has counted out Gore, Kerry, Edwards, and Clark, while mentioning literally two COMPLETELY different poles of the Democratic party. Oh -- now I see it -- they're all OLD, and he only likes new faces. But given his history of being a Republican, then a greenie, then a Deaniac Democrat, obviously, he never knows WHAT he thinks from one day to the next. I'll compliment him on the layout of his site (I like the commenting feature they just rolled out), and I like Georgia10, but Kos should stick with the technology because his opinionating is just as stupid as the Beltway Pundits he criticizes.

I cannot stand him. Look at his bio, he is no better than any of us here. He has the main following of Deaniacs (many of the extreme ones). He flip flops so much it is pathetic, but his followers, think he is the supreme being of politics. (HOGWASH) Maybe some day they will wake up to his egotistical mentality, but I doubt it.

I'm sorry but I have never seen a reason to even believe anything he says. I think Skinner, Earl and Elad deserve much more credit for this site than the little twerp Kos. They do not put down any democrat and if they are wrong on something, they admit it immediately (Skinner-and his poll for speaking to quickly on Patrick Kennedy), to me that is honesty and the willingness to admit, that you are not always right in your opinion, but you own up to it. Kos would never do that. I despise him, to me he is a loser who happened to cash in on Dean, and guess what he helped make Dean a loser too.

On edit I forgot to fill in the blank: Kos is a disingenuous little prick.

About 9,500 copies Kos' book have been sold as of April 27:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/27/155215/395

Currently, it's #32 in politics (#427 in books) on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/new-for-you/top-sellers/-/books/11079/books/0/ref=pd_ts_b_nav/102-9208350-2981702?ts-parent-id=53


Compare:

Hostile Takeover by David Sirota is #33 in politics (#489 in books)

Why does he have such a following?

I really don't understand it - why he gets more attention than others - than
Randi or Keith?

What is the attraction to KOS? He gets quoted a little bit too much.

And the truth is, it really doesn't matter what he says. He does not have a magic ball
He has no idea how people will vote in 08!

Kerry is getting alot of attention, more than Warner and Feingold, and more than Hillary.
Wake up KOS!

End of debate.

:-)

I like your style. "end of debate"!