A quick response to Jim on BirthdayCardGate: Whether we should be disturbed by a mass e-mail sent by the Obama campaign has no relationship I can identify to the particular means by which Jim’s voluntary contact with the Obama campaign led to his name being added to the campaign e-mail list. As a result, my reaction to the e-mail remains the same.
In addition, I note that the campaign website has an information page with the following entry:
Opting out and modifying information:Subscribers to our e-mail list may terminate their subscriptions via a link at the bottom of each email sent from BarackObama.com.
Jim initially claimed that the e-mail he received was from Michelle Obama, not (as he now acknowledges) from the Obama campaign. But assuming the e-mail was actually from the campaign, and therefore has the link at the bottom allowing him to unsubscribe, I recommend to Jim that he click on the link.
UPDATE: A reader who received the same e-mail confirms that it was sent from the address “info@barackobama.com,” and that the bottom of the e-mail contains the following message:
Paid for by Organizing for America, a project of the Democratic National Committee — 430 South Capitol Street SE, Washington, D.C. 20003. This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.This email was sent to: [address]
Change Email Address | Unsubscribe
U.Va. Grad says:
I believe the word the cool kids use is “pwn.”
July 28, 2010, 3:40 pmuh_clem says:
Yes, any reasonable person would just opt out.
Of course, we’re not dealing with a reasonable person here.
July 28, 2010, 3:45 pmFredosaurus Rex Friday XIII says:
I believe the word that describes this debate is “trivial.”
July 28, 2010, 3:45 pmghhh says:
Uh, Orin, if it makes no difference as to how they got his name, why was your entire previous post about how, since he gave his name as a supporter, and how it’s a good thing for them to stay in touch with supporters, he shouldn’t have a problem getting emails? (In short, why was your entire prevoius post about nothing that you say matters?)
July 28, 2010, 3:49 pmklp85 says:
Nudge? How would Sunstein et al. solve this?
July 28, 2010, 3:50 pmAnonny says:
Would having the facts right change Jim’s opinion? Frankly, I don’t know.
July 28, 2010, 3:51 pmU.Va. Grad says:
Probably equally true. But, as Pope wrote, mighty contests rise from trivial things.
July 28, 2010, 3:55 pmDulle Teve says:
Lindgren’s posting record over the last year is interesting. Unless I miscounted, he’s posted 60 times, half of which have concerned Obama, climate change, or Michael Bellesiles. Here’s the breakdown:
13 posts have been about Obama or the Obama administration, including 4 specifically about emails sent to the campaign contact list.
11 posts were about the controversy over climate-change data.
6 posts concerned Michael Bellesiles.
5 posts addressed the economic crisis or financial regulation.
4 posts stemmed from the release of JournoList emails.
There have been two posts each about domestic terrorism, ACORN/SEIU, housing, health-care reform generally, and Hamburger’s article on privileges or immunities.
The remainder were 11 one-off posts about law-school ideology, FA Hayek, Sowell, Greece, welfare as a Ponzi scheme, the Supreme Court (Kagan and Ginsburg), jobs, Dan Rather, Polanski, and South Park.
July 28, 2010, 3:58 pmPhoronus says:
Yeah, that email came from “Michelle Obama (info@barackobama.com)”. I suspect, using my advanced powers of deduction, that it is from the campaign site, not Michelle’s personal email. And it has the unsubscribe link at the bottom.
July 28, 2010, 4:00 pmMark says:
Somebody needs to get a life already and quit seeking offense or creepiness or whatever in every damned thing.
It is safe to say that it is not only the left that has its overreacting crybabies.
July 28, 2010, 4:00 pmAnderson says:
I suggest titling Dulle’s comment “The Biography of a Soul.”
July 28, 2010, 4:01 pmOrin Kerr says:
ghh,
My previous post was not about why Jim should have no problem getting e-mails; it was about the innocuous context of e-mails sent by political campaigns.
July 28, 2010, 4:02 pmKamal says:
Seriously, what a jerk for writing that about Orin. It would be hugely amusing if he started posting comments on other VC’er posts.
July 28, 2010, 4:02 pmmamiejane says:
Does anyone know why Lindgren doesn’t accept comments? Does he assume his word should always be the last word?
July 28, 2010, 4:03 pmSteve says:
I think Lindgren prefers to continue receiving these emails, so that he can continue to make these random “Barack Obama keeps treating me like I’m a supporter when I’m actually not” posts.
I would have thought the whole “Michelle Obama is sending me a personal email” schtick was just a way of gently mocking the way campaign organizations try to dress these things up like personal communications, but there’s little else about Lindgren’s posts to suggest a spirit of gentle mockery.
July 28, 2010, 4:03 pmKamal says:
Hi Orin, thanks for keeping the comments open on this. We appreciate it. One question.. have you changed your mind now that you have the facts right? :)
July 28, 2010, 4:05 pmKevin! says:
Given his response to the Journolist thing, it’s obvious he’s deeply afraid that the commentators will form an insidious conspiratorial cabal. ON THE INTERNET.
July 28, 2010, 4:17 pmanomdebus says:
I don’t see that part where he switches claims from the sender being Michelle Obama to the Obama campaign.
As far as questions about the comment section: it is possible he doesn’t want the added responsibility of policing the comment section and feels he would be responsible if he opened it. It was the default for volokh.com for a while after all.
July 28, 2010, 4:20 pmKamal says:
Keeping comments off for the Journolist stories is telling. I’m sure if we were able to sample .005% of Jim’s email out of context we could create quite a spicy post. Jim knows this, and his posts seem deliberately false. He probably has been called out on too many errors to want to leave comments open.
July 28, 2010, 4:21 pmGabriel Malor says:
Tiresome and petty sniping at Volokh? Must be Orin picking fights with Jim again and Jim picking back. Here’s some advice from my mother: if you boys can’t get along, stay away from each other!
Eesh, is this an academic blog or some vanity project? Have some class.
July 28, 2010, 4:29 pmCJColucci says:
We all owe Orin a beer for giving us a chance to have the fun Jim deprived us of. By the way, I don’t see that Oren has weighed in. What does he think?
July 28, 2010, 4:30 pmOrin Kerr says:
I’m probably going to close up comments here myself, as they’re not particularly civil, but on the general question of leaving comments open or closed: Each blogger can leave his posts open or closed, and it’s entirely up to them. I tend to leave comments open because I want the feedback, and think the post-post commenting is an important part of blogging. Unless a thread really goes out of control or the nature of the post doesn’t really invite comment, I’ll leave them open. But opening comments invites its own can of worms, as comment threads can be nasty and unhelpful, too, requiring either hosting a cesspool or the headache of editing: Different bloggers have different tolerances for this sort of thing.
July 28, 2010, 4:31 pmFederal Dog says:
“Somebody needs to get a life already and quit seeking offense or creepiness or whatever in every damned thing.”
Yes, people definitely need something to affirm in their lives so that a mere Lindgren post does not instantly reduce them to hours of seething rage.
July 28, 2010, 4:31 pmHa says:
Lindgren’s last post is again creepy, just like his penultimate post was. Is he trying to be creepy?
July 28, 2010, 4:32 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Let’s not waste 150 messages getting to the meat of this thread: Who wants to talk about Milton Berle, Clint Eastwood, $500 and the optimistic kid from Iowa?
July 28, 2010, 4:34 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Big mistake. I’m thinking of telling the Milton Berle story.
July 28, 2010, 4:36 pm