I am hardly the personification of the Angry Left as described in MSOC's infamous WaPo article. I don't swear in my writing, I don't lash out, I don't say "Darth Cheney", and I'm more opt to tell you to work on a campaign or donate some money than to tell you how pissed at the world I am.
But I reserve the right to be frankly offended at how a piece by the Washington Post can be turned into a pile-on of Maryscott O'Connor by those who resent her name-brand, her rhetoric, and represent the otherside of the spectrum when it comes to the liberal blogosphere. You're not going to save the blogosphere for the respectable world by shutting up the underlying rage that, let's face, is a part of being a Democrat these days.
The rage is there. It will be personified. It is a part of this community, and it has not hindered our growth or relevance in the slightest, and I refuse to take part in the typical Democratic practice of punishing those who are successful.
So Senate staffers think you're kooks? I can't disagree with that. Hell, I thought y'all were kooks until I signed on, mostly in an effort to see just how kookish you were. Then I lurked for a bit because well, it was interesting and attractive and the content was funny and refreshing and honestly, some of the comments were a lark,....and then I just had to respond to this one post, so I got an account, and before I knew it I became wrapped up in the community.
I bet an awful lot of you have similar stories as to how you entered the blogosphere.
It's an entirely new form of medium and information dissemination that most people first referenced in regard to the Drudge Report. You can't change that. And you can't change the fact that the degree of anonymity that the blogosphere allows in going to result in a degree of personal and vicious attacks that would never be considered acceptable in person.....although, on second thought, scratch that. Anyone whose ever read constituent mail will agree with me that people have always sent shockingly nasty letters with viral contents that either get dismissed out of hand or sent a sardonically polite "Thanks for your input" reply. The point is that the blogosphere is rougher terrain than the real world, and though I myself try to keep in mind that I am communicating not with a name, but with a person who like me buys groceries, has friends, did their taxes this week, etc., you're always going to have that disconnect between computer screens.
Hell, would you send half the emails you send if you had to mail the damn things?
So a lot of folks think of the blogs as nutty. They also read the blogs. They also recognize the importance of the medium, and they, like me, can't resist themselves from getting further involved, and the more involved you become, the more you begin to understand and meet personalities, find people you genuinely like and consider your friends despite never having met them. You discover how rich and deep the talent well runs. And you discover awesome things people are doing with themselves.
The internet is a revolution equivalent in importance to the Industrial Revolution, and I've heard a good argument for putting it up there with the printing press, because it fundamentally is going to alter the way we live, the way we receive information, and the way we interact with others. And it's happening not over the course of a centurty but over the course of a decade or two. So the fact that a good deal of people are dismissive of some of its innovations should be neither surprising nor all that worrisome. Everything is changing, and most people are trying to stay afloat, let alone be cutting edge.
So the commentary gets kinda crazy, well, yeah, but it can also be really insightful and on-target, and the reason people like Maryscott O'Connor or Armando or the Front-Pagers reach the status they are at is because they embody a portion of our community well and are good at what they do. Of course they don't represent it in totality, but Maryscott does anger the way many an angry person wishes they could do anger. I wish I could write like Hunter. So I recommend Hunter's diaries. Does that mean that I am starstruck by Hunter's celebrity and blindly follow to the detriment of the blogosphere and the highjacking of the Recommended list? No. I recommend you read Hunter. And I imagine those who recommend MSOC's diaries recommend you read her, because damn, does she speak for them.
I've always been in the mindset that people don't give you respect when make a big show over the process of trying to achieve it. They give it to you when you earn it and don't care whether you get it or not. I don't think there's any particular need for an identity crisis. I think we're doing fine. All those people who think the blogs are nutty? Tell them that their boss is mentioned on the front page of DailyKos and a look of sheer terror will cross their face, because they are well-aware of the consequences of a bad post on the recommended list.
Do you want my cynical theory as to why Nancy Pelosi came to DKos to listen and take feedback? Because she didn't do well on a front page poll on how we felt about our leadership. And she knows damn well that this is unacceptable. Does that mean we should declare her 'unpure' and throw her to the dogs? No. It means that she may not understand the medium, but she recognizes its importance.
And anger is cathartic. Anger is a lot of what we do. When we try and pretend that we aren't pissed off about what is going on right now, we deny a motivator. That is part of the story when it comes to the Democratic Party. I'm sure in the 90s a lot of Republicans thought they should stop defining themselves as a bunch of livid Clinton haters. Well, we have a lot more to hate than they did, and if we are not outraged, then who is? Yeah, some people will probably nod and say, yep, crazy internet bloggers foaming at the mouth. Well, you know what, every side NEEDS their rabid partisans and their indignation. Everyone always talks about how we don't want to seem like we're Anne Coulter, but she plays a role. Michelle Malkin plays a role. And for too long, our side has lacked that role. Leadership is not just about elected officials. We've had a deficit of leadership among those who should represent our anger. Represent our snooty intellectuals, represent our backbone. The right has a noise machine, and while we may think ourselves superior let's not forget that the genuis part of it is that for every socioeconomic group and facet of their party, in every medium, they have a voice to get them through their day and deliver their message.
The angry are a part of our party. By god, they NEED a voice, and anything less is a failure on our part.