Thank you Ezra. That needed saying. Sullivan's dodging and weaving on the subject of his raging hate-on for the Clintons is starting to look desperate.

Every time I read Sully on torture and am tempted to think, hey, he's one of the good guys, I read him on Clinton and remind myself that Clinton derangement is still in full flower, even among "sensible" wingers. He is in deep, deep denial about that article. Has he *ever* acknowledged its blatant falsehoods and ideological agenda?

AMEN!

Does anyone have a theory that explains Andrew Sullivan's intense and visceral hatred of Hillary Clinton? I have heard him talk about her in a number of TV appearances, and it almost seems as if she constantly deprived him of his lunch money in grade school.

Hey Ezra:

The Atlantic doesn't have an open archive policy. The link you posted brings me to a firewall and asks me to subscribe. If that's right, you may need to update the post.

NW

I too got the subscribers-only firewall, but try this link for the Fallows article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199501/hillary-clinton-health-plan

While Sullivan overstates the case, attacks liberals in general for Hillary's screw up, I do agree that she blew it.

Let's not forget that her commission was closed to the public, hatched the plan in secret, had no PR plan, got rolled by the health care industry like that was some sort of surprise and, generally, she blew it. She blew it.

Yeah, the right and the health care industry also are to blame. But Hillary showed an elitism that we should avoid.

God I hope she's not the nominee!

Some choice chunks from the Fallows article, Nate:

Much of the problem for the plan seemed, at least in Washington, to come not even from mandatory alliances but from an article by Elizabeth McCaughey, then of the Manhattan Institute, published in The New Republic last February. The article's working premise was that McCaughey, with no ax to grind and no preconceptions about health care, sat down for a careful reading of the whole Clinton bill. Appalled at the hidden provisions she found, she felt it her duty to warn people about what the bill might mean. The title of her article was "No Exit," and the message was that Bill and Hillary Clinton had proposed a system that would lock people in to government-run care. "The law will prevent you from going outside the system to buy basic health coverage you think is better," McCaughey wrote in the first paragraph. "The doctor can be paid only by the plan, not by you."

These claims, McCaughey's and Will's, were simply false. McCaughey's pose of impartiality was undermined by her campaign as the Republican nominee for lieutenant governor of New York soon after her article was published. I was less impressed with her scholarly precision after I compared her article with the text of the Clinton bill. Her shocked claim that coverage would be available only for "necessary" and "appropriate" treatment suggested that she had not looked at any of today's insurance policies. In claiming that the bill would make it impossible to go outside the health plan or pay doctors on one's own, she had apparently skipped past practically the first provision of the bill (Sec. 1003), which said,

"Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the following: (1) An individual from purchasing any health care services."

It didn't matter. The White House issued a point-by-point rebuttal, which The New Republic did not run. Instead it published a long piece by McCaughey attacking the White House statement. The idea of health policemen stuck.

The true problem with Hillary's health care plan was that it was too easy to attack with cheap rhetoric.

Had it been a much simpler to explain and understand plan, like National Health Insurance, rather than the comlicated hodge podge it was, I think it stood a better chance of passing.

I come at it from tne left, but I actually have some common ground with Sullivan on Hillary's health care debacle.

Look, her plan stunk. Seriously, it stunk. It stunk because she and her husband are essentially conservatives who believe, either as a matter of principle or because they cower in fear of losing campaign contributions, that the primary purpose of activist government is to enrich business and only the secondary purpose is to help people. As a result, they decided that any health insurance plan that actually pays for care, rather than paying profiteering middlemen who might kick back some of the profits to the Clintons in campaign contributions, was off the table.

Once you do that, yes, a health care plan with the features Sullivan hates is inevitable. Either you have to have an employer mandate or an individual mandate. Either way, I can see how a Clinton-hater will read this as consistent with the general belief that the Clintons think they know what's best for us. And by the way, that is not an unreasonable criticism of the Clintons-- they wasted a lot of presidential effort on stupid local issues like school uniforms; they really do have a micromanaging tendency that can be very aggravating.

Let's not forget that her commission was closed to the public, hatched the plan in secret, had no PR plan, got rolled by the health care industry like that was some sort of surprise and, generally, she blew it. She blew it.

A lot of people could stand to read this article before they start repeating old myths about "secret plans."

AlphaLiberal, I suggest you read Fallows' article, or the recent one in TAP by Paul Starr, for a little factual reality check.

