I agree with Chait's largely negative assessment of Helen Thomas, but it serves if nothing else as a reminder of the supremacy of emotion to reason when it comes to politics. On paper, Thomas's record is underwhelming. But she gave voice to the anger that a lot of liberals felt during the Bush years, so some elements of the left identified with her. On the other hand, a lot of conservatives identified her as the tip of the liberal media's crusade against Bush. Thomas's work was not terribly influential, but she was important to a lot of people because of what she represented--and, really, how she chose to present herself. And, ultimately, when you look at the polarizing political figures of the past decade--Newsom, Bush, and Dean for starters--this is largely the case for them as well, despite all of them having records that otherwise would not have endeared them to their followers.