Tell me how you felt about my revelation that I was voting for Obama. How did that change your view of this blog? I guess if you quit reading, you aren't here to answer the question, but -- what the hell? -- blogs are loaded with unscientific research.
I'd love to get comments, but to speed up the results, here's a poll:
November 5, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
175 comments:
In spite of Obama, I love you (well, the web version of you as we have never met) and your website (a fan for 5 years now).
You are not reactive. You think through and consider all sides/alternatives. This is why you are not the Huffington Post, Kos or Katie Granju.
XOXO Ann! ; )
I was surprised -- the ratio of Obama-bashing posts to McCain-bashing posts had led me astray. Maybe it wasn't the number of posts so much as the number of McCain fans who commented.
I don't quite believe it...
I'd have been astonished if you had voted for McCain. I don't know if you really believed your fence sitting, but I didn't.
Well I voted for the first answer but it wasn't clear to me for that long. Amazing how many people mistook your blogging style as an endorsement of McCain for so long.
I never gave up on the once and future liberal. 4th comment.
Its of course so easy to say this in hindsight but it was pretty obvious you were pro Obama for awhile.
Of course if you had told us you were voting for McCain, I suspect that "I knew it all along" number would probably be almost identical.
Professor, I have long been a true fan of your blogging and this doesn't change that.
I do think that maybe the vow of cruel neutrality was a mistake. We later learned that beneath it all, you were for Obama. Which is fine, of course, but I think that after the end of the vow, the floodgates were opened and you gave us an outpouring of admiration for Obama. It all seemed a little inordinate and I think it was just a result of the pent-up feelings that built up and festered unexpressed during the vow of neutrality.
I think it would have been better to be out in the open about everything all along and that doing so, you would have been able to make a better case for Obama at the end.
You're missing the "I was disappointed" option for your poll.
I want to vote all of the above!
Whatever you do, I love you(r commenters)
I don't need you to be conservative to like you or your blog.
I do, and did, believe "cruel neutrality" was shrewd marketing.
I think you took a big risk by alienating the majority of your readers and endorsing Obama, and you should be commended for it. This is not to say that you are beholden to your readers. In fact, the best blogs are the ones that attract and encourage a diverse audience, I think.
People who say they won't come here anymore (and I've seen their comments here and on other blogs) obviously never "got" the point of your work here, which is to offer your own unique voice on a variety of topics.
Readers who are so ideologically stubborn aren't worth anyone's time, because all they are looking for is narcissistic validation.
I never come to Althouse to be validated, I come here to be challenged and entertained. Sharing a political view expressed in a post or agreeing with someone in the comments is just icing on the cake.
Did not affect me - you are the best you liberal kook you. Plus you may have noted I don't read your artsy eclectic self-awareness posts.
Althouse you are no different than anyone else. We each have goggles thru which we view and interpret stuff. The goggles are formed by our experiences of course. The goggles can not be removed.
That is why Obama will be a raving guns vs. butter liberal prez (one term)
What about a choice for us folks who don't care who you vote for and fall somewhere between love and thinking you suck on the adoration scale? (If we are talking photographs, put me in the love category).
Anyway Ann, I have enjoyed your take on the campaigns and candidates. I only care that your posts are interesting and thought provoking. Who you vote for is your business. It doesn't affect me at all.
I think I've lost a little respect for you, as I think you played us. I've come to expect more from you than this, so I feel somewhat disappointed. Not outright dislike, nor any anger, but somehow I've not really believed your "cruel neutrality", so it seems fakey.
I'm purposely not commenting anywhere today. I went to bed about 9:30, knowing it was over. This isn't a day to gripe or rain on anyone's parade. But...since you asked, I knew all along you'd go with Obama.
The way I understand political choices is that most people share the same values. It's the prioritization of those values that distinguish us. I have pro-life friends who absolutely vote based on that single issue. Other friends vote against the incumbent invariably. Now, those friends can gather at our house for dinner and rail against the exact same things, yet vote completely opposite each other. Priorities.
This place can get inanely partisan, but for the most part, people can express opinions that will be met with respect and countered with reason. I'll wager most of us here could live in harmony in the same neighborhood. We sort of do.
Through this campaign you haven't had a piece to equal your "How Kerry Lost Me" writing of 4 years ago. Perhaps I've assumed you would create something to equal that, and so I am being unfair? Yes, I think so.
I vote "Present."
Like fls, surprised. Challenged and surprised.
Almost from the beginning, the white race was divided into two camps regarding blacks. One group felt that they were a physical resource to be appropriated and exploited. The Europeans did not invent African slavery, but they certainly developed it on a grand scale....There was a second group. As the first group exploited blacks to lessen physical labor, the second group used the suffering of blacks to redeem their souls. The power of this spiritual capitalism cannot be underestimated....Last night I saw the shining faces of those who voted for Obama. They were truly radiant as though they had just received the sacrament and were saved. Well, good for them and good for you. It was not a rational decision but some things defy reason and some things transcend reason.....Me. I belong to a third group. My 19th century ancestors were farm animals. They had more volition than slaves, but they did not have the basic right of all slaves--the right to be fed. I think some of the upper class got to profit financially from slavery and others got to use slavery for spiritual advancement. Poor whites got nothing but bruises. Whenever I see the color purple I think of a bruise.
Zachary - what regular commenters here have said they will abandon our hostess? I don't think that the regulars are at all alienated by her support of Obama; on the contrary, they view this forum as an opportunity to challenge other opinions and to examine their own. She facilitates that.
I predict that our hostess will express a growing buyers regret within 2-3 weeks, tops.
You are more protected as a prof from the economics at large so the new administration economic policies. I am personally bracing for a redefinition of the "misery index".
You are missing an option, Ann.
I always felt you were voting for Obama but that is what made your postings interesting this election. The views of a rabidly liberal person trying to be as abusive as possible (aka Kos) are uninteresting. The views of a liberal person trying to looks at things from a neutral standpoint was much more intriguing.
You lost me, however, after you dropped the pretense. Once you posted that you had no problem with Obama using (dangerous people) to get power and then disavowing them when it was politically expedient. You asked: Don't you want a pragmatic president? I disagreed so much with the "Obama can do no wrong attitude" I found myself checking your site less and less after that.
Gone for good? No. But I'm being honest when I say I find blind partisanship and emotion-based decision making totally uninteresting. There are thousands of people spewing forth emotional rants (on both sides) on the web. I avoid them all--what do you really learn by reading them?
So yeah, if you go back to presenting both sides of the issues and events, I'll stick around. If your goal is to be an Obama cheerleader no matter his actions or their results, I'll be looking elsewhere.
would you post a notice or something when you step away from the mirror? Interest in waning...
Not getting enough attention or something?
I thought "cruel neutrality" was brilliant in both conception and execution. I was sorry to see it end, though I recognize the necessity of ending it. I sort-of agree with Ken about the subsequent outpouring, but if that was the price for all those months of cruel neutrality it was worth it.
Anyway, your decision to vote for Obama does not affect my appreciation for the blog one way or the other. It's the observations and the analysis (and the photography) that keep me coming back.
From today's Yahoo Finance:
Now that Barack Obama will be our 44th president, it’s time to take a closer look at how his proposals could impact Americans.
... because they couldn't be bothered to do before the election.
http://finance.yahoo.com/focus-retirement/article/106094/Obama-and-Your-Retirement?mod=retirement-preparation
A case of post-election nerves sent stocks lower Wednesday as investors began questioning what impact a Barack Obama presidency will have on business and the overall economy.
They were just too mesmerized to begin their questioning before they voted.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081105/wall_street.html
I kind of knew it all along, so nothing changed.
I predict that our hostess will express a growing buyers regret within 2-3 weeks, tops.
That's ridiculous. He won't even be governing in 2-3 weeks.
I never believed a McCain vote was forthcoming, and viewed anti-Obama posts as a plea borne of frustration for the campaign to do better.
"I never come to Althouse to be validated, I come here to be challenged and entertained."
No, you come here to post links to your blog.
Those who liked the cruel neutrality, PJ et al, have a point. It was an interesting device in some ways.
But I would have preferred to get a more direct view of Althouse's analysis and struggles as she came to her conclusion. Though perhaps I am wrong to assume their was a struggle.
And I don't think the months of cruel neutrality was worth the strange outpouring at the end. To me, endings will tend to matter more than middles. The election at Chez Althouse seemed to end on a discordant note. It didn't work for me as a matter of narrative because the guise of cruel neutrality distorted the genuine analysis and emotion that went on behind the scenes. When revealed, Althouse's real feelings seemed disconnected and out of place.
"The views of a rabidly liberal person trying to be as abusive as possible (aka Kos) are uninteresting. The views of a liberal person trying to looks at things from a neutral standpoint was much more intriguing."
This is the key to Ann's appeal. The ideologue thing can only work if you're really, really entertaining. Kos and the like aren't.
The views of a rabidly liberal person trying to be as abusive as possible (aka Kos) are uninteresting.
Kos isn't actually that liberal and he's not abusive.
I hope you had fun, running with the herd.
You have voted for the wrong man for the wrong reasons.
"will these hands ne'er be clean?--all the
perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little
hand. What's
done cannot be undone."
MENE,
MENE,
TEKEL,
UPHARSIN
"But I would have preferred to get a more direct view of Althouse's analysis and struggles as she came to her conclusion. Though perhaps I am wrong to assume their was a struggle."
I don't believe there was a struggle. Based on Althouse's comments, especially regarding that Libertarian conference she attended some years ago, there was really no other choice but to vote for the black candidate. I say this as a friend of Althouse and fan of her work here on the blog. And I suspect this reasoning accounts for a lot of votes for Senator Obama. Whether or not you think anything is wrong with this "reasoning" is up to you.
I expected Obama to stumble relieving you, and many other people of the burden of having to vote for him.
The burden of not voting for the Jackie Robinson president.
I hope you had fun, running with the herd.
Herd? That's America you're talking about! Where's the patriotism gap now?
"Kos isn't actually that liberal and he's not abusive."
I think "Kos" is being used here as a shorthand for his forum.
(a) You don't need me to validate you or your blog, but for what it's worth, no choice fits my estimation. I thought you were neutral if slightly tilting to the (R) side, but you really gave no good reasons why you switched so strongly to the (D) side. Maybe it was clear to you, but it wasn't clear here. Not "cruel neutrality," but "unexplained fiat."
(b) Anyone who thinks Kos is not abusive has very weird standards for abuse. Remember the snark about the contractors strung up on the bridge at Fallujah? That's a bit abusive, don't you think?
ZPS said,
I never come to Althouse to be validated...
There's some top shelf bullshit!
Ann,
Just tell me you didn't vote for Al Franken.
Please?
"I don't believe there was a struggle. Based on Althouse's comments, especially regarding that Libertarian conference she attended some years ago, there was really no other choice but to vote for the black candidate. I say this as a friend of Althouse and fan of her work here on the blog. And I suspect this reasoning accounts for a lot of votes for Senator Obama. Whether or not you think anything is wrong with this "reasoning" is up to you."
I don't see anything wrong with this reasoning. There are undeniably benefits that will accrue to our society for electing an African-American president. It's just that for me, these benefits were outweighed on the ultimate tally sheet by what I saw as the costs associated with Obama, such as his opposition to free trade. Of course, valuing all the factors in an election is not obvious and not easy, so I don't begrudge Althouse at all if it happened as you say.
My gripe with the analysis you give, however, is not one of rationality, but of drama. As a fan of the blog, I think things would have been more interesting and entertaining had there been a struggle and had we been able to watch it unfold. That's all.
I think you just saw Driving Miss Daisy one too many times my dear lady.
We know what you want the young handsome Muslim to drive, do we not?
You poor dear. He realy does not care for old white women.
Where's the patriotism gap now?
I expect hilarity in the slogan-reversals to come. Come February, will dissent still be the highest form of patriotism? It's a good thing most bumper stickers are magnetic now -- much less fuss to swap them out.
"Ann,
Just tell me you didn't vote for Al Franken.
Please?"
She lives in Wisconsin, not Minnesota.
Love is a strong word. My appreciation of you and everyone in general is not predicated on their vote record. It is immaterial. If the blog sucked and all the commenters left I would be sad and disapointed, but you are a Democrat, it is only to be expected that you would vote that way!
Trey
I want to vote all of the above!
Me too. me too.
I am with the Bushman above. I really do not care for whom you vote--its strictly your business and in no way affects my reasons for visiting this blog.
Wisconsin, Minnesota, what's the difference! It's all flyover to you...
Palladian 12:51 and Dan Karipedes - agreed. She is not dismissive of other points of view.
It's the reason I stopped reading Andrew Sullivan, for example.
The greatest tribute to AA is that she is able to draw the most eclectic and humorous posters in all of blogdom. She's low on the agitprop and high on the bonhommie.
Who cares if she's commie?
Ann, I love you whatever, but I always knew that you were going to go for Obama. He strikes me as the emotional choice. And, as smart as you are, it seems you tend to be very swayed by emotional appeal.
» I thought it was another vortex.
"Ann, I love you whatever, but I always knew that you were going to go for Obama. He strikes me as the emotional choice. And, as smart as you are, it seems you tend to be very swayed by emotional appeal."
This helps me get to the question I'd like to pose to Prof. Althouse. I too love you, Althouse, and I think you are more rational than Salamandyr gives you credit for. But there is an emotional side to these decisions for all of us. My question is, how much did the cruel neutrality distort the underlying emotions?
Frankly, it was more surprising that you went for Bush in '04 than your choice of O in '08. No doubt, you had your reasons, only partially explained along the way, in both cases.
As for the "revelation" idea, around the time of the Wisconsin primary, I recall your having a post inviting your readers to guess which way you were leaning. Even by that point, most of your readers had figured out that you were definitely an O voter rather than Hillary! Nothing much changed when O's opponent became McC -- the reasons why you would be an O voter remained the same. So there wasn't much being revealed in your "revelation."
As for any "chang[e] [in my] view of this blog" because you went with O, I can't imagine why it would. This isn't really a political blog-site. The topics you write about are a quirky mix, and your approach is always intelligent, informed, really quite unique in blog-land. Even when you talked about the campaign, your best stuff was more cultural than political -- whether the visuals in a particular ad made sense, how it stood up to some iconic video that it called to mind, etc. I think you find ordinary political commentary repetitive, predictable and generally dull, and so you don't do much of it. That's fine with me.
I'll confess that I am moderately disgusted by your decision. You can vote for any idiot that you want, but I was appalled however by the rationale.
In my view, Obama is the least experienced, least prepared President in modern history, whose victory must be attributed to a "feel good" vote by people who bought the Hoping for Change" vaporware.
Ann's statements about how she was voting for Obama because he was a pragmatist was an example. I would estimate that most of the people who voted for Obama don't support half his public policies, and are hoping that he keeps half his promises and reverses field on the other half. The problem is which half...
We're going to be in for a very bumpy economic ride if Obama does even 10% of the dumb things that he has promised. As for the glassy hole that used to be Tel Aviv, don't even get me started on that.
As another poster stated, the MSM on day 1, is now starting to back pedal and will try to recoup some credibility by doing stories on "The impact of Obama policies on the economy". Short answer, his policies are a disaster for the economy, but they were too much vested in having him win to do their professional jobs before hand.
Dow Down 350 as Investors Shift Focus to Economy- AP
A case of post-election nerves sent stocks lower Wednesday as investors worried about recession began questioning what impact a Barack Obama presidency will have on business and the overall economy.
which idiot could not predict that story last month? It was clear to any freshman econ student, much less Harvard MBA's
Ann-
I was evenly split between I knew it all along, so nothing changed. and Whatever you do, I love you
I am a "libertarian" who first visited during the Althouse/Howley kerfluffle- which is why I was sure you'd vote Obama
I stayed for the photos, the 'vortexes', your topic selection, and your commenters.
Tell me how you felt about my revelation that I was voting for Obama.
Ann, for me at least it wasn't a revelation you were voting for Obama anymore than it was a 'revelation' that Clay Aiken was gay.
Now for the usual suspects who believed you were a paid spokesperson for the Bush Administration it may have been.
I would like to suggest that you only post one political thread a day so we can corrall all the trolls in one spot and enjoy photos of plants with hairy balls and small dogs urinating.
I think that would serve you well.
But that's just me. You must of course do what makes you happy. I know you can never get enough of Michael, downtownlad and Alphaliberal. Enjoy.
You were an undeclared college professor. There was a 90% probability that you would go for the Marxist, African-American elitist.
I'm just not quite clear how an intelligent person who claims not to be an ideologue makes the decision. If you've already said, I haven't read it yet.
Was it:
Card check?
FOCA?
Biden's suggestion that they might investigate the Bush admin?
His "salve" for the economy in the form of increases in corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, death taxes, etc?
His inexperience in foreign policy?
His indifference to the bankruptcy of coal industry customers?
His opposition to drilling and nuclear power (despite the bullshit)?
His lack of candor when pressed on potentially damaging issues, e.g., Wright, Ayers, Resko house purchase, etc?
His utopian promises from the infomercial (which were even too much for the Obama media to take)?
The absolute corruption of the news media engendered by his candidacy?
Oh never mind. It doesn't matter. In fact one of my friends from New Zealand called it the "it doesn't matter who Obama is or what he has done or not done campaign."
Puzzled.
Me? I felt relieved because it gave me a reason to pause my bizarre idiosyncratic monitoring. (Though I do intend to finish the bizarreness.)
OK, yes, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan they are all the same in my mind. I'm an idiot. I guess if I had watched the election returns last night I would have known better. But how many republicans did you vote for?
C'mon Althouse, isn't this a bit narcissistic a la Oprah? I didn't think you took yourself this seriously.
elHombre said...
I know you got tired, but please add:
- abandoning our allies
- law enforcement as a solution to terror attacks
- fairness doctrine
- protectionist trade
- eco-pork
- cap and trade
- broken campaign finance promises
- anti 1st and 2nd amendments
- empathetic judges
- totally opaque disclosure policy (health records, client list, etc)
- Civilian National Security Corps
- cutting defense by 25%
"OK, yes, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan they are all the same in my mind."
Also Dallas, Philly, Washington and the rest of the NFC. They will fall to the awesome might of THE WORLD CHAMPION NEW YORK GIANTS who will romp to another Super Bowl victory.
How about them Cowboys?
Did I tell you lately that the Giants won the Super Bowl?
None of the above.
Who you vote for is up to you. I agree with Ken and Drill Sgt: your rationale just didn't make sense at the end. It felt more like a marketing ploy than neutrality. We can read the LA Times for that!
I feel so used, LOL!
So, yeah, that and the jillion comments that make it impossible to post or read will probably affect my participation somewhat.
Civilian National Security Corps
Now I do like this idea but only if it comes with a really sharp uniform and leather boots.
Will we get nightsticks or tazers? Oh and I want a riding crop to smack people with.
That will be cool.
Did I tell you lately that the Giants won the Super Bowl?
Holy shit did I sleep that long?
Plus the Yankees always win multiple World Series when a Democrat is President. So that's one good thing.
Have I told you lately that the Giants are going to win the Super Bowl again?
The giants are right where we want them, in the same place the Cowboys were last year. They will earn a bye in the playoffs, loose their edge and be toasted in a first round playoff loss.
Face it, the Cowboys are the Yankees of football and they have a better owner!
Trooper York said...
Plus the Yankees always win multiple World Series when a Democrat is President. So that's one good thing.
Didn't you hear, the Dem's are going to pass the MLB Fairness Doctrine that mandates a Cubs win :)
I just hope Obama and Dems get rid of the designated hitter rule and make those friggin pitchers get up there and try to hit.
I felt Ann made a frivolous gesture when we needed pragmatism.
Now we're absolutely screwed.
When the Dow hits 4500, I hope it doesn't take as long to recover as it did when FDR screwed things up.
Back then, it took 25 years to recover. 25 goddamned years, and a war (strange how the Depression was related to the war).
So, yeah, this really scares the shit out of me. And it won't cure racism. Sorry.
Ann, I think you have a book idea here: "Cruel Neutrality" as a political approach. For voters. For the media.
I took your vow of Cruel Neutrality very seriously and applied it to my own thinking. Unless you're being paid by the Democratic or Republican parties (and a lot of you are!), everyone should take the same vow before every election. And even then! Glory be to the secret ballot! I hope there was at least one Obama campaign staffer who voted for McCain and vice-versa.
There's no reason to make your move too soon. The point of a campaign is to watch and learn how these two wanna-bes think and work. Plus, over the course of a campaign, one starts to abandon the notion that an ideal candidate exists, and confronts the reality of your limited choice. That's called growing up. We all have to do this every four years.
It's not in the least bit contradictory to harshly criticize a candidate and then vote for him, anymore than it would be contradictory to criticize him afterward.
Example: Rahm Emmaneul? Terrible idea for a chief of staff! Obama, what are you thinking? But that's another comment for another day.
Hey George Steinbrenner is the greatest owner in the history of sports and your Dallas Boss Hogg is just a pale imitation of the real thing. It's just that George has been ill and they have stepped back a little. But I have my hopes for Hank. He might take the rubberband off of the bankroll and then watch out losers.
Plus Tony Romo is going to get his pinky stuck in Jessica's snatch again so I ain't too worried about him. Plus he takes a lot of advice from Bret Farve so you know he has to be an even bigger idiot than you thought.
I was kind of shocked. I really thought McCain's hilarious bunny-rabbit impression would lock you in.
This might not be a good day to poll. I think a lot of readers are nursing hangovers.
I knew it all along, and that disgusted me, but I love you anyway. See? These things aren't that clear cut.
I didn't vote in your poll because none of those really summarized my thoughts. I know you are a little left of central, but I thought McCain was moderate enough for you. I guess I'm not surprised, just slightly disappointed.
I would have loved you anyway, but I was surprised you were voting for Obama. I thought it was especially risky to admit publicly when it could have hurt your blog. If traffic was your desire you would have pretended to vote for McCain.
But if you had been voting for MCain I would have had to bash, trash, demonize and metaphorically defecate on you for doing it. Would I have had a choice?
Either way, Obama won. I still can't believe it. It's surreal to me, I totally misread the American political landscape.
Regardless of which candidate you supported, how can anyone be surprised by the outcome?
The angriest voters were not the leftwing nutroots. The angriest voters were suburbanites who have seen their net worth decline substantially in the past two years. Most of those folks voted for Bush last time. I'm surprised that any of them voted for McCain this time -- especially after he made it manifestly clear that he had no idea what to do about the financial meltdown.
That Obama only got 52 percent of the vote when Bush had a sub-30 percent approval rating is proof of the essential center-rightness of this country's electorate. But watch out if you knock the struts out from under this country's workers and savers.
I totally misread the American political landscape.
Misreading may be your area of expertise.
Soon you'll be saying "I totally misread the American economic landscape." Woopsies!
ZPS said I think you took a big risk by alienating the majority of your readers and endorsing Obama, and you should be commended for it.
Why would you think that? Oh I forgot. You're under the impression that conservatives shun those who hold a differing viewpoint than them. That's funny because it was people like you who pissed and moan when Ann was critical of Obama whereas few if any conservatives here were under some mushroom induced illusion she was going to vote Republican.
Hell it was liberals like you who were alienating her when conservatives knew all along she was going to vote for Obama. When I was a kid, they referred to folks so easily fooled as chumps.
Am I the first to say this? Shouldn't it be spelled Divavlog?
The Drill SGT said (2:01) ... “Didn't you hear, the Dem's are going to pass the MLB Fairness Doctrine that mandates a Cubs win :)”
Classic!
Drill, dig this.
The world of fairness would be complete if (and only if) the MLB was forced to add a share-the-wealth doctrine too, you know, to take money from the Cardinals season ticket holders in order to pay for home field tickets for Cubbies fans in the series.
Yeah, yeah. Although I’m a west coast watcher of the Dodger-Giants rivalry, I was in Chicago long enough to catch the flavors on Halstead and of the crazy central rivalries. So, I suppose if Cardinal fans objected to paying for tickets for Cubs fans (doh, ya think?), we west-coasters could revive Juan Marichal and his bat (the Marichal-Roseboro bat-over-the-head incident) to beat the crap out of those hateful, ungrateful, non-share-the-wealth Cards fans. Bludgeon those bastards to pay up.
In fact, under the new Fairness Doctrine (your post), maybe MLB will have to share air time with World Wrestling Federation wrestlemania between innings, so Marichal and his bat would look right at home.
"I totally misread the American political landscape."
Political phrenology often leads to misreadings.
Ann's support for Obama didn't surprise me. I was surprised by the surprise of some of the Althouse commentators. The comments section notched up a level in hostility, I think, though a mad Palladian is vastly more substantial (and far funnier) than the drive-by smears of thin-skinned lefties.
It strikes me that what makes Ann's vote for Obama and against Kerry seem inexplicable to some is that it is primarily an aesthetic decision, not a political one.
What Althouse seeks is clarity of thought and beauty of expression. Even compared to Bush, Kerry is a man of slovenly intellect: muddled, lazy, and petulant. McCain is more scattershot than muddled, but still can be frustratingly mindless.
Obama is the opposite. He is a mindful person. He speaks with self-discipline and awareness of his audience. If he is vague, it is because he wants to be vague. What is significant about his mistakes -- the bitter-clinger remark, his reply to Joe the Plumber -- is how few of them there really were in a long campaign for a candidate that had to thread the needle on numerous issues.
In the end it is as simple as this:
Althouse hates mediocrity.
In my own peculiar way I love you, Althouse. You know why? Because you're a self-starter, the exact opposite of a typical Obama voter. But I guess you had to work your way through that insane white guilt thing. That's alright. You're about to be disappointed. Then you'll shed that guilt once and for all, like millions of others.
I'll admit to being a Giants fan in the 60's growing up. Willie and Willie were my Grandma's hero's, heard nightly on the radio.
Barrack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.
You know, Ann
I always think you're bending too far to the right on almost every issue.
Ergo I was expecting you to vote for McCain.
But that's also because the center of my universe is far to the left of most of your commenters.
Nevertheless I enjoy reading your posts because even with your conservative-oriented commentary you do force me to think about why I believe what I believe. I still believe it, but making me argue for it is a useful exercise.
And, knowing that-- I'd be surprised if you criticized him before inauguration day but I will be interested in seeing how you view Obama post January 20, once the rubber starts hitting the road.
HMMMMMM!! A quick glance at the thread indicates that the creme de le creme have checked in but where are our trolls?? No trolls take polls?
I accidentally posted this in the poll, I'm going to duplicate part of it here:
The number one limitation most academics have is a lack of sustained experience watching their carefully researched and thought out ideas fail miserably once applied. They overvalue the academy and undervalue experience and hard knocks. Obama is an academic type, McCain is a hard knocks type. Biden and Palin -- same distinction.
That Obama only got 52 percent of the vote when Bush had a sub-30 percent approval rating is proof of the essential center-rightness of this country's electorate.
If by "essential" you mean "fictional," then sure.
How badly does the GOP need to get stomped, and in how many different states, before wingnuts (and, maddeningly, idiot MSM pundits) admit that they're the lunatic fringe of American politics and not the center.
I just hope Obama and Dems get rid of the designated hitter rule and make those friggin pitchers get up there and try to hit.
I never enjoyed watching futility. And by the same logic, football teams should not have separate offenses and defenses. Nay, the players should go both ways, which should please titus.
Oh, Ann. Sorry, this is your blog (doh). Not about baseball. Sorry for my former post.
I’m not a regular blogger. Only an occasional commenter. Discount accordingly.
There’s not a category in your poll for my answer.
So, here it is.
I dig your riff on Obama’s pragmatism. And I’m not partisan (split my ticket); and, not much of an ideologue. I’d rather vote Kerry over Bush, and McCain over Kerry, but now, McCain over Obama, for reasons similar to yours (some nod to pragmatism); but, I barely could vote for McCain this time (buyer/voter’s remorse) because McCain lost the soul for which I loved him (e.g., when he formerly blasted the religious right, contrary to his Republican identity).
I felt proud, and great hope in both candidates. And, I had to sacrifice the false pride of “gee, my vote made history (for Obama)” when I voted for McCain.
My vote for McCain was ambivalent; but, I voted that way in large part exactly because of what Obama (yes, Obama: not McCain) said in Obama’s acceptance speech, namely, that Obama hears and knows he must “earn the trust” of those who voted otherwise. So, earn it.
I would likely have voted for Obama in the future. He’ll be around awhile. Methinks.
My point is that, in the spirit of a previous blog of yours on the value of dissenting opinions (in good faith assuming you believe your own logic/rhetoric), I think it’s less important that you voted differently than I, than it’s important that you will (might, could) turn into a ball-busting-bitch from hell against your own candidate as his best-friend-adversary both complimenting and criticizing what happens next (next 4-8 years).
Which is exactly what I would have done to and for McCain: because of his Republican-crony socialism under Bush and Bush’s socialist $700 billion love-fest with banks like Chase, who may end up using (watch and see) the bailout more for mergers and acquisitions than for foreclosure bailouts of the very debtors who form my poverty-law and ADR client base .... for whom I'm a bleeding heart without hailing to any silly party ....
... alas ...
... Jefferson, not Obama nor McCain, and not hard-core partisans on either side, got it right in his (Jefferson’s) Bill for General Education when he said that the purpose of education is for helping an informed electorate identify tyranny in all it’s forms ....
So, Ann. Vote your conscience. And keep watching.
From the other side,
Peace.
Jim
ricpic:
Because you're a self-starter, the exact opposite of a typical Obama voter.
Clearly you've been listening to Rush Limbaugh too much.
Let me point some things out about 'typical' Obama voters and how they 'self-start.'
There were hundreds of thousands of Obama volunteers out there for the past few months. I was one of them. I gave up a lot of time to knock doors, stuff door pouches, make phone calls, staff event tables and walk precincts. So did a whole lot more than McCain could muster.
There were more than three million who coughed up at least a few dollars to chip in to the campaign.
More than sixty-three million Obama supporters voted, more than have ever voted for any candidate in American history.
Yeah. Obama supporters don't 'self-start.'
idiot.
Andrew Berman said...
The number one limitation most academics have is a lack of sustained experience watching their carefully researched and thought out ideas fail miserably once applied.
reminds me of three military sayings, all arguably in support of your position. the spectrum, from crude to philosphical:
1. Stuff happens
2. expect the expected
3. "Everything is very simple in war, but in battle even the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen war. "
Karl Von Clausewitz
"There were hundreds of thousands of Obama volunteers out there for the past few months."
Only lefties think that politics is actually "work".
Sheetrocking is work.
Slinging hash is work.
Designing a floorplan is work.
Digging a ditch and finding a vein are work.
Asking for handouts and getting out the vote and letting the dead cast their ballots alongside Minnie Mouse isn't work.
"Raising awareness" isn't work.
Standing in line to increase your share of the gummint pie isn't work.
"Asking for handouts and getting out the vote and letting the dead cast their ballots alongside Minnie Mouse isn't work.
"Raising awareness" isn't work.
Standing in line to increase your share of the gummint pie isn't work."
It is now, Pogo!
Yes! It! Is!
I was disappointed. Your cruel neutrality pose was clever and the ensuing comment riffing was among the best online.
Once you declared, your unique voice was lost in the cacophonous Obama echo chamber.
It was as if the comfy, eclectic, neighborhood coffee shop was suddenly replaced by a Starbucks drive-thru.
I see Danny Boy is taking no chances. ;^)
Pogo
All is not lost! Your soul-mate Michelle Bachmann survived. One of the few that did, but you still have that going for you. There are still some crazy mofo's out there. Just like YOU!
I tried really hard but I couldn’t remember at all how I felt when it was revealed that Althouse intended to vote for Sen. Obama.
But then I remembered that I forget things all the time.
So I took off my shirt and looked at myself in the bathroom mirror.
My hunch was right!
I wrote myself a message on my chest with a black magic marker.
The message read: “Too late, you slow-poke, you already forgot
what you were going to write.”
Damn!
Actually the total vote count so far is less than 2004's total. Obama did get a million more votes than Bush did in 2004.
I do agree with Pogo that volunteer politicking is not real work and a self-starter refers to one who takes risks and chances like Ann did with her blog. Surely you understand the difference there from those who want and expect a guvmint handout year after year after year.
Bissage:
We need a non-rhyming cheer. How about it?
" There are still some crazy mofo's out there. Just like YOU!"
Most are dead, however. Like those crazy mofo founding fathers, what with all that small gummint, and separation of powers, and avoidance of statism crap.
They were crazy that way.
(long-time lurker, occasional poster)
I was also disappointed, but I was disappointed with the way in which you appeared to make your decision. The Cruel Neutrality, and your general style of observation, gave the impression that -- however you voted -- you were going to make a cool and calculated decision.
Instead it felt (because I can only glean from what I read) like you made an entirely subjective choice. You didn't pick Obama because policy X or policy Y were better than McCain's. Even when you said why McCain lost you, it was a subjective and emotional decision, cloaked in a rational choice.
You didn't pick Obama, you felt that he was a better choice.
I'm not upset, and I'll keep reading of course, but I had hoped that you'd pick a candidate without resorting to your intuitive feelings.
Of course, I could be wrong about why you did everything, but when I tried to read between the lines (Althouse-sylte! turnabout is fair play, madam), that is what I saw.
"They were crazy that way."
And they were racists too!
Barack will be stubbing out his Marlboro Reds in Martha Washington's porcelain in protest.
Nothing like a Dem in the White House to awaken Pogo to the wonders of Constitutional limits on executive power.
Why don't you give us one more rendition of "Article II means the president can do whatever he wants" for old time's sake?
Bissage, ha!
Does Bush know how to write well enough to star in Memento? – can anyone including Obama read Obama’s policy writing on first pass and find much substance without needing a mental condition that breaks down on second reading? – watch poly-sci hype and accounting procedures (GAAP) change under the bailout as quixotically as body-notes in Memento.
The funnest part of all is to realize that lawyers like doyle with his opinions and sensiblity will be running the Justice Department.
Thank you Althouse.
"The funnest part of all is to realize that lawyers like doyle with his opinions and sensiblity will be running the Justice Department."
Justice Department? They'll be running the entire fucking government!
The dead already voted for McCain. C'mon, he had that voting block sewn up. And really, separation of powers and small government? Since when has that been something conservatives followed? Dick Cheney wouldn't even disclose how many people worked on his staff!
One good thing about this election. Hillary's chances are fucked forever. Haha, garage.
Ah, Doyle, go to hell, willya?
First, find my post defending Bush doing whatever it is you think he did first. Because it ain't there.
Next, piss on someone else's leg. Because apparently you weren't realy concerned about "the Constitutional limits on executive power", you were only envious. Yup, you thought it was the Democrats that deserved to be ripping the Consititution a new one.
Again, like a true lefty, not concerned with actual human rights, just worried about who gets to be the boot stamping on the human face.
You're going to do the same goddamned thing you bitched about Bush doing, only twice as big, and claiming it to be a virtue.
Goddamned baby boomers.
Doyle: How badly does the GOP need to get stomped, and in how many different states, before wingnuts (and, maddeningly, idiot MSM pundits) admit that they're the lunatic fringe of American politics and not the center.
There was an eight million vote difference between Obama and McCain; not a majority. The country is still evenly split ideologically on key issues.
Time will tell how many voters were compelled by Obama's historic candidacy and/or to repudiate Bush's economy.
Governing will change perceptions about Obama and determine if they remain in the blue column.
The wonderful thing about all the puffery and gloating and hubris is that it makes the inevitable fall much more delicious. Hopefully they won't bring the rest of us down in the process of their tumble.
One good thing about this election. Hillary's chances are fucked forever. Haha,
Yes :)
One good thing about this election. Hillary's chances are fucked forever. Haha,
Filthy rich and arguably the most powerful woman in politics? I'd take that.
This just in:
Garage Mahal wants a sex change.
above anything, I appreciate that you recognized how unscientific this poll would be because of the abandoned readers. I was disappointed you didn't come out for McCain, but I'm (generall) past the point where I upbraid people for their political choices.
Every time I see the word "diavlog," it comes out to me as "divalog," and I think that's what you ought to do, Althouse: DIVALOGS.
I was unsurprised.
There's the old New Yorker cartoon, upper class, wife to husband, ``Now don't try to reason with me.''
I quit participating.
Would have been shocked had you voted McCain.
Spoke to someone ecstatic about the Obama win asking him why he voted for O. First he mentioned something about JFK appeal, then firmly said 'change' and then concluded with 'McCain is a warmonger'.
Nothing in the way of Obama policy.
Oh well.
So it all comes down to "What do you think of me now?" ? Narcissistic is how I would think of you.
Lionheart -- Don't you think it's perfectly fair for someone to have her blog be all about her if that's what she wants? It ain't a public utility.
I can't vote in that, none of them even comes close. I have read you for a couple years and have enjoyed the blog very much. When you "came out" how you were voting, the tone changed so much to me that I haven't enjoyed the your posts much. For the first time I thought I guess i'll stop reading. As you can see, I haven't done that yet but I figure now that this is all over, maybe I can go back to enjoying you again.
Seven - Certainly Ann's right to have it be about her. She asked, I answered. I enjoy the discussions here more than the navel gazing that starts them, that's all.
THIS sounds like a job for . . .
Nonsense Rhyme Cheerleader Man!!!
(a copyrighted feature of this broadcast):
Under pants, giant ants, chancre on a dong,
Frying pan, coffee can, sing a silly song.
Gooooooooooooo TEAM!
At the end of the day, when I am at my best reasonable self, I come to Althouse to hear what a reasonable left-leaning person has to say and to debate with Peter Hoh and Madison Man and a few other reasonable left-leaning people.
Nothing's changed since I started coming here, except possibly that the perception falsely evolved that Althouse is conservative because she refused to buy into the dopey propaganda of the left during its sad, crazy wilderness years.
Which readers left?
You give decent blog with some interesting opinions and observations. That's why I visit this site. Why should I care for whom you voted?
Every time I see the word "diavlog," it comes out to me as "divalog,
Whenever I find that others share my hallucinations it scares me.
Me? I'm composing letters to all them folks what I used to donate money to.
Since my taxes will be going up, and my pay going down, I will be telling them to get in line with the other folks fo' they gummint cheese, 'cause this pocket is closed.
I'm thinking of ending it either "Get it from Obama" or "Get it from President Government". What do y'all think?
I ain't joking. Church, theaters, Scouts, schools, and homes for the retarded. All gone, as I will iterally be giving it all at the office.
Goodbye to nonesssential spending too. Goodbye travel, movies, trinkets, tech gear, books, and such. Call me niggardly, if it's still permitted. Might change to vodka; the Soviets seemed to like it.
Seven Machos --
Lionheart -- Don't you think it's perfectly fair for someone to have her blog be all about her if that's what she wants? It ain't a public utility.
True. That being pretty much the definition of narcissistic.
I was one of them. I gave up a lot of time to knock doors, stuff door pouches, make phone calls, staff event tables and walk precincts.
What do you want, a cookie? Jesus, grow up. No one thinks more highly of you because you went out and trolled for a politician. ANY politician.
Oligonicella -- Here's what I think is narcissistic: visiting a blog and saying that it should be about what you want it to be about.
Start your own fucking blog. It don't cost nothin'.
Hang in there Pogo. Maybe this will cheer you up. Click slide 2 then 3. That Arkansas-Tennessee-West Virginia corridor is holding tight for Republicans. Something to build on :)
Post it again, dumbass.
Nah. I have come to realize that Jean-François Revel was right all along, that the temptation towards totalitarianism is too great, and it has even infected this great land.
So now that the US will be no different than every the other declining European statist nation, I'll have to decide where I will be least screwed over and move there.
It's hella disappointing, but I thought the founders still held some small appeal on our shores, but apparently people want their goddamned goodies, and they want someone else to pay for them, just like every other socialist state.
Now all the western nations are just so many different faceless corporations, and I'm another cog in the machine. Where I sit don't seem to matter none no-how.
Shit. I was hoping I'd be spared this goddamned decision. Did I mention I hate the goddamned baby boomers?
Yeah. Obama supporters don't 'self-start.'.
I think you missed ricpic's point. Sacrificing your time to stuff envelopes and knock on doors isn't self starting. Chipping in a few dollars to a campaign isn't self starting. None of that takes risk. If he lost you were out time and a few bucks.
A self starter in business sense is someone who hangs his financial balls out there on a bet he/she can create a successful business. He or she will not only be sacrificng a whole lot of their time, energy and yes, more than a few dollars on the off chance they'll be a success. Off chance because most start ups fail.
Therein lies the difference Eli and I'm really not surprised it had to be pointed out to you.
garage mahal said: Filthy rich and arguably the most powerful woman in politics?
I thought Nancy Pelosi was the most powerful woman in politics. At least thats what they said she was crowned Speaker.
Already half a dozen challenges to Prop.8 have been announced. I'm guessing that enforcement of Prop. 8 will thus be blocked by the courts until all challenges are exhausted, which no doubt will take years. Ann, is this likely?
Doyle: How badly does the GOP need to get stomped, and in how many different states, before wingnuts (and, maddeningly, idiot MSM pundits) admit that they're the lunatic fringe of American politics and not the center.
Doyle you do understand elections are cyclical and the American electorate is quite fickle right? If you think you guys have a blank check by all means go crazy. Pass all the lefty legislation you can think of. Hell, don't just make open borders, extend an official invitation. Don't be pussies, cut defense by 40% and raise marginal rates to 55%. Now is not the time to be timid right? Really, do it and watch how fast you guys lose Congress and make Obama a one termer.
Obama being elected is unprecedented. The turnover in Congress isn't. If this is news to you than I suspect you're around 25years old. Tops.
I confess, I've spent the last day looking around the internets for other places to discuss the issues. And it is not because Ann changed. She didn't. What has changed is the nastiness of the recent trolls. Long ago I noted that the commenting community was what made Althouse such a "must visit" site. The give and take of opposing opinions made me happy. While a "me, too" response is agreeably validating, it gets boring quickly. I like arguments. Arguments. Not name calling. I can only visualize those trolls as the pimply faced adolescent boys they truly are for so long. When they take over the comments this becomes a tiresome place. Every comment becomes a repeat of talking points without any attempt to engage others. Discussion ends. I get nothing, nothing, out of it. Maybe this will change now that the election is over. Maybe not. I suppose trolls are the price of having a popular blog.
"Spoke to someone ecstatic about the Obama win asking him why he voted for O. First he mentioned something about JFK appeal, then firmly said 'change' and then concluded with 'McCain is a warmonger'"
Well, you know, McCain IS a warmonger. When Russia and Georgia went to war the first thing he said was, "We are all Georgians now," as if there was some huge pent up demand in this country to engage in a land war with Russia on their own border on behalf of a country that provoked the whole affair.
We were already at war with Iraq and Afghanistan and that apparently wasn't enough for McCain, he wanted to take on Russia too. Neither Hitler nor Napoleon could defeat Russia in their own land. What makes him think he could do it?
More to the point, why would we even want to try, unless it was to help out Israel again? I bet 98% of Americans don't have a clue where George is but nonetheless McCain wants to fight a war with Russia there. What planet is he on?
You know if Titus was awake he would tell you a diva-log is what you get when the professor pinches off a loaf.
Hoosier Daddy said...
garage mahal said: Filthy rich and arguably the most powerful woman in politics?
I thought Nancy Pelosi was the most powerful woman in politics. At least thats what they said she was crowned Speaker.
LoL, Nancy is a mayor's daughter from Baltimore. She and her husband have assets in the $100-150 million dollar range. The most ironic example is the Non-union Napa Vineyard worth 25 million.
Duscany said...
Already half a dozen challenges to Prop.8 have been announced. I'm guessing that enforcement of Prop. 8 will thus be blocked by the courts until all challenges are exhausted, which no doubt will take years. Ann, is this likely?
Eugene Volokh, the famous :) UCLA Con Law blogger thinks it is constitutional (and he voted against it). I don't see any basis to toss it. After all, almost by definition, an amendment has to be at odds with the existing text, else why have an amendment, and cearly the latest amendment also reflects the most recent will of the People.
The Calfornia Constitution was designed as a "Progressive" (read amendable by the people, rather than Leftist) document. Its creator's intent was that the People would do so,
Doyle: How badly does the GOP need to get stomped, and in how many different states, before wingnuts (and, maddeningly, idiot MSM pundits) admit that they're the lunatic fringe of American politics and not the center.
Short answer: A lot worse than 52-47. Was Kerry's similar-sized loss a sign that liberals were the lunatic fringe?
Anyway, I'm not a member of the GOP, and the Obama I voted for was the one who shifted most of his crucial positions rightward after the nomination was in his grasp. That's quite a salute to those you call "the lunatic fringe" -- to adopt most of their positions. He's very smart and I think he knows he has to govern from the center and keep his eye to the right in order to maintain his viability. Just like Clinton did. Obama is his own Dick Morris. The left-wing will get very little of what it wants. So, Doyle, don't go off your meds.
And, given how far the Dems fell short of their precious 60 votes, I'm not even that worried about card check. Obama didn't even mention it during his campaign, so he can't whip it out now and say "mandate." And McConnell's crew will make sure it never makes it to his desk, or at a minimum make sure it can't speed through without substantial public debate.
My vote: "I knew it all along, so nothing changed."
I love you whatever you do.
Are you out of your beautiful lovely mind?
I have never had feeling like these for any other human being.
My love for you is utterly uniquely profoundly unboundedly intensely true.
It's also completely conditional.
Wait a minute, garage mahal called Hillary a filthy bitch?
I thought he liked her.
I was happy when you voted for Barack.
I was here when you voted for W and i thought Mccain was much better than W.
I am a self starter.
Either liberals or Obama supporters are elites or dead enders. I don't see how they can be both.
I paid for my own college, own college housing, worked 2 jobs while in college, was able to attain a killer body, a fabulous job, an amazing loft, great friends and respect from my family.
No one gave me shit. And I still voted for Obama???
Also, I had great election sex last night with some stranger in an alley near my place. It was very romantic.
Thank you.
I just had a really special crepe delivered for dindin tonight.
It was delish.
It was full of peaches and cream and other little items of specialness.
Thank you.
Ann is so vain.
She should blog about me!
And despite all my current worries
"I still care for you
by Ray LaMontagne.
Listen.
It's pretty.
And, given how far the Dems fell short of their precious 60 votes, I'm not even that worried about card check. Obama didn't even mention it during his campaign, so he can't whip it out now and say "mandate."
John, and ad in the fact that turn-out was 3.2 million less than 2004, so that black and youth vote again was underwhelming. which means that in 2012, Obama sure won't have a Bush to run against, or a Historic event to excite and certainly no economic crisis to blame on anyone. To the extent that there are any problems, they belong to Obama.
Without a huge change for the better to his credit, can anyone expect him to get reelected?
The one thing I think about Obama is that he won't be mediocre. Reelection will be a breeze or he'll have a fight in the primary season. Or Stodder is right and after all this mantra of hope of change he'll govern risk averse and pretty good, like Clinton or Eisenhower. That'd actually be pretty funny.
Or Stodder is right and after all this mantra of hope of change he'll govern risk averse and pretty good
Or risk adverse and pretty bad like Hoover. My gut and a zillion "present votes" tells me that Obama has a difficult time making tough decisions under pressure. Not what I want in a CINC.
Putin thinks the same thing about him. want to bet?
Sarge -- You know, you may be right. However, there are some valid reasons why it might not matter:
1. The executive branch is ultimately beholden to the legislative branch in many ways.
2. Hoover was an idiot, as was his congress. The tariffs were the real disaster. The tightening of the money supply amidst disaster prolonged it. We have the WTO now. Obama can't undo all it has done. And, like it or not, corrupt as it may turn out, the recent bailout is a textbook example of what we now know you are supposed to do during hard economic times: throw money at banks. Also, Obama's anti-free-trade stuff could very well be meaningless red meat for the left.
3. Russia and China are problems, but they won't do much in four years. Terrorism will likely increase. Hopefully, it won't be that bad. Whatever the case, Republicans will be there to fix the situation in four years.
Keep your head up. We can't win all the time. Different leadership is part of the deal in democracy.
3. Russia and China are problems, but they won't do much in four years.
Iran is only going to get worse in the next 4 years. A glassy hole where Tel Aviv stands is a possibility.
If I were the Ukraine, I'd be trying to schedule joint Ukraine-NATO visits ALL the time. I don't see the Putin learned any good (from our view)lessons from his Georgia actions and with McCain out, what could stop him from creating a Ukraine issue, perhaps over the Russian Port access or...
Iran won't be much of a problem after Israel gets through with them in the next few weeks. They have to drop the bombs before bambi gets in or they are screwed. I predict right around Christmas.
THIS sounds like a job for . . .
Nonsense Rhyme Rejoinder Guy!!!
(a complete rip off of a copyrighted feature of this broadcast):
Cheerleader Man
Yes, Yes He Can!
Rhyme an icky dong
With a hubba hubba song
Who wears the pants
with the giant marching ants?
Why be white
if loving him is Wong?
On Ukraine -- Maybe Russia has territorial ambitions there, again. I don't know. However, they need a cause for war. They had one for Georgia that, while you may disagree with it, wasn't historically illegitimate. Russia would need a stronger one for the Ukraine and, furthermore, it is unlikely to want to test NATO.
There are probably good reasons why Georgia wasn't yet in NATO (and, I believe, still isn't).
Not surprised, as I always thought the off-blog Althouse had more concerns than the blog reflected. The war is coming along. And that leave a lot of different, less talked about issues.
Still happy that Althouse is one of the best places online where intelligent conversation can happy without complete political agreement. I never got the sense that Ann didn't respect those who disagreed with her and she maintained an environment that contributed to good conversation.
I bet she is disappointed with the proposition results in California, however. Well, with Prop 8 at least. I suspect she didn't have much of an opinion on the high speed rail issue.
How can anyone who isn't completely invested in gayness possibly be sad about Proposition 8? It was a huge victory for the rule of the people, by the people, and for the people. That's a good thing any time.
Is it crappy law? Arguably, but blame the idiot judge(s) who tried to foist something on people that they clearly did not want. Fools.
as if there was some huge pent up demand in this country to engage in a land war with Russia on their own border on behalf of a country that provoked the whole affair.
I wasn't aware a nation exercising their soveriegn rights was justification for invasion by a neighbor. By your standards, if the US Government tried sent troops into Texas to quell a civil riot Mexico would be justified in invading.
And people wonder why I think an intelligence test should required before you can vote.
After your endorsement/why I am voting Barack, your skepticism and commentary of both candidates seemed healthy- and refreshing from an Obama voter. Sure, I voted McCain, but it is good to hear reasonable commentary from all sides- as opposed to unreasoned cheerleading. It was nice to have a destination to go to for pithy commentary. (Don't law profs love that adjective?)
Because the commentary stayed reasonable, the endorsement actually gave it more weight than similar commentary from a McCain supporter.
Enjoy your blog, looking forward to the next four years (of commentary, and hopefully, of history).
7M,
It has started already. My morning WaPo has a front page article on Russia warning Obama to halt the deployment of a missile shield against Iran.
Post a Comment