AlphaLiberal, I'm not backing Hillary for the nomination and I agree with your characterization of the 90's health care struggle as a badly bungled political debacle.

But the point is that Sullivan acted and still acts as if the proposed policy was itself somehow unusually dictatorial and high-handed (the policy, as opposed to Hillary's demeanor), and this really wasn't the case. The plan, for all its multitudinous warts, was very much a compromise proposal, and (according to a recent piece on Ira Magaziner, in the Atlantic if I recall) the intent was very much for further dickering to occur in Congress.

I stand corrected. I'm thinking of the article in the Prospect repeatedly cited above.

The other day Sullivan attacked HRC for having Sandy Berger as an adviser - Sullivan buys the rabid RW take on Berger's letter-of-the-law crime. My guess is that he doesn't have the intellectual chops or honesty to systematically rid himself of his old views despite his slow realization of the awfulness of the hard right.

I think Dilan Esper is on the right track.

I always say the Clinton was the best Republican president we've had since Ike.

The problem with Andrew Sullivan is that, even after all of these years in Washington, he has a teenager’s level of political naivete. Shovel him some lofty rhetoric and Lincolnian ideals and he’ll buy into anything you say: Clinton’s ‘92 Charm, The Iraq War, Obama’s Audacity of Hope. But once scorned, Sullivan has no time for differences in degree. If you let him down, you’re going to be eviscerated, regardless of whether your misttep was an Oval Office blow job or a catastrophic invasion that has cost nearly 4,000 lives.

I agree with Atrios.

Looks like the name should be "AlphaWinger"

Hillary's health care plan was ridiculously complicated and she mis-managed the politics horribly. And I hope she's not the nominee.

But that in no way justifies the personal, misleading and sneaky attacks that Sully launches in this case. Just because he happens to dislike torture doesn't mean that he hasn't had a long and dishonorable track record of getting facts wrong both as a writer and an editor. And a long and sleazy track record as a cheap shot artist. And as one of the "fifth column" I'd prefer that he'd be treated as a pariah.

Look, read Sullivan's post, and you'll see he recommends her for a place on the SUPREME COURT of the United States. That's not a deranged Hillary-hater right there; rather, he's using his facts to support his opinion that she'd make a tedious president. Debating him on that message is fine; but Ezra goes overboard here and instead attacks the messenger (Sullivan) himself. Here's my view: those who are constantly attacking Senator Clinton's critics as "Hillary haters" are themselves lacking a kind of psychological probity that they accuse others of lacking; that is, they are themselves so sold on her that they're exhibiting the rational deficiency that they casually accuse Hillary's critics of harboring. What I can't figure out is if they're just on her dole, or starstruck by her glamour.

Um, wait. People still read Sullivan?

Sullivan truly is irrational on the subject of the Clintons. Why? I'm sure there's a reason, but I can't figure it out.
Several months ago, Sullivan was on Matthews, and stated, "Hillary has the cooties." Seriously. That's an exact quote. If you saw tape of yourself saying that on national tv, during a serious discussion, wouldn't you feel shame? embarrassment? The need to examine root causes of your illogical feelings?

NEVER forget that wanker Sullivan wrote:
"decadent left enclaves on the coasts [that] may well mount a fifth column."

I did not know this (from Salon by David Talbot Oct. 20, 2001):
"Earlier this year, Sullivan was exposed by the gay press for advertising for "bareback" sex (unprotected by condoms) in an AOL chat room and denounced as a hypocrite by his liberal gay critics for engaging in risky sexual practices after attacking President Clinton for his own incautious behavior."

The guy has severe asshole tendencies.

NEVER forget that wanker Sullivan wrote:
"decadent left enclaves on the coasts [that] may well mount a fifth column."

I did not know this (from Salon by David Talbot Oct. 20, 2001):
"Earlier this year, Sullivan was exposed by the gay press for advertising for "bareback" sex (unprotected by condoms) in an AOL chat room and denounced as a hypocrite by his liberal gay critics for engaging in risky sexual practices after attacking President Clinton for his own incautious behavior."

The guy has severe asshole tendencies.

NEVER forget that wanker Sullivan wrote:
"decadent left enclaves on the coasts [that] may well mount a fifth column."

I did not know this (from Salon by David Talbot Oct. 20, 2001):
"Earlier this year, Sullivan was exposed by the gay press for advertising for "bareback" sex (unprotected by condoms) in an AOL chat room and denounced as a hypocrite by his liberal gay critics for engaging in risky sexual practices after attacking President Clinton for his own incautious behavior."

