They don't detract at all because they're true. McCain has some serious anger/temper problems and that's not really a secret. He's had numerous outbursts on TV and on Senate floor.
The measurement doesn't need to be objective. If you agree with the journalist, then this statement supports his general argument. If you disagree, it doesn't. That's all.
Now, there are ways to measure anger objectively:
Cortisol in bloodstream;
volume of voice;
Blood pressure;
etc.
In fact, the amount of cortisol in the bloodstream is a rather all-encompassing measurement that works as a pretty good proxy for how angry you are, even though it is technically your level of stress.
Its more of a social survey of the current economic situation and the (lack of) outrage among the masses at this point in history. It's off topic but a worthwhile read.
People need to be told when to be outraged. Most people, including the majority of people reading these words, don't understand how the banking system works, even on a simple level, or how stock exchanges work, on a basic level, or how the mortgage system works, except via media oversimplifications. This isn't some symptom of our 'declining modern times' or some such, it is the way it always have been. Hell, most farmers don't even know how to be good farmers, feel free to replace 'farmer' there with any occupation. Most people just aren't very smart, and getting even a 'regurgitate the basic facts' understanding of any of the topics I mentioned above would take them weeks of fulltime study. So how the hell can they be mad? Mad at what? The complex system they will never understand and doesn't seem to have any effect on their lives, or the media which tells them it's nothing to be mad about, confirming their day to day impressions?
Lets use the laymen's sniff test to figure out the level of WTF present in our system, using IndyMAC as an example.
You have all your money in an IndyMac account. They hold your mortgage. IndyMAC collapses prompting the FDIC to take them over and bail them out. What happens:
You lose at least half (probably more) of all the money you have in the bank over $100k. They get a fat bailout, so long and thanks for all the cash. You are still expected to repay your mortgage in full.
I know there's probably some logical explanation in financialese showing that this is the right outcome... But, come on, they lose your money and still demand to be repaid... WTF?!
Ok, you're confused here. Something can be an outrage, and something can cause outrage. The question "where's the outrage?" isn't "Where's waldo, see if you can spot an outrage", rather "why aren't people outraged!?".
Also, when the FDIC takes control of a bank, the shareholders of the bank are basically fucked. They lose their money, it isn't a bailout. The FDIC insures YOU against the fatcats, preventing them from blowing your money and leaving you destitute.
Finally, everyone knows that 100k is how much is ensured, and you should also know that that limit is per institution, so you can put money in 80 different banks and have 8M effectively insured.
There are all sorts of issues with the banking system, but it is fairly decent. It is certainly not some dystopia dreamed up by left wing conspiracy theorists (nor right wing, like ron paul).
Statements like these detract from the credibility of the article.