Orin Kerr of the Volokh Conspiracy:
"There are many acceptable criteria for evaluating candidates and no real agreement as to which criteria are more important than the others. As a result, it's easy for commentary to focus on what many will perceive as minor points while ignoring what many perceive as bigger ones, and it's easy for commentary to speak to a very small slice of the ideological pie while ignoring or even alienating the rest. The result is that a lot of blogging about candidates ends up just running in circles."
This makes a lot of sense to me. Even if two people are arguing in good faith (harder than it looks, especially in today's somewhat toxic, caged-death-match campaign climate) bad feelings can develop as people continue to talk around each other, everyone sure that everyone else is purposefully trying to "spin" his own candidate (which of course we often all are).
The entire post here.