Kos says:
As we strive to find our core convictions, and define who we are and what we stand for as a party, the DLC is one of the roadblocks -- a divisive, fundamentalist organization willing to sell any and all progressive ideals to the altar of big business. And anything that threatens their dominance has met with their ire -- be it Howard Dean, the netroots, or regular people suddenly interested in transforming and reforming the Democratic Party.
And then, next paragraph, Kos says:
Democrats have a choice to make -- stand with the DLC, or stand with the grassroots and netroots of the party. It's interesting that Democrats with a strong sense of self -- those who truly know what they stand for and are unafraid to say so -- are those least interested in the DLC's snake oil.
If you want to blast the DLC for being a divisive organization that lashes out towards those they don't like, then you better be an inclusive organization that respects differences and allows for tents including all sorts of members. Calling the DLC divisive and then pledging to poison the Fruit Loops of any Democratic politicians who happen to associate with the group just makes you look silly.
You may not like Al From -- hell, I don't like Al From -- but Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, Tom Vilsack and all the others can certainly address a DLC meeting without signaling a disrespect for "the netroots". That's what "inclusive" means, that one is willing to work with groups that may naturally be in opposition to each other. It's fine if you don't like that, but then whipping around to attack others for intramovement intolerance looks, well, kinda bad.
