Re: Markosgate

Agreed: the Dean-Kos quid pro quo "scandal" is a tempest in a teapot. It seems a bizarre rebuke from the mainstream media in the wake of the revelation that Armstrong Williams was on the take from the Department of Education (!). [Here's the Wall Street Journal story that started the Kos scandal.-ed]

I do have a certain admiration for Kos, but since the implosion of the Dean campaign I've found the blog to be increasingly hard to stomach. DK is at its best when it brings attention to debates and issues that lie just under the surface: glancing at this week's entries, the DNC election, the de-gerrymandering of California and reforming Social Security stand out. It was a must-read during the Democratic primaries.

But Kos is at its liberal, knee-jerk worst on Iraq. Never have I read a positive word on the invasion/occupation/liberation/whatever of Iraq on the site. That is to be expected given the site's politics and its implicit mandate to counterbalance the mainstream. But if the Kossacks are going to accuse other media outlets of being excessively partisan to the point of blindness to the facts, they are in no position to cast the first stone. Criticism is fine, and necessary. But it is clear to me now that Kos, and Kossacks, want to see the Iraq project fail primarily because it is George Bush's doing. They will seize on any piece of bad news from Baghdad and shout hosannas to the sky, because it means another chip of Bush's credibility has been cut away. (I avoid some of the moonbat pro-Bush sites for the opposite reason, of course: I don't care how much you love George Bush, he makes mistakes too.)

The question is, would Dailykos's tune on Iraq be different if Kerry had been elected? Or would it continue to splash the same "can do no right" criticism all over its front page? That the answer isn't clear reveals the problem.