What consensus? This is the stuff great debate is made of:
Markos built this site -- and he invited the people who write for the front page -- and you come here to read them -- because of their ideas, and how well they express them. It wasn't wealthy investors or big names that built this site -- it was their writing and your interest in it.
[Trust me: the only thing that having a last name of "Bonin" entitles you to in life is years of puerile name-calling based on the tumescent condition.]
I haven't asked any of them about this -- and for all I know, some of them support Kennedy's bid -- but I suspect that to the extent there's skepticism or even hostility, it's because the whole ethos of this site is meritocracy, and it extends to the blogosphere as a whole. There's nothing inherent in names like "Joshua Micah Marshall" or "Glenn Greenwald" that compels you to read them; you visit their sites because they're good. On the other hand, the Internet is littered with sites and projects backed by big money and big names (remember Unity08?), but which collapsed because of lack of interest.
The Kennedy candidacy, on its face, stands in opposition to this ethos. So far, it has been about leveraging the power of a name into a Senate seat without the effort of a two-year campaign, and without the type of legislative or executive experience that one generally brings to the table before running for the Senate.