Senator Biden asks, "What are they talking about?" with regard to bloggers who say "We're going to take back the Democratic Party." It confuses him. Bloggers don't appear, to Biden, to "have perspective." They are members of the "New Left" who want to put "the party nominee in the position he can't win a general election."

I'll help the Senator with his confusion, since it's not all that atypical of folks of his generation. Senator Biden, what we really want is to "take back the Democratic Party" from lifetime inside-the-Beltway politicians who have been loyal party apparatchiks for 35 years, who have had such easy Senate re-elections that they haven't "done anything political in 20 years." Northeastern lawyers who think a long legislative resume equates to qualification for the White House.

We'd like to reclaim the party from those type of folks. Know anyone like that, Senator?

And it wearies me that Biden buys into the Republican canard that "the blogosphere" is a bunch of wild-eyed, anti-war, "get us out now," fringe fanatics. Given that 60% of Americans want us out of Iraq; given that bloggers tend to skew more libertarian, better educated, and (by definition) fairly articulate, it's pretty insulting to see Biden lumping us in with the long-haired Vietnam anti-war protester crowd of his youth.

But then, like I said, he's been inside that Beltway for quite a while; I've heard it does things to your perspective.

To say that I feel conflicted about this article is to understate the case considerably.

On the one hand, as a professional technical writer, I have benefited immeasurably by my exposure to the best editors. The rules that I have absorbed--or had pounded into me, depending upon one's perspective--have been invaluable. Active voice! Be consistent! No, you bonehead, the modifiers go there, not there!

A good editor who will work with you is a jewel beyond price. Who will listen, who will learn that, yes, that may not be correct English, but the geniuses who created UNIX, or the various networking protocols, weren't paying attention to English grammar, alas. And the next time, there's no red ink on that construction. And the dance gets smoother.

And yet.

And yet, one of the beauties of the internet, and of blogging, is that there is no filter between the writer and the reader. We are not bound by the style strictures of what is considered "appropriate" for the BBC, or the New York Times, or (heaven save us) Strunk and White. All too often, it can feel like your writing is being squeezed through the toothpaste tube of someone else's style sensibilities, and what comes out is not truly yours.

And to enforce that on the Web, and on blogs, would be a shame. When I read Digby, I read it because of her ideas, yes, but also because of her style. I read Glenn Greenwald, in part, because of his style. And Andrew Sullivan. And all the other bloggers that I peruse. And I would be most irked if an editor were to read my blog, or my letters, and tell me, "Mr. Moran, The Chicago Manual of Style indicates that you shouldn't start a paragraph with the word "And;" and furthermore, you should certainly not start three sentences in a row with it!." It is truly a marvelous thing to read the thoughts of these people without a filter, ungrammatical and occasionally misspelled though they may be. (Why did the New York Times put their columnists behind the paid-only wall, but not their regular news? Could it be, in part, because of their distinctive voices?)

But it is a dance. There is no question that editors can improve writing, make it better. But at what point does "make it better" become "make it not mine" or "make it generic"? And on the Web, as everywhere else, the answer to Kamiya's question "Who is going to sort out the exceptional ones?", it seems to me, should be obvious: the audience. If your writing is crap, no one will read it, and your blog with wither on the vine and die (unless you're a spectacular egoist). If your writing is good and interesting, your audience grows (witness Digby and Greenwald). I am baffled as to why a third party needs to be interposed in between.

It will be interesting, in the years ahead, to see how this dance develops. Won't it?