"Any Supreme Court nominee of mine will make overturning Citizens United one of the first decisions.The title of her post was "Bernie Sanders lets us know that he has no idea how the Supreme Court works." and in the comments I noted that:
As a professional socialist, Sanders has pretty much made a career out of not knowing how things work.Ann took that comment and promoted it into the body of the post, and gave me a tag (or already had one, I'm not sure). In the past, Althouse has made a point of trying not to add new tags, and jamming things into existing tags even if the fit is bit off. I suppose I'm honored to have my own tag, but it seems like it adds a bit too much responsibility to try and say intelligent things.
Another commenter made the point that you shouldn't judge someone entirely by their tweets:
Mark said...Which gets to my core objection to Twitter, typo and all.
Unknown, when limited to 144 characters on Twitter, you have an expectation that the reader understands the character limit.
Taking a single Tweet as a complete position statement is willful misunderstanding.
I bet Hillary made a similar statement about abortion rights and the SC, but these authors ignore that as they shill for Hill!
That get to the core of my objection to Twitter; it basically forces thoughts to the be length of a wisecrack. Not that I have anything against wisecracks, I probably make too many myself, but it shouldn't be a primary method of discourse.The bottom line is that if you're a presidential candidate, however serious, you need to be mindful of what you (or staff for you) tweet.
UPDATE: A second hand Instalaunch. . .