Most of us already know the political leanings of the blogs we read. Does anyone doubt that Daily Kos and Atrios are liberal, while Instapundit and The Right Coast are conservative? Sometimes these overt leanings make for interesting commentaries on issues. On the substantive issues, it's always fun to see the different viewpoints and the various arguments for and against them. But political conventions are hardly substantive. They are extended political infomercials, complete with the equivalents of canned applause and scripted testimonials. Inevitably, commentary on blogs from those who support the party currently airing its infomercial will sound like the scripted comments and questions from infomercial audiences. Bloggers on the other side will see nothing positive in the product on display. The arguments for their views of the convention speeches are rarely, if ever, reasoned or honest. They like the speeches because they were made by guys on their side, or dislike them because they weren't.
Knowing this, one can probably guess what the various bloggers will say before one ever reads their convention coverage. For example, after watching Zell Miller's speech, I knew that bloggers on the left would think it was completely divorced from reality, and merely another indication that Miller is insane, while bloggers on the right would see it as brave and brilliant. The bloggers (including those above) did not disappoint. So, should anyone read the convention coverage of bloggers? I know I won't be reading it anymore.