With nearly one full page of the five in the online story glorifying "Bush Derangement Syndrome" type comments on blogs, did they really do the left any favors with this article?
The fact is these folks have become the loudest voice of the left and the Democrats, but also the one that costs them the most. It was reported a few weeks ago that Kos backed candidates were 0-17 in elections since 2003, to which they retorted 2 had won. Okay, 2-17, is that the group you want speaking for your movement and for your party?
One of the reasons I only occasionally quote or link to Michelle Malkin is that she, to me, is the right's version of Kos as often as not. Hysteria from either side of an arguement doesn't advance anything. Both MM and Kos have occaisonal good articles up, but they often get drown out by some of the more hysterical charges and emotional writings.
The Post would have done much better to find some rational left wing bloggers to write about, instead of a lady who seems to make irrational seem like a virtue. From a conservative perspective I love their choice; the more folks see Maryscott O'Connor and her group as the left, the more elections the left will lose. From a purely American standpoint, I dislike it, I'd rather have a logic discourse on the country, than argue with raging moonbats.
Don't Go Into The Light has more on this, Reihl World View has an excellent take also. Pirates Cove chimes in with Beyond Moonbat Exposed, Gun Toting Liberal isn't a happy camper over this article.
Update 4/16: I found the link to Maryscott O'Connor's own take on the article in WaPo this morning. Her, and her readers found it a very complimentary story other than the picture.
Technorati Tags: politics elections, moonbats, Daily Kos, Michelle Malkin, George Bush,bloggers