In all candor, Kos calling the DLC “a bunch of cranks” was the closest I’ve ever come to liking him and the first insight I’ve had into why someone on the left might prefer the nutroots over the centrists. Every time I see Harold Ford or Shillary on Fox taking a very meek, politic, inoffensive line about the filthy left, it makes them look that much more feeble and hesitant by comparison. It’s all carefully tactical on their part, of course: there’s no sense antagonizing the liberals lest it provoke an intraparty schism that ends up hurting Hillary’s chances in the general election, especially when they’re confident they’ll win if, as expected, she’s the nominee and tacks back towards the right for the general next year. But I wonder how young uncommitted Democrats, presented with the two options, will come down. It’s strong horse/weak horse all over again: Kos, who at least has the stones to call his opponents cranks, versus the mealy-mouthed establishment centrists who tremble at the thought of offending the far left’s angry bottom-feeders. They look, and sound, scared. The DLC thinks it’s going to have the last laugh when Hillary’s elected, but if she tries to govern from the center the nutroots is going to make more trouble for her than righty bloggers ever could. And she’ll deserve it. Which brings us to the clip — here’s Joe Klein, nutroots hate object, hinting at what a bad idea it is for the Democratic presidential field to go kissing Kos’s ass. Enjoy it; you won’t hear it from the Democratic side of the Monday night Michelle/Kirsten segment on O’Reilly.

Speaking of kowtowing to the nutroots, Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson school of public affairs and potential future secretary of state, is posting at TPM. Quote:

Here is my nightmare. The Cheneyites succeed in creating a situation in which Bush does decide to bomb Iran. Iran retaliates, as they openly threaten to do, with terrorist attacks against us on U.S. soil. That tilts the election. I can imagine a Karl Rove political calculation that would buttress a Cheney-Addington national security calculation, probably with Eliot Abrams’ support.

This scenario is one that any Democrat, of any type, and any moderate Republican (I know, I know, they don’t exist. But explain to me then how the Salazar-Alexander amendment got 10 co-sponsors in the Senate, and Lugar and Warner offered their own version) should be taking seriously and fighting against.

Her nightmare in the event of a U.S.-Iran war replete with terrorist attacks is that it might tilt the election? And incidentally, given that I’ve opposed the attack scenario myself, does that make HA a “moderate Republican” website? I’ve always thought it is but I suspect the left would impolitely disagree.

Exit question: Are the nutroots a paper tiger?