I will attempt to address some of the main concerns raised with regards to Kos relationship with Dailykos. The thrust of my response is based on two premises
(1) Kos is the originator/creator of dailykos (2)Dailykos is a movement/event/thing. It is these two premises i will attempt to use in settling the question of Kos relationship with Dailykos.
The first viewpoint on this issue may be construed this way: That this is Kos' blog; dailykos is Kos property by law, by statue, and by precepts, and if you can do whatever you want to your property within boundaries stated by the law; and if voicing any opinion he wants on his blog or shutting down the whole blog itself is well within the purview of the law; well then, Kos can do whatever he wants to/with his blog. Say, Kos becomes a republican by tomorrow, he absolutely has all the right to shutdown Dailykos if he wants to. And Kos is absolutely entitled to become a republican by tomorrow. That is his right. From that reasoning, he can post whatever post he deem appropriate and administrate this blog anyway he wants.
The second viewpoint on this issue may be construed thusly: At the same time this blog is also unquestionably a movement/thing/event, serving a social/political function, should the fact that Dailykos is a movement affects Kos relationship with Dailykos? Essentially, at what point does a movement(Dailykos) becomes greater than the starter or originator(Kos) of the movement?
Is it ethically permissible for a movement/event/thing to transcend the starter or creator of the movement? Even though the event/thing technically may still be within the creator's proprietary rights? The whole of England technically belongs to the Queen, but England has transcended the Queen's proprietary rights to England. Does the same applies here to Kos with regards to Dailykos?
The question now becomes, is it the first or second viewpoint that should prevail?
Firstly, I think to propose that Kos should conduct his relationship towards his blog in a certain way requires resting that proposition on a solid foundation that proves that dailykos(the movement) possess such characteristics that transcend Kos' total, exclusive right to Dailykos. There has to be proofs that this should be the case. In addition, one also needs to show just how these transcendental characteristics that we claim Dailykos possess justify pointedly the specific type of relationship that we want between Kos and Dailykos. The main gist, in my view, is this question:At what point, if any, does a movement transcends the creator/originator's proprietary rights towards the movement?
The protestant movement expanded beyond Luther's own personal right to it or definition of it, Luther adjusted himself to the protestant revolution, assuming the roles bestowed upon him by that revolution. In retrospect this is a good thing. Should Kos adjust himself to the Dailykos movement? There is the man and then there is the movement. However, just because a movement is huge enough to disposes of its creator's proprietary rights does not necessarily justify that disposition. The question has to be asked, does the movement itself deserves the right to dispose of its creator's proprietary rights? Should the creator swim against the current to maintain that right then? Take the case of Marx/Communism for example, if Marx were alive he would have been thoroughly appalled by communism, yet, communism is a spring-child of Marxism. Should Marx then compromises his personal views for the sake of a movement(communism) just because Marx laid the foundation for the movement(Communism)? Should Kos compromises his personal views(as a man writing a blog and assume certain roles) just because he laid the foundation for Dailykos?
Secondly, we need to backpedal and see that the Dailykos movement is not coherent on the role that Kos should play to start with. Some people within Dailykos are for him taking the mantle of diplomatic leadership, while others prefer that he maintain his independent streak. This is crucial, because this shows that a majority consensus has not even been reached within the movement(Dailykos) itself; it is after a majority consensus has been reached, then that the question of what Kos should personally do in response to a majority Dailykos consensus, becomes pertinent. Needless to say, Kos has already taken a position(I just write blogs, that's all), what is the majority position of the movement(Dailykos) on this? After the movement(Dailykos) has reached a majority consensus, the question now becomes, should Kos maintain his position or changes it to fit the movement(Dailykos)? Or should the movement maintains its position or change it to fit Kos?
Granted, sometimes the best thing to do is for someone to assume the mantle of leadership in an inchoate movement and imprint on the movement a form, a direction, a principle, e.g. Martin Luther King jr guidance of the civil rights movement. In this case, it was a good thing. However, this kind of imprinting sometimes lead the movement in an unfortunate path, e.g. Hitler taken over the Nazi party in its early days.
So, what then is the solution in the case of Kos versus Dailykos?
The dailykos movement is similar in many ways to all the examples given(in the sense that it is a political movement), and yet, it is also different(in the sense that it is a blog phenomenon). This is what I mean: Kos can shut down the apparatus of the blogosphere(the blogsite) COMPLETELY, this is something that Martin Luther or Marx or Hitler or Zapatista or George Washington cannot do to the apparatus of their movement. Kos power over the apparatus of Dailykos is supremely totalitarian in the extreme because everything about the apparatus of the movement is his property. If Kos permanently shuts down this site that is the end of Dailykos as we know it.
Now, what if Kos reached a personal conclusion that he should be a republican, is he not entitled to voice his newfound views on his property(Dailykos site) just because the property has become a hotbed of liberalism? He is not morally obligated to keep pretending to support liberalism if he is now a republican, in fact, that will be a disservice to himself and probably for Dailykos. If he has become a republican, he is not morally obligated to support views that are anti-republican; as such, he can say whatever he wants against liberalism.
This is a crucial argument, because a person that GENUINELY believes in the conservative views as being the best for US is not morally obligated to support the positions on the left, or vice versa. Essentially, a person that GENUINELY believes in a position is morally obligated to stand by that position barring serious extenuating circumstances.
Essentially, wherever you are on the political spectrum, you are morally obligated to support your views on that spot on the spectrum until you've change your spot on the spectrum. Then you are now morally obligated to support that new position. A sensible condition where you are entitled to have a point of view but take actions that are different from that views are when the situation sometimes demands it, e.g. a gun to your head(sometimes one should die instead) or you are representing a broad constituency and you have to rotate your public service around to satisfy everyone reasonably otherwise you will be legislating your narrow views for everybody.
But Kos does not have a constituency, and more importantly, does not claim a constituency. The Queen of England has a constituency, and so does Zapatista or Martin Luther King or Hitler. This is what separates Kos from other examples where a creator or important figure in a movement adjusted to fit into the movement. Howard Dean has a constituency; Kos does not. Kos could definitely decide to claim a constituency, that's a choice, not an obligation. He is not really emboldened to us for anything, as such, he doesn't have to fit himself into a mould for anything. This lack of constituency prevents the second view point from being valid with regards to Kos.
Now, if Kos does choose to claim a constituency, and the claimed constituency accept that role, then, he must behave like a person with a constituency. If the movement claims Kos as his constituency, this does not make Kos ethically bound as such, just like if Kos claim the movement as his constituency does not make the movement ethically bound as such.