The proxy war of cut and paste...
I would like to make a broad point about how compartmentalized I believe the site has become. Rather than exchanging opinions (good and bad) and passionate writing (good and bad) it seems we've become obsessed with correctness and message structure, perhaps out of fear of being banned for exposing a bit of color and personality.
I believe that's why third party quotes and points of view are lobbed back and forth with such ferocity. Pundit bombing. Someone wants to advance a strong point of view, but they have to find someone politically acceptable to present it for us.
It's the safest thing, I guess. You can still ban someone for posting the opinion of someone else, of course. But it's far less likely than being banned or attacked for a 1st person essay. I've seen people make a well reasoned, very logical conclusion only to be met with demands that the mortal author supply a reference from someone on TV (or otherwise famous) who agrees with their conclusion in order that their well reasoned original opinion may be considered valid. A good old-fashioned catch-22.
Keep in mind that technocratic conformity by approved sources isn't really very interesting in the long run. Yes, there's a template/pattern being followed and it is consistent and non-provocative in an immediate sort of way. But it lacks the authority that comes with authenticity and originality. It is possible to present a compelling viewpoint even if you aren't appearing on MSNBC once a day.
Seems like a lot of emotion is bottled up in this proxy war of 3rd party pundits. Maybe we need a "why I support my candidate in my own words" or "why I don't like ... in my own words" section right on the front page where real people can be encouraged to write about their own experiences and world-view.
There used to be more original opinions and creative writing. I really miss it. Are we strong/smart enough to support anything less than market-tested messaging and talking points from so-called scholarly know-it-alls?