Random, extremely nerdy thought that nobody but me cares about:

It is New York Times style to refer to an elected official by full name upon initial reference in any article, no matter how familiar the official is: “Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg,” “Senator Charles E. Schumer,” “Gov. David A. Paterson,” “Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.” (Except that it was “Vice President Al Gore” and “Vice President Dick Cheney.” Apparently the Times calls people what they want to be called.)

The only exception to this rule is an incumbent U.S. president. So in Timespeak, on January 20, “President-elect Barack Obama” magically became “President Obama.”

Ex-presidents don’t count; only a sitting president gets that honor. Therefore, on the day he left office, “President Bush” became “President George W. Bush.”

I get a kick out of seeing him referred to as “President George W. Bush” in the Times now. It reminds me that he’s gone and can no longer hurt us.

Doesn’t it kind of seem like Barack Obama has been President of the United States forever? And yet it’s only been 10 days.

I’m having this weird cognitive dissonance. I keep wondering why he’s never given a State of the Union address or gone on a foreign trip as president or celebrated Christmas in the White House like all of our other presidents. And then I remember, oh yeah, he’s only been there for 10 days. He hasn’t even seen the calendar turn to a new month yet.

I guess it’s because it seems like so much has happened in the last 10 days — he already seems to have worn out the carpet in the East Room with all the speeches he’s given there. And he had a high profile during the transition — he seemed in charge, because nobody else did.

I’m already getting used to seeing photos of him in the Oval Office or the Cabinet Room or, again, the East Room. But every so often I have to stop and pinch myself and appreciate the fact that this is all real.

This paragraph doesn’t make sense to me:

Democrats said Mr. Obama could also support a demand from a senior Senate Republican, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, to add a provision adjusting the alternative minimum tax so that it does not hit millions of middle-class taxpayers this year. That would add costs of nearly $70 billion over 10 years to a package that Republicans already say is too big.

Huh?

Under that logic, Republicans would oppose all tax cuts because they increase the size of the stimulus plan.

That’s clearly not the case. The bolded sentence is just weird.