२५ ऑक्टोबर, २००८
I have 818 posts tagged "Obama."
It's my third biggest tag. What are my 2 bigger tags? Certainly, "McCain" isn't one. He's languishing at 339. Does that show my bias? Indeed. I have a bias in favor of interestingness.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३७ टिप्पण्या:
"I have a bias in favor of interestingness."
Hmm, that doesn't explain the 818 posts tagged with "Obama".
Perhaps if the Badger marching band would let you sleep a little longer, you'd be more rested and able to think in a clear way about politics. Call it neutral political beauty sleep.
I was already up. Getting enough sleep isn't my problem....
The other two are photography and men in shorts.
Hint for #1: "Look at the size of the tags on that one!"
The interesting contrast in obsession is Andrew Sullivan's.
Check out the disparate numerousity, tone and bent of his post on Palin versus Biden.
Notice how many fewer posts he has about Biden the man and candidate, particularly outside of quotes or references to the "Obama-Biden" campaign.
My favorite is his Live-Blog of the VP Debate. Andrew unplugged. As the debate wore on, and precisely when the farrago of B.S. thickened, Sullivan sounds less like an objective observer and more like Jack Black trying to pull his students out of a funk in School of Rock.
Ann Althouse said...
"I was already up. Getting enough sleep isn't my problem...."
Do you want to talk about it? I have another suggestion, but I think you might get upset if I said it.
jeesh, we get it. you like talking about obama. the backhanded insults are getting tiresome.
"the backhanded insults are getting tiresome."
You mean like the ones where I say I'm going to vote for him?
I agree with Matthew about the "backhanded insults" - Gonna miss reading your comments, but I'm quitting your blog. I wish you had not decided to vote for Obama, but I respect your right to do so, esp. since I think, based on the thought process I've read here over the past few months, that you put some effort into your decision. What I don't respect is your snide, derisive comments about McCain/Palin and thereby your readers that do support that ticket. So, to answer your sarcasm/question about backanded insults... No, the offending insults are not you saying you're going to vote for Obama, and I think you realize that.
Interestingness, n. derived from the old Norse root "truthiness" but with a zesty (to be distinguished from cheesy) twist.
In one sense, that explains the quirky topics dissected here. But, more fundamentally, isn't that for readers to find and not authors to proclaim? As a regular reader, I have no trouble in saying the description fits.
The race is interesting (that includes McCain/Palin), Obama's associates are interesting (Wright, Ayers), but I don't think Obama the man is very interesting except maybe in a political machine kind of way (which all politicians share).
I have no doubt whatsoever that an Obama Presidency will be more interesting than a McCain one. That's a bug, not a feature.
May you live in interesting times, say the Chinese.
Holds no interest for me.
Except for the guy walking a tightrope betwen the buildings, the World Trade Center was never all that interesting.
One person's "interestingness," isn't objective and universal, though.
But you have 918 photos of dogs urinating and 78 of plants with itchy hairy balls.
Plu 895 photos of skinny gay guys with little dogs.
Now that's diversity!
So, is Prof. Althouse voting for Senator Obama because:
a. She agees with him on the substantive issues more than she agrees with McCain?
b. She can't stand not to vote for the first black President; or
c. President Obama promises more interesting blogging over the next four years than President McCain.
"What I don't respect is your snide, derisive comments about McCain/Palin..."
Huh? Which ones? No one who's a longtime reader here can seriously think I've been harder on McCain than on Obama!
David, ha ha. That's not too far off. I should make a list of the 5 strongest reasons I have for voting for Obama. Something like:
1. I want America to have cool new young image.
2. Self-interest! The blogging will be swell.
3. The complaints and criticisms if he loses will dog us for 100 years.
4. Self-interest! I want a couple staunch new liberals on the Supreme Court to make my life as a lawprof more exciting.
5. The kids are so darned cute.
So does the press. They just happen to find liberals more interesting, and intelligent, and worthy, and so on, than they do conservatives or even centrists. It's not bias. It just ends up being functionally indistinguishable from it.
1. Breasts
2. Lameness
I have only detected lameness 153 times.
Breasts... 103.
So Ann I review your 5 quick reasons and my summary goes something like:
1. he's the new hip and trendy "thing" at school. When I vote for him I'm part of the "in crowd". I don't like it when I'm not part of the in crowd.
2. It'll be easy & entertaining for me.
3. and lawyers stick together.
Now, I respect others who say I'm voting for him because he's taking the country there or doing that. You're basis seems more about you rather than what's good for country. Shouldn't that (the country) be the big factor? Or did you just reveal more than expected? Maybe I'm just more comfortable with not being part of the latest fashion trend.
I don't think that Althouse has been snide or derisive. I hesitate to speak for Laurie, but I think that she shares my sense of disappointmtent in Althouse's decision. I think that this disappointment comes from two things:
1) We readers have come to respect and admire Althouse, and her choice says something about our choices -- either we're making the wrong choice on election day, or we're giving respect and admiration to someone who will;
2) We conservatives think to ourselves: Shit, if we can't convince Althouse, a sane, logical, reasonable person who sees the importance of winning the war on terror, who apparently isn't a socialist, and who has, until now, been unflinching in her examination of the candidates...then why bother trying to convince anyone?
And I think that this disappointment makes Laurie and a few other conservatives (myself included) maybe a little more likely to see slights where they weren't intended.
It's not that I wouldn't vote for a conservative. I just don't think McCain is the man for the job now.
Maybe we Conservatives are disappointed because this elections seems to be so much about emotion and being part of a crowd on the left. Or maybe its because "a cool new young image" or this desire (not to be criticized) if he loses strikes us as lame. Three months after Obama takes office the afterglow around the globe will be gone and the complaining will continue. The things that are seen today as bad or racist in US will, in six months time, still be seen as bad or racist and Obama's election will not matter one bit on that. His policies will matter greatly on economic prosperity. I haven't sensed that Ann has been snide. We, like Spock, have been sadden she has been illogical.
