I don't have the time or the interest in Savage's politics to read the whole debate, but I probably always have doubts about his political astuteness and general principles after that hawkish pro-Iraq War piece years ago. There was such broad support in the media back then for fighting "Islamo-fascists" (a term he used) and the US fulfilling its role of bringing peace and freedom to the benighted Middle East through military means -- and he joined right in. Dissenting voices were denied a real voice in the debate. Many people over there are still paying the price, so this is really not about harboring a grudge.
Dan changed his mind later on, after the worst damage was done, but apparently because Bush didn't go about the war in the right way and the results were unfavorable, not because the invasion was essentially in immoral act of aggression. When Dan thought it was time to go to war, he was full of concern for the people of the Middle East, but since then he's rarely addressed their plight in print.
Being sex positive and pro-threesomes and pot brownies, and never voting for a Republican presidential candidate, is all well and good, but it only shows that he's not a family-values conservative or a stereotypical right-winger. He still seems like a centrist-leaning liberal on most issues, with a lack of insight or substance to many of his views, at least based on what I've read.

Cowardly center-left liberal with rightish tendencies. So, a Democrat.