[dyed_in_the_wool]

True Story:
In a critical thinking class in college, we had to incorporate discussions of 5 news 'articles' about the Unibomber. (He hadn't been caught yet.)
We had to use the standard pro and con of each argument, and then synthesize our response.
I got a 'B-' because for one article, I only did con and was thoroughly demeaning throughout.
I told the prof, I had a problem with his criticism.
He explained his rationale.
I said, "Great, but it was an Ellen Goodman article. Everyone on the Philosophy floor know she's a crank."
He didn't realize she had such bad rap and understood now why I wrote the way I did.
I got an 'A'.

This chick is consistently derided for her less than stellar line of 'thinking'.
As for her hit on Ann Coulter not being 'rational' well, you know what side of the aisle this 'middle of the roader' comes from.
Time was these liberal columnists wouldn't even admit they had sympathies, much less where they lie.

[King Prout]

I don't doubt it. Wasn't it "Vern" who taught us that trick of redacting an essay, removing all words and terms which contain no denotative data, to derive the actual core of the essay?
I am not sure, but I do like that trick.
Ellen's work does not fare well under such an examination.
Reduced to its ultimate form, it comes out "Waaaaah!!!!"