Here's my two cents on James Lee.
First, I'm not at all sad that he's dead. Good riddance.
Second, naturally he has become, in the eyes of the right, the poster-child for the left. That's unfair, and the people who push that view know its unfair, but naturally they press on anyway, because fairness doesn't come into the picture when one is fighting evil, right? Thus, we are witness to the same kind of logic that holds up the one example of Baruch Goldstein as a counterweight to the collected mass of all of the suicide bombers sent forth by Hamas. The right still is much more dangerous than the left. And, again, this is something that even everyone on the right knows; it is not without reason that the left is stereotyped as the wishy-washy, Kumbaya-singing, love-and-roses, side—characteristics which do not lend themselves so readily to violence.
Third, though,—and this stands completely irrespective of whether or not Lee was mentally ill—Lee's motivations were shaped by left-wing ideology. I do not think this can simply be dismissed, any more than one can simply dismiss the ideological motivations of sundry people on the right, mentally ill or not, who have taken up arms against targets identified by right-wing pundits. Fact is, a non-negligible segment of the left does spew hateful, apocalyptic rhetoric that can set the right kind of person on a path of violence. That rhetoric is as vile as the stuff pumped through the air by Fox News and friends; mercifully, it is not as widespread or effectively communicated, and hence not as dangerous, but that does not change what it is, and what it can do, and what it can become.
Clean house, people.