When a paper as sympathetic to the left side of the aisle as the Washington Post begins a profile of someone on the left like this...

In the angry life of Maryscott O'Connor, the rage begins as soon as she opens her eyes and realizes that her president is still George W. Bush. The sun has yet to rise and her family is asleep, but no matter; as soon as the realization kicks in, O'Connor, 37, is out of bed and heading toward her computer.

Out there, awaiting her building fury: the Angry Left, where O'Connor's reputation is as one of the angriest of all. "One long, sustained scream" is how she describes the writing she does for various Web logs, as she wonders what she should scream about this day.

She smokes a cigarette. Should it be about Bush, whom she considers "malevolent," a "sociopath" and "the Antichrist"? She smokes another cigarette. Should it be about Vice President Cheney, whom she thinks of as "Satan," or about Karl Rove, "the devil"? Should it be about the "evil" Republican Party, or the "weaselly, capitulating, self-aggrandizing, self-serving" Democrats, or the Catholic Church, for which she says "I have a special place in my heart . . . a burning, sizzling, putrescent place where the guilty suffer the tortures of the damned"?

....you know you may have a problem.

Orrin Judd reminds us that "Rage Is A Tough Sell In America", an emotional state that Gerard Vanderleun recorded a literary snapshot of last month, when he wrote "Growl", disguised as "Gerard Allen Van der Ginsberg". And Betsy Newmark has an exceptional post today in which she places O'Connor's rage into context alongside the thoughts of both Hugh Hewitt and Dean Barnett of the Weekly Standard on how the Blogosphere has negatively impacted the left's tone.

Update: Paul Mirengoff of Power Line has some thoughts on the article's rather silly "it's mostly the fault of the right--especially Newt Gingrich" subtext.

Another Update: Tim Blair analyzes the sociopsychological ramifications of the photo chosen by the Post of O'Connor.

One More: One of Tim's readers has his own insightful analysis of the photo:

That picture is clearly a hatchet job though, and a deliberate one. Wide angle lens (I’m guessing 25-28mm), low camera placement, and a “Dutch tilt” of about twenty degrees to the right (look at the line of the bookshelves in the background; if the camera were held level, that line would be level too). It makes her look like something out of Mr. Arkadin.

These are all tricks film folk use to give the impression of insanity, or of a world gone mad. Often used in the genre of psychological suspense by directors like Welles, Kubrick, Polanski, Reed. We may think it’s the approriate treatment in this particular moonbat’s case, but it’s hardly objective news gathering, is it.

I like how the photog told what’s-her-name that he couldn’t open the curtains because he wanted a truthful, objective photograph, and then feigned disappointment when “that one” was chosen.

Heh. Indeed.

Just because we agree with their point of view in this one case doesn’t mean the media has stopped their habit of lying about everything.

That last sentence isn't something I'd write, but from the photographer choosing that angle and composition, to the editor choosing that photo, it was all carefully planned. Could the Post have commissioned this article as payback--or were they simply inspired by--the far left's recent meltdowns over the Post's Deborah Howell and their (as it turns out rather brief) employment of Ben Domenech?