The guy has severe asshole tendencies.

NEVER forget that wanker Sullivan wrote:
"decadent left enclaves on the coasts [that] may well mount a fifth column."

I did not know this (from Salon by David Talbot Oct. 20, 2001):
"Earlier this year, Sullivan was exposed by the gay press for advertising for "bareback" sex (unprotected by condoms) in an AOL chat room and denounced as a hypocrite by his liberal gay critics for engaging in risky sexual practices after attacking President Clinton for his own incautious behavior."

The guy has severe asshole tendencies.

Q.E.D.

I agree with Hypatia that Sullivan's 'fifth column' comment - never, to my knowledge, adequately retracted or even reconsidered - should not be forgotten or prematurely forgiven.

As to the second point Hypatia raises, I am profoundly uninterested in Sullivan's personal life and I don't really think it's relevant or appropriate.

I think Warren's got the right take there.

As for DC, I think you need to re-read both Ezra's actual post, and Sullivan's. Ezra's not calling him a "Hillary-hater," but he is rightly taking Sullivan to task for his blatant failure, even dissembling, about Sullivan's own complicity in irrational attacks on the Clintons.

And Sullivan's post to a large extent recapitulates them-- calling them inveterate liars without offering up anything (other than a link to Christopher Fucking Hitchens, for God's sake) as evidence. And c'mon...TravelGate? Christ. After what we've been through the past 8 years, how can you even bring that silliness up? The Clintons certainly had their faults, god knows...but that post was not written by someone who is viewing the Clintons with a rational eye.

There's a certain kind of gay man who despises women. It's usually a butch gay man. There ya go.

Oh, and as a sign that the so-called liberal media was never actually liberal, let's remember that McCaughey's article, though filled with false information, won the National Magazine Award in the year it ran.

DC writes:
Here's my view: those who are constantly attacking Senator Clinton's critics as "Hillary haters" are themselves lacking a kind of psychological probity that they accuse others of lacking; that is, they are themselves so sold on her that they're exhibiting the rational deficiency that they casually accuse Hillary's critics of harboring.

So you're saying that people who attack Bush are Bush Haters, and people who attack the Hillary haters are Hillary Hater Haters? So when do people on the left get to express a strong opinion WITHOUT being tarred as irrational? Why don't you just ask us all to prove we aren't crazy?

There's a certain kind of gay man who despises women. It's usually a butch gay man.

Um, I hardly think that misogyny is peculiarly a gay trait -- I think there might be a few among straight men, too. Call me crazy.

And Andrew is butch? Girl, please.

I've learned from listening to extensive interviews with him that Christopher Hitchens' mother committed suicide because (in Hitchens' opinion, at least) of the proddings of a manipulative, malicious boyfriend/lover. This is almost certainly the "piece of the puzzle" that explains Hitchens' obsession with proving Bill Clinton to be a serial rapist.

That's just my theory, though.

sully is still as odious as ever. his hatred for both clintons is boundless and pathological. yes, let's remember back to the nineties as sully railed against the president's peccadillo, shilling a book about gay monogamy while cruising the net for indiscriminate bareback sex partners despite the fact that he's HIV poz. typical IOKIYAR. he got outed for his hypocrisy yet learned nothing from the experience and is still as big a hypocrite as ever. as for him holding up snitchens as some paragon of the left, nasty Brian Lamb of C-SCAM's favorite stunt during the nineties was to have a sully and snitchens appear together on Whoreshington Journal and everyone pretending that this was an accurate balance of left and right, ergo since both sully and snitchens hated bill and hill, everybody must. brian lamb just loved that. the second time they appeared together with this shtick was the last time I ever watchen C-SCAM.

Google and Lexis/Nexus continue to be a nightmare for clowns like Sullivan...Nice try, Andy....It's going to take a lot more than a couple of anti-Iraq war posts to get that blood off your hands...

-

Sorry for the quadruplicate posts, my bad.

I don't care about AS's sexual proclivities. But then why attack Clinton? That's my point. "Do as I say but not as I do." This is obvious BS.

Sullivan seems just a typically schizoid Republicanite with eveidence of severe sociopathy and delusions of grandeur with a generous dash of narcissism added to the steaming pile of pants.

Not worth a moments notice.

