A Bucket of Warm Spit
That's what a very famous man called the Vice Presidency. That very famous man went on to become the President of the United States of America. Don't worry, you don't have to care. I do, but that's because I'm a better person than you. I even know which famous man that Was. You could know too, if you went to the trouble of Googling it.

Today I am indeed fulfilling my promise; today I am introducing you to the other half of the blogging world: the political blog. Last night, as you may know, a debate took place between Vice President Dick Cheney and John Edwards, the Democratic candidate for Vice President. Most television commentators carefully avoided making any definitive judgment of the debate. Some said Edwards had a slight edge, some naming Cheney as the narrow victor. Generally a station's commentators were evenly distributed on either side. GeorgeWBush.com blog says otherwise. Here we see that Cheney won in every respect. Note Ms Reeve's use of specific examples of the Vice President's dominance.

That's awfully definitive, but let's see what the other side has to say. Here's the JohnKerry.com blog's take on the debate. Mr. Rabin-Havt has a very different take on the debate. Note his use of statistics; it's hard to argue with hard numbers. Of course Ambrose Bierce once allowed as how there were three types of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. Mr. Bierce was a slightly cynical fellow, but these statistics might not be as meaningful as Ari Rabin-Havt thinks. Mr. Rabin-Havt brags that "Edwards [was] more likeable by 30%." That sounds important, but just how important is this "likability?" Do you think perhaps some of those many women voters who liked Edwards so much were talking about how much more attractive he looked? I mean, come on, would anyone really rather nail Cheney than the baby-faced senator from North Carolina? And would you prefer a likeable leader or capable one? Notice there's no statistic indicating a huge swing in Edwards' favor in terms of, say competence, and we do have to realize that these statistics are based on the opinions of a tiny sampling. Another source running a differently worded set of questions could have registered noticeably different results. Notice that Mr. Rabin-Havt only has two sources for all those statistics: CBS and the Democracy Corps.

Now I've spent a fair amount of text ragging on poor old Ari, but that doesn't mean Amanda Reeve is the victor in this little scuffle. Notice that she has no sources to site, but is instead limited to her impressions and those of others at the Bush-Cheney campaign headquarters for Arizona, which makes for a far less impartial source than the questionable statistics of the Democratic blogger. Furthermore she wrote this sentence: "Several of the people expressed Vice President Cheney’s performance by emphatically stating: 'Cheney is kicking...,' well, I think you get the picture." That would not be expressing Cheney's performance; that would expressing an opinion on the Vice President's performance. Looks like Ms. Reeve is a sloppy writer, which is certainly something we can hold against her and her brief sketch of the debate.

Both blogs also set forth lists of quotations from the pundits. The Kerry blog entry concentrates on the separation between Dick Cheney's statements in the debate and the factual record. The Bush blog asserts that Cheney was the clear victor and quotes numerous pundits saying just that. Of course both pages cite many of the same sources, and cite those sources as clearly siding with the appropriate candidate.

So what's the point of this update? Well let's call it a commandment, a commandment for reading polit-blogs:

Thou shalt not take anything written in a political blog at face value.

That's the point, and I think you'll agree that it's the natural starting point for our immersion in this new subject.


And remember the guiding light, lest we forget the glory that be Lemon Party.
Because your blog sucks.
- posted by Odovaucer @ 1:35 PM