Metaphors Gone Wild

Time has an interesting (if not terribly substantial) piece about the gambling styles of the two candidates (McCain plays craps; Obama plays poker). It's entertaining enough (check out McCain's handlers trying to keep him away from the craps table while he's campaigning) right up until the concluding paragraph, which veers off into silliness:

What do the candidates' gambling proclivities tell us about who they are? Politicians talk of their campaigns as grand contests of ideas. But in practice, the political battle is both a crapshoot and a poker game, a study in managing risk and in manipulating people. And there is no bigger gamble than a presidential run, which both candidates have conducted very differently this cycle. McCain's campaign, like his life, has been marked by its embrace of living dangerously and by clear runs of fortune and disappointment. Obama, meanwhile, has succeeded, no less remarkably, by diligently executing a premeditated strategy. But the general-election game is new to both men. And as the stakes rise, both know they'll need a little luck.

There's nothing wrong with writing fluff about the candidates' recreational activities (although the New Yorker did it much better, at least where Obama is concerned). The problem is in trying to pretend that the fluff has Significance. The problem is that fluff like this is what passes for analysis these days.