As most readers of this blog know, I posted
some time back that I preferred Obama to both Hilary and McCain, expanding on that in a later post
. There have now been several news articles including me in lists of conservatives who have endorsed Obama, based on that post, phone interviews with me, and random (mis?)information.
I am not, of course, a conservative but a libertarian. And describing Obama as the least bad candidate, while saying that I hope he wins but don't plan to vote for him, is quite a bit short of an endorsement.
My favorite mistake so far was an article in the London Times that said I had been brought up as a "classic liberal." What I had said, of course, was "classical liberal," i.e. libertarian. I expect part of the reason for the confusion was that "liberal" in the U.K. has retained at least some of its 19th century meaning, making the identification of libertarian with liberal less bizarre than it would be in the U.S.
I have also seen one online comment, and received one letter, identifying me as a fund raiser for Obama. I am not sure if this is merely the usual consequence of a game of telephone, where facts get inflated and distorted at each transmission, or if it is a case of mistaken identity. Googling for my name and "Obama" a while back, I noticed a list of contributors to Obama, one of whom was named David Friedman. It is not a very uncommon name.
In any case, for the curious, I am not a fundraiser for Obama, I have no connection with his campaign beyond knowing one or two of the academics associated with it, I have not endorsed him--but I would rather see him win than McCain.