Yes, I’m catching up…

I can’t stand the tone and tactics of most of the political blogs I’ve read. They remind me of the ads you’d see in the good old days of ‘yellow journalism.’ There appears to be little information and a lot of disinformation. The Lieberman blog was offensive, as can be said for many of the Lamont ads. The Lamont blog seems more reasonable – I liked the disclaimer, whether it is followed or not, I can’t say. If, as Colin says, these are the frontier days of the blog, then we need to approach all of them with great skepticism. However, and I sigh as I read my last line, it is with great skepticism that we approach all things to do with politics. Everything is about spin, and we must fish out the information we need from this whirlpool. My sense is that blogs will make it worse for the most malleable voters. They will build upon existing bias and distort real information.

By the way, I’m a poor voter to listen to because I rarely vote for the winner. I still can’t believe CT voted in Rowland the first time. Where was the press when they buried the police report about his confrontation or fight with his first wife? By the way, more than one person from Waterbury spoke of the fight as if they were there and looked at me with incredulity when I questioned the rumor about his infidelity (the meme, is it rumor or simply libel, includes a shower, an angry wife and a former girlfriend). Now, it is interesting that I passed on a rumor that I’d heard from someone, who heard it from someone, etc. I think the critical difference between the transfers of this meme to me in person is that I could easily judge the credulity of the person, look for visual clues in body language, inflection of the voice, facial expression. You can’t do that with a blog, and that is the problem.

By the way, while I don't generally vote for winning candidates, I feel that I have been correct in my votes.