By Ezra
To follow-up on Shakes' terrific comments below, the Washington Post on the white-hot fury of contemporary liberals article suffers from a surprising aimlessness, given the number of directions you could take that story. I'm all for an impressionistic article on My Left Wing's Maryscott O'Connor, but this one dots the canvas without ever coalescing into a picture. Is the anger good? Is it truly new, or merely the inevitable result of easily accessible forums in which impassioned citizens can publicly vent? O'Connor mentions how connected she feels -- isn't that worth exploring?
Sigh. I'm not an angry guy; it's a temperament thing. EJ Dionne once wrote that he had the views of liberal and the personality of a moderate, and I think that's pretty apt on my end too. But I'm a social guy and I know a lot of people. Always have. Quite a few of them are angry. But it wasn't until recently that such souls could shout into blogs. So what's really changed here? The medium, the message, or both? And is the left really any angrier than the outrage-o-matic that is Michelle Malkin, or the bubbling pit of venom and bile that is Little Green Footballs? Those are the interesting questions, but this article didn't answer, or even address, them.
