I'll be honest: I'm quite surprised by the number of people missing the boat on this whole issue that's began since she first appeared on John Gibson's radio show on Fox News Radio. Don't get me wrong, I think MSOC is very passionate about the issues she believes in. But her goals and those of Daily Kos (and the liberal blogosphere) diverge quite a bit, if I understand correctly. I would say that the major players in the liberal blogosphere are committed to getting Democrats elected, whether they be progressive, centrist, even a bit conservative (Stephanie Herseth, anyone?). However, MSOC has expressed explicitly that she feels no such obligation to the Democratic Party, even though they are the most realistic hope there is of moving towards any of the policies that she may support.
But what bothers me more, perhaps, is the shameless self-promotion that has been going on - and been getting recommended, no less - here in her entries at dKos. I was always under the impression that diaries should be recommended based on their content.
The New Ozymandias is an example of such a post: it serves as a stunningly effective visual reminder of the horrible failures of the Bush administration, set against one of Shelley's classic poems. Yet I see Maryscott's diaries being recommended based on pure self-promotion efforts, whether it be another appearance on Fox Radio or Fox News or a WaPo writeup. Basically, she has come to personify, in my opinion, the worst of the 'cult of personality' that has become engrained at dKos.
At what point, though, does getting a wider audience cross the line between doing that and self-promoting? To be fair, MSOC does indeed write her fair share of diaries on substantive topics (albeit in a manner I don't agree with). However, I feel that she is being singled out by the media for the express fact that, despite her well-meaning intentions, she fits the exact stereotype of the 'Angry Left': she uses an overload of profanity, her writing style creates a picture of someone who is uncontrollably angry, and she's not afraid to say outrageous things. This simply paints the liberal blogosphere in a bad light. We don't say half the crazy stuff that folks over on FR or RedState do, yet the WaPo article focuses exclusively on the few juvenile posts that do make it through. And by continuing to allow for media access, it seems that MSOC is working detrimentally against the liberal blogosphere, even if she doesn't see it that way.
There's a reason why Kos has a policy of not doing interviews or appearances (outside of those for his book), and I think that's the best argument for MSOC to stay off the airwaves, the television, and the rest of the mainstream media: it doesn't let them define who we are. If they call us angry and people come here, they see that we're rather rational in our thinking. But if we simply give them the material that allows us to be portrayed in such a manner, then we've already lost the battle.