By Kyle | May 17, 2010
He’s a “rage machine” who presides over an “empire of bluster”! Yep, and you know what? There are no liberal pundits who are at all angry. But they’re “passionate,” “engaged,” or maybe “morally outraged.” In the profile, Breitbart expresses regret that he and Arianna Huffington, whom he clearly admires and with whom he shares a “skill set,” are on opposite sides. Question: Wouldn’t Huffington and Breitbart be wise to pool resources on a joint site or sites? That would bring in a) a gigantic audience, b) fiercely addicted readers (who would naturally wander over to the opposition side in search of a quarrel) and c) cover for nonpolitical advertisers, who could quite plausibly claim that they aren’t taking any kind of ideological stance but simply supporting the great bustling interchange of ideas and hence would not be subject to ideologically-driven controversy like boycotts. It seems to me the great key to political sites is squaring a circle: How do you make things caliente enough to drive readership but bland enough so that the Procters & Gambles of the world will be comfortable? Note that the Huffington Post still isn’t profitable, though AH claims it will be this year.