I stopped reading Sullivan two years ago. My job got better, my wife smiles more, the kids' grades are up, and vertical stripes really are making me look slimmer.

try it, your world might be better too!

I'm glad Ezra shed some light on Sullivan's Clinton background because he seems so over the top in his commentary on all things Hillary that he's becoming just another CDS sufferer. Nobody who is looking for fairness and accuracy is on a candidate's "dole" and, I think it's safe to say, most of us are way past being "starstruck" by politicians' "glamour". Call me rationally deficient, but I really want substantive, thoughtful, equitable,and honest criticism not the petty, snarky, laz

I agree with Hypatia that Sullivan's 'fifth column' comment - never, to my knowledge, adequately retracted or even reconsidered - should not be forgotten or prematurely forgiven.

Amusingly enough, there is evidence that he reconsidered it, although given the form of the evidence, it is almost definitely not "adequate." Read this, and notice a difference between the phrase Hypatia used and the version in the blockquote. It's not a typo; it's explained by this comment.

He obviously reconsidered it, if he now claims he never wrote it, merely something similar but a little less inflammatory. I don't think that quite counts as a retraction, though.

Bareback anonymous sex is idiotic AND a public issue. In Sullivan's case, it was hypocritical AND idiotic. How Sullivan is still seen as credible in any circle debating policy is beyond me. I'm a little glad you posted four times, Hypatia, because it had been forgotten.

I am a proud lefty.

I have given money, time and energy to numerous campaigns.

I grieve daily over what Bush hath wrought.

Sullivan is often a hypocrite, and sometimes writes the inexcusable.

that said, I loathe Hillary -- and yes, it started with her ham-fisted attempt at Health Care. Yeah, they were attacked, but the imperial pronouncement she would be in charge of it -- when exactly ZERO people had voted for her to be in charge of any policy-making--- started the train down those tracks...

There's a lot to critique about silly sully - but his criticism of her relentless quest of power for power's sake is right on the money.

Why oh why is she running?...

Ezra,

Thanks to The Atlantic's open archives, you can read the fairest man in journalism, James Fallows, take it apart in a feature article called "A Triumph of Misinformation."

Oh please. There is at least as much misinformation in James Fallows' own piece as in the article he's criticizing.

"bareback anonymous sex"... everytime this gets brought up as a charge against Andy, I can just hear the "ick" in people's voices. The homophobia is lurking just beneath the surface. Can't you be satisfied with criticizing his ideas and his writing, rather than his personal sexual choices?

And it's not a public issue, I'm sorry.

Yeah, they were attacked, but the imperial pronouncement she would be in charge of it -- when exactly ZERO people had voted for her to be in charge of any policy-making---

That's just stupid. As Paul Starr said in his TAP article, if Clinton had just had his WH policy staff put together a legislative proposal to give to Congress, no one would have said a word. That's the way it's done. And exactly ZERO people vote for the President's staff, either. Her task force wasn't making policy, it was formulating a proposal to give to Congress, who would actually write the bill and make the policy.

And "power for power's sake?" Yeah, no other Presidential candidate is interested in power; I guess you're right, that makes Hillary some kind of freakish monster.

I'm no huge fan of Hillary, but something about her gets some people totally unhinged and making idiotic arguments. Like Sullivan.

I don't get the complaint that a problem with Hillary's plan was that "ZERO" people had voted for her. Do you think presidents write their own policy proposals? No, they have staffs, generally consisting of unelected aides and counselors.

Thank you for writing this.

Truth matters and when people let lies about the past repeated without challenging them lies become conventinal wisdom.

Yes, I remember the 90s. I remember outright lies about the Clintons not just on talk radio but on the op-ed page of the NYT. William Safire columns were a sewage of lies about the Clintons, week after week. To pretend none of this happened and somehow out of the blue Hillary became "polarizing" is to distort history.

I don't get the complaint that a problem with Hillary's plan was that "ZERO" people had voted for her. Do you think presidents write their own policy proposals? No, they have staffs, generally consisting of unelected aides and counselors.

Not to mention, a President's ENTIRE CABINET is unelected. At least voters know who a president's spouse is before they vote; they usually only have the vaguest idea who the cabinet secretaries will be, and yet these people will end up having tremendous unelected power.

"totally unhinged and making idiotic arguments"

Glenn, you are either too young to remember what happened, or choose not to. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty. having a staff prepare a white paper -- which is what DID NOT happen, as starr's article so helpfully points out-- is a completely different sell than having your wife create a secretive "task force". i don't think you are so naive as to miss that difference.

