This past weekend, the Washington Post ran a profile of frequent Daily Kos author Maryscott O’Connor. In “The Left, Online and Outraged”, O’Connor is painted as a loud, extremist nut. Her response, posted on her My Left Wing blog, doesn’t do much to disagree with the Post’s conclusions: that Maryscott – and the majority of the left-wing blogosphere – is angry and militant.

And frankly, from reading her posts over the past few years, I have a hard time believing she’s anything but, or that quite a bit of the liberal and progressive blogosphere doesn’t fall into the same basic description. And they have every right to do what they do, spreading the word, exposing the theocons for the maniupulative thieves that many in power are, and keep the fires burning.

The problem is: they don’t represent the entirety of the liberal and progressive movement in the United States – they’re just the most overtly vocal. And therein lies the rub: as they’re the ones being covered by the media, they’re seen as the de facto spokespeople for all progressives and liberals. And because they come across as (at least) mildly weird and wild, they’re easy pickings for the conservative politicos and media:

“See those Democrats? They’re loony! They’re a bunch of left-wing nuts – how can we trust them?”

This is a problem for the Democrats – not so much for the 2006 elections, but for 2008. The more plain-spoken, even-keeled Demoracts are relegated to the media sidelines by the loudmouths of the blogosphere. To the media, this is natural: they want somebody who will attract attention (and ratings), so why not bring in the most kooky, fringe elements to hold court? And then get in the cute conservative commentator (e.g. Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin) to refute them, thus keeping [insert news org here] in good stead with the White House and fat-cat Wall Street investors.

And when the more even-keeled Dems do make it on TV, it’s like they’re all reading from a different playbook. Sen. Reid says something different from Rep. Pelosi who says something different from Sen. Biden who says something different from Gov. Dean who says something different from Gen. Clark – it is, as Sen. Barack Obama puts it, the Dems standing “for anything.”

It’s a situation that the Dems can’t win if they keep taking the same approach. While we shouldn’t alienate the motivated progressives and liberal ends of the party, we shouldn’t let too many voices blur the message. And we need a core message, which is something that Gov. Dean has been pushing as head of the DNC, but that his own party’s leadership in Congress has been unwilling to tackle.

Not that there aren’t signs of things starting to coalesce into something more coherent, simple, and effective. Joe Biden’s recent appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher showed a lot of focus and direct thought: he was clear, concise, and effective, yet not so simple as to be dumb. John Edwards has been honing the message he campaigned with in 2004 to much greater effect, and he has “the touch” with crowds when he speaks. Wes Clark has also learned from his 2004 mistakes and has become an eloquent and effective Democratic pundit – and a strong candidate for president in ’08. And then there’s Al Gore, whose stock has risen in the past year by “letting Gore be Gore” (though I doubt he’ll run in ’08).

All four speak of optimism, clear goals, responsibiltiy and empowerment. They’re not waiting for even more shit to hit the GOP fan, like many of the Dems in office seem to be; they’re charting their own, clear paths toward November 2008.

And they’re not coming across as angry or loopy. And they’re showing hope and optimism. And they are speaking to a positive future for the U.S. and for the Democratic party.

And while they seem to be listening to Maryscott O’Conner and her peers, taking the best parts and distilling them for maximum positive effect, they’re not following the blogs’ playbook to the letter – which is a good thing.