It am struck by the incredible frequency one encounters delusions of grandeur among bloggers these days.

Certainly there is always a certain amount of ego that goes into writing an unsolicited opinion for public consumption, but what I'm talking about approaches mental illness. Consider the example of Conor Friedersdorf.

Andrew Sullivan’s blog at The Atlantic is adding a major name to the masthead with news that Conor Friedersdorf is joining the blog as a “senior editor.” In addition to Friedersdorf, Sullivan is adding a new staffer–Zoe Pollock–to focus on behinds-the-scene work and to some “underblogging.”

Friedersdorf, a former Sullivan intern, has made a name for himself over the last two years as one of the most promising conservative writers and thinkers. He writes at the American Scene, Forbes, Daily Beast, and the late True/Slant and was involved in the well-thought of, but failed, Culture 11.His take-downs of Mark Levin and Andrew Breitbart, as well as concern over conservatism’s “narrative” problem have given him a major following and reputation.

Making a name for himself? Major reputation and following? First consider that the audience for political blogs is miniscule. The most successful blogs get between 50-200,000 readers a day, although that's arguable considering the ambiguity of the accounting. By comparison, a total loser of a show on cable, say Hardball, gets 300-400,000 a show. A nightly news cast gets between 5-8 million viewers and Rush Limbaugh gets 12-25 million listeners a day.

I'm one of the rare people who reads political blogs, and I've never heard of Conor Friedersdorf, so what 'name' has the guy made for himself? Well apparently its not how many people read you, its which people. Clearly Andrew Sullivan, who is almost as obscure as Friedersdorf is in the grand scheme of things, has read him and remarked on the quality of his work. Note that the left are always impressed when people agree with them--I assume because it's so uncommon.

From the ridiculous to the complete insanity.

Bill Jacobson (among others) wonders aloud why a blog would require a Senior Editor, and what the hell does a Senior Editor do on a blog?

...Friedersdorf's self description has to be the most overrated job description in the history of humankind:

Over at The Daily Dish, where I am a senior editor, my boss Andrew Sullivan ...

This raises several important questions:

• The Daily Dish is just a blog at The Atlantic; why does The Daily Dish need a "Senior Editor"?
• The only reason anyone reads The Daily Dish is to read what Andrew Sullivan has to say; why does The Daily Dish need a "Senior Editor"?
• Does Andrew Sullivan really think he can brand The Daily Dish?
• Is there a Junior Editor, and if so, why does The Daily Dish need a "Senior Editor"?
• What exactly does the Senor Editor of The Daily Dish edit?
• If the Senior Editor of The Daily Dish fell in the woods, would anyone notice?
• Why doesn't Friedersdorf list his position as Senior Editor of The Daily Dish on his LinkedIn page? (Quick, tell Greg Sargent and TPM - scandal!)
• Friedersdorf uses the phrase "where I am a senior editor," which implies that there may be other Senior Editors. Multiply these questions by the number of times Sarah Palin has been mentioned at The Daily Dish, then divide by the projected national budget deficit, then multiply by the number of Senior Editors of The Daily Dish, and I'm pretty sure you get Pi.

I can't help but notice the similarity to government bureaucracies, where grandiose titles also abound. Part of the culture I guess.