One of the joys of being an influential commentator is receiving emails from appreciative readers.

Such as this one:

So you would find it "refreshing" to be wrong for a change, would you? Yeah right, you pompous, bloviating windbag.  What about your Astonishingly Stupid Prediction #2 that Karen Williams would be the Supreme Court nominee? I don't see anyone named Williams preparing for confirmation hearings, do you? Huh?

I must confess that my Williams pick was less correct than I had envisioned.

But that's not to say it was wrong.

I wonder if my dear readers have considered the possibility that Karen Williams was indeed the President's original choice ... and that my Astonishingly Accurate Prediction #2 was the very factor that caused the President to switch to someone else?

Given the President's love of surprise choices, that scenario grows more plausible the more one considers it.

Then, too, consider that Williams may yet be picked by the President to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg, if she retires in the next year or two.

If a man predicts that a particular event is going to occur, is his prediction incorrect just because it occurs tomorrow instead of today?

But while I disagree with the correspondent's contention that the Williams pick was a failure on my part ... I do appreciate the congenial spirit in which he writes.

(Although I am still trying to discern whether "pompous, bloviating windbag" was intended as a compliment, or whether it was meant to bear a slightly negative connotation.)

Posted by

Note from Squid's assistant, Mark F:

The "email from a reader" cited in this post is entirely fictional.

And just in case there is any question about it ... so is Squid.

(Don't tell him I said so, though.)

Edited by msquid on Dec. 13, 2005 at 11:12 AM