Isn't it better to argue the content than ad hominem the source?

The content is also garbage (I read this a few days ago). They collected examples of the wackiest, most tortured language that they could (phrases like 'birthing person') and ascribed them to Democrats in general as if the party had some sort of crisis of cognition. The truth is that ivory-tower euphemisms like this are not common political currency, but ham-fisted attempts at communication by individuals or tiny groups with little or no political capital.

Tabloid trash publications like the NY Post are not honest messengers, but rather seek to amplify things like this using synecdoche to suggest that they're representative of the median Democrat. If the poster above wanted to showcase the underlying ideas, they could have just linked to the Third way website and paraphrased their argument directly, but instead they decided to share the gutter press version. I discount tabloid newspapers the same way I discount left-leaning outlets like Democracy Now! or Truthout - they might be right some of the time but the general level of bias outweighs their utility as providers of factual information, which is readily available from less biased sources.

Hold on I will have an LLM write a 40-page rebuttal and when you don't read it I'll accuse you of ad homineming the AI.

That source lost its right to the benefit of the doubt long ago.