Christopher Buckley and Barack Obama

Christopher Buckley, son of the late William F. Buckley Jr., has endorsed Barack Obama.

I could not care less. But apparently, many conservatives do care. Buckley claims they care a lot.

From the Washington Post:

Christopher Buckley knew he was venturing into treacherous territory when he endorsed Barack Obama: "It's a good thing my dear old mum and pup are no longer alive. They'd cut off my allowance," he wrote.

The penalty turned out to be more severe. William F. Buckley Jr.'s son said yesterday that he had lost his back-page column in National Review, the conservative bible founded by his father.

"Within hours, poor NR was being swamped with furious mail, 'Cancel my subscription, this is betrayal, Judas, Benedict Arnold,' " Buckley, 56, said in an interview. "I thought the decent thing to do would be to offer to resign the column. Well, they accepted it."

Buckley can't be completely disappeared; the Washington author owns one-seventh of National Review and serves on the magazine's board. But he is the latest right-leaning pundit to be slammed by his side for criticizing or breaking with John McCain.

National Review editor Rich Lowry, a Bill Buckley protege, told readers in a posting that the younger Buckley had been writing the column for several months on a trial basis, although Buckley believed it was permanent.

"Chris says that his Obama endorsement has generated a 'tsunami,' that e-mail at NRO [National Review Online] has been running 'oh, 700-to-1' against him, and that there's a debate about whether to boil him in oil or shoot him. Chris is either misinformed or exercising poetic license," Lowry writes. "We have gotten about 100 e-mails, if that [a tiny amount compared to our usual volume], and threats of cancellations in the single digits."

Buckley delivered his endorsement of the Democratic presidential nominee last Thursday in the cyberpages of the Daily Beast, a new, blog-heavy Web site launched by Tina Brown, the former editor of Vanity Fair and the New Yorker. "I went out of my way to spare NR from being associated with this endorsement," Buckley said.

So this is the conservative soap opera du jour.

The Washington Post clearly relishes the fact that Buckley has slammed John McCain.

The disagreement about National Review reader reaction to Buckley's support of Obama is weird.

Either it's a tsunami or it's a ripple. That shouldn't be hard to confirm.

Watch Chris Matthews interview Christopher Buckley.

Of course, Matthews was giddy. He always is when he talks about Barack Obama. Even WFB's son can't stand McCain! What a sweet victory!

For his part, Buckley does seem to be milking this thing.

He says he offered to resign, but then he seems offended that his resignation was accepted. Whatever.

His decisions aren't occurring in a vacuum. He does own a significant chunk of National Review. I doubt that he's out to destroy what his father built.

I certainly don't understand how one claiming to be conservative would prefer to vote for a less than one-term senator with the most liberal voting record in the Senate; but in the end, I don't care.

Buckley is voting for Obama. So?

National Review, with these contests about what it means to be a true conservative, is a rather small galaxy in a vast universe of conservative voters.

Buckley jumping ship is being given more significance than it deserves.

Out here among the "bitter clingers," what Christopher Buckley chooses to do isn't of great concern.

Still, the lib media are thrilled about it, and they're pushing the story.

The Post reports with great excitement that Buckley "is the latest right-leaning pundit to be slammed by his side for criticizing or breaking with John McCain."

How thrilling! Right-leaning pundits against McCain!

...Buckley noted that columnist Kathleen Parker, after a National Review Online piece declaring Palin unqualified to be vice president, had received 12,000 hostile e-mails. Parker, who is syndicated by The Washington Post Writers Group, described the reaction in her next column: "I am a traitor and an idiot. Also, my mother should have aborted me and left me in a dumpster, but since she didn't, I should 'off' myself."

When you state your opinions, readers react. Some react in a civil manner, while others flip out.

I don't understand why anyone would feel the need to condemn Parker so harshly and inappropriately. She has a right to her opinion. She has one vote. Deal with it. It doesn't make sense to me, but this stuff happens. Infighting is to be expected I suppose.

Democrats do the same thing. In Connecticut, Dems are pursuing censuring Joe Lieberman for his support of John McCain.

I think it's about loyalty and betrayal. It's emotional, not rational.

In any case, getting completely bent out of shape about Lieberman's support for McCain, Parker's comments criticizing McCain, or Buckley's endorsement of Obama seems like a total waste of energy.