Since the debate(s) I've spent a little time following up my minimal interest in contemporary electoral politics in the United States and stumbled upon sites like Hugh Hewitt and Daily Kos. So a question for readers who know more about this stuff:

1) what percentage of the stuff that the partisan authors say (like Hugh Hewitt telling readers that Bush kicked Kerry's ass in the first debate) do they really believe? (or are they doing it for consequentialist ends to motivate and reassure the 'base').

2) do the readers of these sites know what the authors are doing and going along with it? Or do they too "believe the spin"?

3) do the authors know that the readers know? (or don't know)

4) do the readers know that the authors know that the readers know?

I'm not really that interested in the nitty-gritty of political talking points as much as the social psychology of these people. I remember the psychological swarming of the warbloggers pre-Iraq-Invasion (I felt drawn to it in a sporting sort of way) and now I observe the inverse swarming of the quagmirebloggers.

One last thing, those who act and tallk as if the viability of the American republic hangs upon the outcome of this one election seem to me to be the ones who are most depleting the capital of civic cohesion and mutual trust that nurtures the republic. Remember how the father of Oedipus attempted to avoid being the victim of patricide only to guide the hand of fate?