The ones who are making the most noise, and who end up in the headlines, fall into the category I mentioned. You're welcome to point out exceptions. When was the last time Elizabeth Taylor was in the news? Was it her, or was it Rosie O'Donnell, that almost made it into the MSNBC lineup?

As for Iran, the only reason you are hearing about it from the Democrats and the Left is that Iraq isn't working very well for them any more, and an imaginary war has the advantage that they can believe whatever they want about it.

From Frank Rich: (boldface mine)

When President Bush started making noises about World War III, he only confirmed what has been a Democratic article of faith all year: Between now and Election Day he and Dick Cheney, cheered on by the mob of neocon dead-enders, are going to bomb Iran.

But what happens if President Bush does not bomb Iran? That is good news for the world, but potentially terrible news for the Democrats.

If we do go to war in Iran, the election will indeed be a referendum on the results, which the Republican Party will own no matter whom it nominates for president. But if we don’t, the Democratic standard-bearer will have to take a clear stand on the defining issue of the race. As we saw once again at Tuesday night’s debate, the front-runner, Hillary Clinton, does not have one.

That's the entire worldview, in a nutshell. If Tel Aviv vanished in nuclear fire, the response from these quarters would be "how will this affect the Democratic chances in the next election?"

Again, the only place you are constantly hearing about impending war in Iran is from the Left, and it's been "impending" for well over a year now.