WaPo's "Best Blogs" awards. Er, . . . yeah.

The Washington Post has announced the winners of the "2004 Best Blogs Readers' Choice Award," and all I can say is, their readers need to get out more. (Get online more? Okay, something like that.)

National Review gets 5 nods. Four for "The Corner" and one for the "Kerry Spot." But none are for poor page design, as one might think. I'm not sure what I think of blog awards going to a mainstream periodical. Somehow it doesn't seem right.

Lileks got nods for "Most Original" and "Best Rant," but once upon a time Lileks used to insist that his Bleat was not a Blog. I would tend to agree that there's a difference between a blog and an online journal. I used to have a Bleat-like journal, and it's a completely different sort of animal. (Lileks deserves some kind of recognition, to be sure.)

James doesn't seem to be doing "The Screed" anymore (I can't even find them on his site) but if you want rants, those are rants. The Bleat might occasionally get ranty, but if forced to package up the Bleat, I wouldn't put it in the "rant" drawer.

Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan gets a nod for "Best Republican Party Coverage." Isn't that a bit like giving Hewitt the nod for "Best Democratic Party Coverage"?

Kos, Atrios, and Marshall get their nods, too, but not, as you'd expect, in the "nasty little vermin" category.

Instapundit probably deserves something like a "Lifetime Blogging Achievement" award, but he's saddled with "Most Likely to Last Beyond Election Day."

Of course Scrappleface is an American treasure! No complaints there.

But I think I'm going to have to come up with my own categories and awards. I think the WaPo readers who chose these winners have a very limited scope.