If you are indeed the brave, brave gay man who "calls 'em likes he sees 'em", as your posts indicate you seem to believe about yourself, you should delve back into the politics of what actually ahppened and why, rather than ad hominem attack on others.

"Sullivan is, to be sure, a much better writer these days, possessed of sounder views and a more sober take on current events."

Don't mistake Sullivan's ability to identify popular causes with good judgement.

BTW, it was around that time that I stopped reading the "once liberal" New Republic. They hit rock bottom in the 90s. After Sullivan they had the unhinged neocon Michael Kelly as editor. The magazine became unreadable, no different from Commentary or Human Events.

Mad and Ryan,

do you not see the difference in appts to like-minded politicians versus announcing to the public that your WIFE will be running the show? Do you not see how that played into the memes the Right was creating at the time about the Clintons??

Sheesh-- no wonder it took bush literally flushing the constitution to get us to win back seats...

I just noticed that Sullivan has linked to that deranged harpy Camille Paglia, approvingly quoting her equating Bill Clinton lying about Monica to Bush lying the country into a ruinous war, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands. This is the childish mindset of the Paglias and Sullivans of punditry. They just cannot get over Bill lying about his sex life and put it on an equal footing with massive death and distraction. This is the level of immaturity we are dealing with.

BTW, Paglia was published in the New Republic during Sullivan's tenure as editor and her insane rantings was yet another reason to stop reading the New Republic.

"bareback anonymous sex"... everytime this gets brought up as a charge against Andy, I can just hear the "ick" in people's voices. The homophobia is lurking just beneath the surface. Can't you be satisfied with criticizing his ideas and his writing, rather than his personal sexual choices?

If there's one thing I know about J in Baltimore, it's the lack of homophobia. Bareback sex, and the advocating of it as a practice, is part of the public health issues around AIDS, which is the reason Sullivan got raked over the coals when he tried to minimize his behavior. Sullivan wrote about it, and that takes it from "personal choice" to the realm of ideas. I happen to like Sullivan, flaws and all. But the barebacking was fair game. And it's not gay hating - even gay self hating - to bring it up.

Sully is an enabler for the GOP. His efforts to sound serious have given aid and comfort to the Right wing extremists. Who gives a carp what he thinks anymore ?

"Stank. The past of the verb to stink is "stank." "Stunk" is the past participle.

They stink. They stank but took a bath. The room had stunk horribly until they took a bath.

Hillary Clinton's plan did not stink. And it was torpedoed by dishonest right-wing ideologues and cowardly Democrats.

That admission of Sully's, that he "knows" right wings were out to get the Clintons is what we used to call, in the days of Nixon, a non-admission admission.

And it wasn't just the right wing. It was the entire Republican Party, and almost the entirety of the Washington press corps. When Sullivan talks about sooo many Clinton Yeslies, what lie, there was one big one, one really big one, but to a question which he should never have been asked?

And what was so secretive about her task force? We knew who was on it, more than you can say for Cheney's energy task force, an incident that happened when Sullivan was still backing the Bush administration full tilt. Clinton and the task force went all across the nation, meeting with medical professionals, patient groups...there was an open solicitation of input from anyone and everyone. What is arrogant about that?

Some on the left fault both Clintons for not advocating a single-payer plan, as if that would somehow have moved the mass of Americans to their side. I was disappointed that they tried so hard to work within much of the existing structures, i.e., with insurance providers who are also health providers, but after watching the way the Republicans and the press were able to upend her moderate proposal, I had no illusions that single-payer would have played better, not back then.

The painful truth is that an insufficient number of middle-class Americans with insurance, even though often dissatisfied with the cost and the coverage, didn't yet realize how vulnerable they were to finding themselves without insurance.

If I fault the Clintons for anything, it's for their abject assumption of guilt for the plan's failure. I know that at the time it was a political necessity, but why do they both still feel so apologetic? Just once I'd like to see one of them say something like, "hey, we were right back there in the early nineties. What we tried to explain to the American people was that if they didn't do something then about the rising costs and diminishing coverage of insurance and health care, in the future more and more Americans would find themselves, at best, paying more and more for less and less coverage, and at worst, having no health insurance at all, and, sadly, we were right."

