An amendment to an earlier post, and ruminations about blogging

I feel the need to amend what I said earlier:

As I've seen stated in numerous other places, if Kerry wins, we can't expect things to change all that much in terms of foreign policy (except that Kerry will most likely avoid insulting our allies).

This is vague to the point of inviting misinterpretation. What I should have said was: "If Kerry wins, we can't expect him to pull out of Iraq, nor to make any substantial changes to American foreign policy. Kerry will certainly try to patch things up with Europe and others of our allies who are pissed off at us due to Bush and Rumsfeld's buffoon-style diplomacy. We can also expect Kerry to engage in the occasional humanitarian gesture, as Clinton did. However, the main thrust of American foreign policy will not change: namely, the furthering of American corporate interests in the rest of the world. Kerry will merely be nicer about it." Some of this is essentially identical to what Juan Cole was saying, as well as some other online people I know, so I think in the effort to put it in my own words, I almost lost the original point.

It seems to me that this could turn out to be a real pitfall of blogging: When you're trying to use writing to make a point, the act of writing itself causes your conception of your subject to evolve. The best way of dealing with this is to think about your writing for a while, and then do a rewrite. But blogs don't seem to be very conducive to this. I suppose I should get used to using the "save as draft" button, but the other point to consider is the sheer speed of the blogosphere--by the time a person has time to think over and rewrite a post, the rest of the online world has already moved on.