Here's the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/10/AR2008021002143.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

And here's my analysis:

Stephen Barr’s article, What Workers Should Consider when Voting for Their Next Boss, is good example of a definitional argument. Barr sets out to define something, namely, what workers in federal employ should consider when voting for president. After briefly summarizing the positions of the candidates, Barr gives his definition: the president ought to have “an understanding and appreciation of public service and of the people who work in the federal government.”
To support his argument Barr quotes several authorities in the area: the president of the National Treasury Employees Union, the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, and the president of the Federal Managers Association, among others. All of these are in favor of the expansion of the public service, and say that employees should look for that in the candidate.
Barr uses good evidence to support his definition; he backs it up with quotes from knowledgeable experts in the field. He also makes it clear that federal employs probably will not vote Republican, since both Huckabee and McCain are in favor of drastic cutbacks and layoffs in both the public service and in government in general. One of Huckabee’s oft-quoted planks is his plan to eliminate the IRS, and McCain is in favor of reducing already anorexic budgets and firing many employees.
Barr bases his definition on the sound theory that employees like being employed. He backs his definition up with a slew of evidence from the presidents of federal unions. By comparing the various candidates, he makes it clear (although he never openly says) which candidate employees are likely to vote for. His definition is a sound and reasonalbe one.