Democrats should spend more time digging up the speeches attacking the Clintons' health plan made by almost every Republican. They were usually filled with dark predictions about what would happen to Americans if the plan was passed. In fact, every disaster predicted, like not being able to choose your doctor, excessive red tape, increased costs, rationing of procedures, has happened, not because of Hillary, because of the refusal of Republicans to deal in any way with the emerging problems in the way our health system works, and doesn't work, that were evident as far back as the early ninties.

Hillary Clinton's plan did not stink. And it was torpedoed by dishonest right-wing ideologues and cowardly Democrats.

If Hillary's plan had passed, (1) it would have cost a ton, because the "alliances" that she wanted to create would not have controlled cost nearly as well as a single payer, (2) it would have been subject to classic regulatory capture, as the insurance companies got control of the organization and ensured that the massive subsidies went to their profits rather than patient care, (3) it would have made America even less competitive than it already is, as more employers were forced to offer health insurance, and (4) it would have probably been so unpopular that it would have been eventually repealed, as the catastrophic care bill in the 1980's was.

Tthe worst thing is she still hasn't learned her lesson-- she still thinks funneling government money to corrupt middlemen is far more important than using the money to pay for care and save lives.

And frankly, I don't give a crap whether established usages like "stunk" don't meet with the satisfaction of word scolds.

I enjoy reading Sullivan. There I said it.

And he is definitely "excitable" about Hillary. But he is now arguing for our team. Shouldn't we be welcoming converts rather than demonizing them?

Also, I've been reading Shrum's book. There is one part during the 2004 campaign where Clinton advises Kerry that he should support the Defense of Marriage Act to steal the issue from the Republicans. Seriously. Kerry was appalled. He eventually comes to the conclusion that "all the Clintons care about is power."

Sure Sullivan goes a bit overboard, but I think his overall point hits the mark. The Clinton's were so damaged during the 90s by the Republican's unprecedented war against them, that they have become the mirror image of the enemy. They have become triangulators rather than true Democrats.

Vote Obama.

hillary's sank because it stank and she tried to do it behind closed doors.

and yes nathan- the clintons did indeed do that. but it seems we won't realize what we have done until after we vote for them again. much like the 50 plus 1 didn't realize they made a mistake until after 2004.

Ok, the Clintons are liars and they are evil. If you truly believe that, and using the same standard, you should be calling for the impeachment, indictment, and imprisonment of the current administration in its entirety. So lies the problem with so many of us--one standard for people we hate and another standard for people we like -- and you wonder why our government is so corrupt??? One more thing -- the conservatives hate Hilary's healthcare plan. Fine, so where is THEIR plan? Do they even have a plan? At least SOMEONE as proposed one and not just sitting on their butts and complain!

Thanks, weboy, for your comment on Sullivan's personal issues (NOTE that I write 'personal' and NOT 'private').

Sullivan's choices DO have an impact on others, and his behavior, and hypocrisy, are indeed fair game. He's a public figure, and influential in some circles. That comes with a price tag.

He's told me via numerous e-mails that he will never 'apologize' for his 'fifth columnist' smears, and seems to think his 'out' is that he can blame some people on the left for not supporting the campaign in Afghanistan against the Taliban. These are apparently (in Sullivan's mind) the 'fifth columnists' to whom he refers.

If remined that the Bush administration screwed up Afghanistan, Sullivan tends to respond that 'right-thinking people' will have to win the war on terror without the assistance of losers who don't agree with their lonely and noble crusade.

In short, equal parts narcissism and white man's burdern. No wonder he and Snitchens are so close.

Good point, Ezra, on how Sully contributed so much - through so many falsehoods - to the defeat of the Clinton Health Care bill. (Moynihan was another key assassin.)

McCaughey later had a run as a risable figure in New York politics. Her first act as Lieutenant Governor was to infuriate the Governor by standing (instead of sitting) directly behind him throughout his address to the legislature. That was just the beginning.

Besides the "fifth column" statement, I remember well a column that Sullivan wrote on the eve of the Iraq invasion, about how, once the world had seen the Iraqi people greet our troops as liberators, he was going to see to it that those Americans who had opposed the invasion of Iraq (not his phrase) were held accountable as freedom-haters.

The chain of hospitals streching from Maine to Washington State treating Canadians who can't get treatment in their own nation says it all about Hillary Healthcare I and II. She and her cohort want to get control of another 1/7th of the economy and make Americans dependent on the malignancy that is the Federal government. to apraphrase a bumper sticker about the United nations, get the Federal government out of Health Care and get Health Care out of the federal government!

