I don't care (but boy when I do...)

Dean Barnett makes some interesting observations on the Kos phenomenon.

He's shrewd, he's angry and apathetic all at once:

Number one, he’s a shrewd guy. Number two, he’s all about the politics of any and every situation. His book candidly acknowledges that he himself is agnostic on most every issue. The only unbreakable rule in his political canon is that he hates his opponent. And number three is that while he may be the owner of the Daily Kos and the chap that the community is named for, he doesn’t control it. Believe me, he wishes he could.

Such are not earthshattering observations if you've watched things in Kos-land at all. His 2004 indignant outburst about the killing of American contractors in Fallujah was only the first of a number of such bursts of anger and bitterness.

But where does it come from when he's a self-admitted 'agnostic' on most issues? Does he really have anything to contribute or is it all anger, all the time? Based on his record in candidate endorsements and political prognostications, I do tend to think he's a one-trick pony.

Barnett goes on to discuss Kos' non-reaction reaction to Hugo Chavez's comments this week at the UN. The post just oozes apathy:

I just got a call from an MSNBC booker. She wanted to know if I wanted to go on the air to talk about Hugo Chavez. Apparently, he went off on some rant at the UN.
I said, "Why would I? Who cares about Hugo Chavez?"

The booker said, "well, it's all over talk radio and the blogs." Talk radio, of course, being Rush Limbaugh and company. The blogs, of course, being the wingnutosphere, happily promoting the latest Horrible Dictator Who Says Mean Things About Bush (unlike the ones in the Middle East, Uzbekistan, and Pakistan who are our "allies").

I said, "Well, this is a stupid topic. It means nothing. I am focused on things that actually matter to us."

Dean posits (if I read it correctly) that the reaction is calculated: Given his position, that’s the best he can do. I bet he would like to say something like, “We on the left condemn the rhetoric of Hugo Chavez. Politics ends at the ocean’s edge, and our country stands behind our Commander in Chief.” That would be good politics, which explains why Nancy Pelosi tried to clumsily execute just such a gambit yesterday.

But Markos can’t do any such thing, because he knows his community would turn on him as surely as it turned on the reliably rabid partisan Charlie Rangel. The best he can do is opt not to play, and even offer a little consolation to the peanut gallery by saying, “P.S. Memo to Chuck Rangel -- if you don't like world leaders saying mean things about the United States in your congressional district, then perhaps it's time to move the United Nations somewhere where people aren't such wilting flowers.”

Essentially, the Daily Kos has become something so big, so unwieldy that it now has a life of it's own. One that not even it's creator has the power to control anymore. I suppose one could argue that he's become a victim of his own success.

A reader responded to Dean's post with a not so flattering analogy: "Kos is in danger of being outflanked, of losing control like a latter-day Danton in the face of a chattering army of keyboard Robespierres. At least he risks only metaphorical beheading."

It's become kind of a theme around here lately, but Kos is no different than some other folks on the left and even ostensibly the right who find themselves reaping the consequences of their excess.