It’s Friday — the day of the week when sockpuppeting is allowed in one very special thread: this one.

If you don’t have something nice to say, make it funny.

Details at Hot Air.

Remember: you don’t get to vote for the “idea” of Sarah Palin. If she runs, Americans will have to cast a vote for her.

In fact, supporting the “idea” of a candidate, as certain bloggers have suggested they are doing with Christine O’Donnell (while pointedly disclaiming that they are fully invested in the notion of the candidate herself as a “hill to die on”) is the type of thinking that got us Barack Obama. People voted for the “idea” of Hope and Change, and got something quite different in reality.

It is blind idealism, and it is dangerous on the left and on the right.

Will we follow that path with Sarah Palin — that is, if nobody else “steps” up?

Or will we confront the candidate as she exists in real life — with whatever faults and flaws she has — and decide whether that candidate is worth staking our hopes on?

Time will tell.

Yet another falsehood debunked:

Judicial logjam: An Aug. 31 article and chart in Section A about judicial vacancies said that the 47% rate of confirmation of President Obama’s nominations to the federal judiciary compared with 87% for President George W. Bush during his first 18 months in office. The 87% rate was for Bush’s entire eight-year presidency; for Bush’s first 18 months, the rate of confirmation was 61%. Additionally, the confirmation rates given for Presidents Clinton (84%), George H.W. Bush (79%) and Reagan (93%) were for their full presidencies and not their first 18 months.

You’ll remember me first raising this here and here.

They didn’t even call me a jackass or moron. They just corrected themselves.

Let’s not be too quick to praise, however. Ed Whelan sent an e-mail to the reporter (Carol J. Williams) about this error over two weeks ago, and nothing happened until I got the Readers’ Representative involved. That does not speak well of the reporter’s commitment to accuracy.

What’s more, as I pointed out in my original post, when you compare apples to apples, Obama has done as well as Bush. Looking only at nominations made through December, a scholar determined that as of April, “Confirmation rates, though, are nearly identical — 69% for Obama nominees versus 66% for Bush’s.” What’s more, proportionately more Obama nominees have gotten hearings, and more quickly. The (slightly!) higher confirmation rate for Bush appears to reflect a higher percentage of Obama nominations made shortly before the measurement was taken — nominees who haven’t had time to make it through the full nomination process.

Hardly an earthshattering revelation.

We’ll see what the figures are at the end of the first four years of Obama’s presidency. And we’ll hope those are also his last four years as President.