Jerry, I don't think they are evil. i just think they are wrong. i however do agree that doesn't excuse the conservatives who find equally full of shit because well they actually are ki nd of evil. but hey thats me.

From here on out I'm just going to cut-and-paste my read on Sully:

Sully is an opportunistic hack. A weather vane if you will. I admit that he is a gifted writer and upon occasion makes a cogent point or two. His ability to tap into the zeitgeist of whichever side he's taken on any issue remains impressive.

But I find Sully to be intellectually dishonest. While he has publicly claimed repentance, he sinned far too long in the service of the neo-cons for me to completely trust him. His conversion has made him a hot commodity -- one more perceived to be even "relevant" than previous. We all collectively gag when Chris Matthews criticizes the Right yet Sully gets a free pass. I chalk it up to consistency of message. I'm still skeptical and suspicious that under the right circumstances he'd flip-flop his way back to the other side.

Finally, Sully has frequently misrepresented himself as an American citizen. Not a small matter when you consider the column inches he has dedicated to whomever he has purported to have "voted" for in our elections.

AF

David S. Levine: There are actually figures available about the number of Canadians that cross into the U.S. for care. I'm too lazy to look it up (try Medline, if you're interested), but the botttom line is ... precious few.

Leah: Yep, what you said. Hillary's "complicated" plan was actually based on the very successful German plan. Delivering health care to 300 million people is pretty complicated without a single payer plan and single payer was just not going to happen. France, Germany, and multiple other countries utilize public-private hybrid UHC and there is no reason to think that those aren't in some ways better than something like the U.K.'s NHS.

Aside from fibbing about an irrelevant and embarrassing personal matter, can anyone point to any "corruption" (Sully's charge) on the part of either one of the Clintons? Ken Starr spent $70 million of the taxpayers' money and wasn't able to find anything.

I still have a "Re-elect Gore '08" bumper sticker on my car, but I'll happily vote for Hillary.

The thing to remember about Sully is that he's really, really selfish. Everything he writes is post-hoc justification for why a person who doesn't sponsor policy that favors him (either out of homophobia or out of a distaste for his classist bull) is a terrible person.

Well, we can put Hillary on the Supreme Court after a term or two in the Presidency. I consider that reasonable compromise with Sullivan.

Andy hates Hillary because, well, a cursory thought of Bill makes him thirsty and his knees and buttcheeks all weak.

For some reason most of the rest of the world does just fine with just a little bit of for-profit medicine. I don't see why the US is different, but maybe Mr Levine can explain to me why gouging the sick is an American virtue we can't do without.

I couldn't read the article either (not open), but I read it when it was first published, and it was quite good.

Fat Sam nailed it....and the plan was a complete debacle.

"I don't get the complaint that a problem with Hillary's plan was that "ZERO" people had voted for her. Do you think presidents write their own policy proposals? No, they have staffs, generally consisting of unelected aides and counselors."

Actually - the VP is, in fact, elected. And then it's pretty clear that the cabinet is confirmed by the Senate and subject to Congressional oversight. And it's pretty clear how you get rid of the Secretary of State. How exactly does one impeach the First Spouse?

The entry and commenst above are proof that blogs like this (left and right) add very little to political dialogue. They are merely (to mix metaphors) red meat for slobbering true believers. Sad.

(And for what its worth, my dad, an old-fashioned liberal and a successful lawyer, read the NY Times explanation of Hillary's 1990s plan and couldn't make heads or tails of it.)

Andrew Sullivan's continued defense of the Elizabeth McCaughey article on Hillary Clinton's health plan is one reason why it's impossible to take him seriously, or regard him as a responsible commentator on a level with people like Joshua Marshall. When a journalistic decision has been as thoroughly documented as irresponsible, doesn't there come a time for admitting error? The New Republic later disowned the McCaughey article and its deranged author; why can't Sullivan?
Arthur Frommer

I love reading Andrew, but whenever I see a post about Clinton, I cringe knowing instinctively that he will go off the deep end with his hatred of HRC and Bill.

He has tried to explain it several times, but I still can't really understand what exactly he detests quite so much about Hillary.

In as much as I like Obama, it does not detract from me admiration of HRC. If she is elected the POTUS, I think one of the first things I'd have to give up will be Andrew's writing because he will be insufferable.

Ezra, you are my new hero. Thanks for saying what needed to be said.

thaaaanks

thaaanks

thaaanks

thanks