"I just don't think McCain is the man for the job now."
It's just odd to go from that to "Obama is the man for the job now". Non sequitur.
First, sorry about the long Cedarford-like screed (minus the antisemitism) that follows.
Up to this point, it seems as though you've been...cryptic in your explanations of your choice. Maybe I'm just too thick to understand. Feel free to be more explicit in future posts on this topic -- even if it's only for my benefit.
I don't presume that I could change your mind, but I'd just like to understand it. I'd like to understand why you support Obama, when McCain is basically a Democrat on all issues but abortion and gay marriage.
I don't understand the argument that goes "Victory in Iraq is important, but I don't think that Obama will really pull out early, despite the fact that he's said that he would." Why not vote for the guy that says "stay in til it's done"?
I don't understand the argument that goes "Sure, he's a socialist, but he's so intelligent...He can't really be as socialist as he seems, can he?" Why not vote for the guy that's clearly not a Marxist?
I don't understand the argument that goes "But Obama is just so much smarter than McCain." Who cares? We're not electing someone to represent us in a big game of Trivial Pursuit. Carter was smarter than Reagan -- who would you rather elect this year, Carter or Reagan? William Ayers is probably quite a bit smarter than McCain, too; would he make a better POTUS?
I don't understand the argument that goes "I want the SCOTUS to remain 'balanced' about its current pivot point, without a radical shift in one direction or the other." Is this balance so important that it requires the lifetime appointment of several justices who will make horrible decisions on issues like Kelo and the 2nd amendment? Is this really the right pivot point to preserve, when just 5 justices think that the 2nd amendment is an individual right? (That's lunacy; it makes me throw up a little bit just to type that out.) Is this balance so important that it justifies giving the power to appoint justices to an ideologue who voted against Roberts and will make appointments based on whether the justice is willing to make judgments on his sense of fair play, instead of on the meaning of the constitution?
Having said all that, I understand why you've blogged about Obama much more than you have McCain -- Obama is much more interesting, in the sense that most people in this election are either voting for Obama or against Obama, not for McCain.
I just don't see why you're in the former camp rather than the latter.
Does anyone think McCain is The Guy? (Apart from my mom, that is.)
Hasn't it always been a matter of the bright, shiny New Guy versus the guy who, through the stupidity of the primary process, managed to eke out the nomination?
Among those who are voting for Obama who aren't part of the cult, isn't the basic idea that he couldn't possibly be the transformational figure that the true believers say he is?
Actually Ann, what is the issues that are causing you to be only 94.67% sure for Obama? What could put you over the 95% threshold? Is there anything he could do to bring you to 99%? Could Joe say (or not say anything) to change your commitment?
We all understand Obama is a more interesting topic, especially given the dynamics of the Democratic vs Republican primaries. So we get the differences in posts.
Ok, Ann, I'll now confess my comment was based on wishful thinking, not actual counting!
Starting to sound like Howie Kurtz there, Professor.
Bigger tags:
1. Photography.
2. Breasts - maybe not the highest number, but the tag that gets Ann the most links and comments of other noted Bloggers.
During the first campaign of Clinton, a certain amount of sleaze and sludge came to light. Clinton had a successful presidency, but it must be admitted that that those early blossoms of squalor proved prescient. Perhaps Obama is better than his past associations indicate and as good as his supporters claim. He has certainly had a run of luck in his elective life. Maybe it will rub off on all of us. The American electorate has had a better record than me in picking Presidents. If they choose Obama, well maybe they're right.....Thirty years after the fall of Saigon, Americans live better and Vietnamese live worse. Forty years after the French withdrawal in Algiers, the French live better and the Algerians live worse. If Obama wins, America will find a way to prosper and thrive. I am not so sure about Iraq and Georgia and some other country to be named later.
Palladian said...""I just don't think McCain is the man for the job now." It's just odd to go from that to "Obama is the man for the job now". Non sequitur."
I have a choice between 2 and I eliminate one. That's how it follows.
Pastafarian said "I'd like to understand why you support Obama, when McCain is basically a Democrat on all issues but abortion and gay marriage."
So since I support abortion rights and gay marriage, why should I pick McCain?
As I've said a few times, I think McCain is less likely than Obama to stand up to the Democratic Congress. I think Obama is at least going to think things through and be his own man. McCain is all over the place and wants Democrats to love him. I don't like that.
"I don't understand the argument that goes "Victory in Iraq is important, but I don't think that Obama will really pull out early, despite the fact that he's said that he would." Why not vote for the guy that says "stay in til it's done"?"
At this point, Obama will get it done too. In fact, Obama will have an incentive to prove himself in foreign affairs. If we were back at the point where Obama was one of these people saying we need to admit defeat and get out, I would have had to vote for McCain.
"I don't understand the argument that goes "Sure, he's a socialist, but he's so intelligent...He can't really be as socialist as he seems, can he?" Why not vote for the guy that's clearly not a Marxist?"
And McCain knows nothing about economics. Why should he be trusted?
You know, Obama actually is smarter, and McCain is quite old. I think Obama will be a better figurehead, decisionmaker, and communicator.
If Romney had been the candidate, I would have almost surely have voted for him. But because of Huckabee we got McCain. That was screwy but it happened. Nothing to do about it now.
***
The bigger tags are:
1. Law
2. Movies
I read this blog for the comments and find Ann's preference for POTUS irrelevant . She can start an item with "frogs are cute...discuss" and eventually the discussion will take an interesting turn.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा