Responding to this.
For me, Obama is still the clear choice. He is the "lesser of two evils" in the sense that any politician is going to be the "lesser of two evils" at best (although his biggest transgressions are macroeconomic, and not even raised by the chatterers). But that thinking doesn't dominate for me. He's not all that evil - not to any extent that it is worth noting. He's a pretty good president, and would have been even better if we didn't have this depression (because then it wouldn't even give him the opportunity to drop the ball on the macroeconomics).
And I'm not even a Democrat.
Anyway - I doubt those thoughts are news to many readers.
Which brings me back to Friedersdorf. The people praising his article today are probably thinking "Wow Daniel, you have really been suckered. The spin of the Obama campaign has got you hook, line and sinker. You don't even realize how bad Obama is."
Just remember what I'm thinking: "Wow, those guys have really bought into the Ron/Rand Paul-Gary Johnson-Murray Rothbard line that the Ds and the Rs are indistinguishable. They don't even realize that they've been duped just to aggrandize these politicians".
Actually I don't really think that in most cases. I do think these libertarian claims are more electoral posturing than substance, but I also believe libertarians genuinely believe it.
So here is my reaction to the reaction to Friedersdorf: if your story requires that everyone who disagrees with you is being duped and everyone who agrees with you "gets it", then something is probably wrong with your story.
Comparative advantage: a partial truth
9 hours ago