What's true? Blog or aplogy?

Recent NYT Report on the Edwards Presidential campaign:

Mr. Edwards announced on Thursday, after 36 hours of deliberation, that he would keep on his campaign staff two liberal feminist bloggers with long cybertrails of incendiary comments on sex, religion and politics.

and:

In deciding to retain Ms. Marcotte and Ms. McEwan, he extracted public apologies from them for some of their work and a promise from them to maintain a civil tone while in his employ.

[emphasis added]

The article also covers similar problems in the McCain Camp:

In an interview, Mr. Hynes [Patrick J. Hynes, a conservative blogger, political consultant, and McCain campaign’s blog liaison] said the Internet was a place where overheated language and vicious personal attacks were often tolerated, even encouraged. But, he said, “I would caution against holding candidates responsible for what their bloggers and blog consultants have said in the past.”

“The blogosphere is a conversation; it’s not reportage,” Mr. Hynes said. “We’re all trying to figure out, what does this mean for the convergence of all these media? It’s a Pandora’s box and no one knows where it’s going to end up.”

[emphasis added]

1) It is my contention that the "conversation" and not the "extracted" apologies represent these individuals true feelings.

2) Perhaps toleration of "overheated language and vicious personal attacks" is what is bad about the internet. It's a great information source; it's a great community. But it lacks having to look someone in the eyes and makes it too easy to go over the top with nastiness.

3) Politics are about power. It is my belief that, in th USA, politics are a battleground of attacks and blame rather than ideas. Both sides claim to have values, many of which I agree with (from both sides). But neither side really has any ideas on how to implement programs that match their values and too often the programs then do enact run contrary to the values they claim to be defending (i.e. Patriot Act undermines, not protects, democracy). This means that the people who "win" in politics (i.e. elections) are given power without a single clue of what to do with it. . .

4) It is my belief that the very nature of the game means that power, when achieved is used to punish those you hate. Often that hate is not only over a disagreement in values, but a grudge born out of their actions when they were in power. Hence and endless cycle in which failures are repeated by both sides.

Remember, when you read the position papers and hear the candidate speeches, we now have the staffer's words in the blogsphere. And it is those "conversations" and not their "extracted" apologies and new behavior codes that show the true character of those who play the game of politics.

Looks like we will be carrying a lantern looking for an "honest man" long after the 2008 presidential elections. . .