It may be embarrassing for Andrew Sullivan that he confesses in this manner to wanting to have his Black Friend (tm Stephen Colbert) as President. But it remains worth noting that very many white Americans really do wish they had a Black Friend, and that this has been helping Obama's candidacy a lot.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

And the other thing being that, if Sullivan actually wants Obama to get elected, it's fine to think that his blackness is one of the best things about him, but PLEASE DON'T SAY IT SO LOUDLY.

I'm sure this is going to draw a lot of the usual anti-Sullivan types to make this about the man more than the writing. But it strikes me that your assessment of the writing is dead-on. Sullivan's windy, deadly prose (especially when he's Serious) is a big flaw, and I think it's the very pretentiousness that explains why places like The Atlantic and Time get bowled over - he uses big words, he's British and it's about the Big Ideas... he must be serious. In its way, it explains his fame in Washington circles... he's the celebrity deep thinker. I'd also point out that Sullivan's man-crush on Obama has led him to minimize the fallout from Obama's Donnie McClurkin fiasco on the gay community, which is also a reminder of how Sullivan has managed to give himself no constituency by being unorthodox with virtually everything. So he likes Obama... but not in the way everyone else does. How brave. How thoughtful. How... silly.

Sullivan may be a good writer, but he's lacking much of the brains needed for a political pundit. Always writing from his guts, no rational thoughts will be allowed to second guess his instincts. I can't understand at all why people keep reading this moron, even after he showed what kind of a person he is by running contact ads for bareback sex, knowing perfectly well that he's HIV positive. Irresponsible in his private life, irresponsible as a columnist.
|-(

weboy says: I'd also point out that Sullivan's man-crush on Obama has led him to minimize the fallout from Obama's Donnie McClurkin fiasco on the gay community, which is also a reminder of how Sullivan has managed to give himself no constituency by being unorthodox with virtually everything. So he likes Obama... but not in the way everyone else does. How brave. How thoughtful. How... silly.

Indeed.

The only cavil I have with it is that, by being unorthodox with virtually everything, Sully has gained himself the only constituency that seems to matter these days: the Broderites, The Village, the Gang of 500, whatever you want to call them.

FWIW, I started out this year bullish on Obama. Like Dylan sang, "she was with Big Jim, but she was leaning to the Jack of Hearts," back in February I was an Edwards supporter, but I could feel myself falling in love with Obama.

But as the long year dragged on, I kept waiting for the substance that Obama's vision would sustain and win people's loyalty to. They say you don't sell the steak, you sell the sizzle. Obama's got plenty of sizzle, but I still don't see a steak.

And the whole Donnie McClurkin thing: I don't get why this hasn't been a crippling blow to Obama. A very large chunk of his supporters are young people, educated people. Most of them regard gays as normal. These people should really have a serious problem with Obama's association with McClurkin, but it doesn't seem to have hurt him, and I'll be damned if I know why.

Btw, hi brooksfoe! Long time no see. What brought you here, from your usual stomping grounds at washingtonmonthly.com?
:D

I think the worst part for me is that it'd be great if there was a candidate out there who seemed like they would resolve the "culture war about war" but I can't see any reason to believe that Obama is that candidate...

"the war within America that has prevailed since Vietnam.."

I am getting so sick of hearing about this "war". The Sixties are gone, and most of us have moved on from events of a very long time ago. But the right insists
that this war goes on for its own purposes. Why does Obama buy into yet another Republican talking point?

'Do his "racial stereotypes" involve non-white people being unable to talk about tax policy? '

.... isn't that transparently what he was saying? Or, rather, that black political leaders can't talk about tax policy. I seem to recall part of his infatuation with Obama supposedly being that Obama is not a "race man," in contrast with a prior generation of black leaders (Sharpton, Jackson) whose agenda was primarily focused on the issue of race in America. To Sullivan, this is progress.

Of course, it's still bad logic-- Sullivan like Obama if his speech thrills, he likes him if his speech bores, and actual policy never enters the question.

bob h, they're still fighting the Civil War, remember - the Sixties were practically last night for them.

"Barack is Andrew's latest infatuation. The fact that Sullivan's previous love objects have included Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, the war in Iraq, and unsafe sex makes this endorsement slightly less exciting for the rest of us."

boy, ain't that the truth. When I saw Silly Sully on Real Time with Bill Maher recently, Sully's vociferous attacks on Hillary and fanboy adulation for Obama struck me as the kind of emotional hysterics of an infatuated lover defending the honor of his amour.

Ezra,

It is not clearly settled law that Congress has the power to regulate abortion: that power has not been squarely challenged. Indeed, in the recent decision upholding the federal ban on partial birth abortion, Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, penned a concurrence expressly withholding judgment on that question, noting that it was not presented in the case at bar. Both have long suggested that as they read the Constitution, abortion is not a federal matter.

The question is whether they can cobble together 3 more votes, especially among the liberals, who have been loathe to deny Congress anything it wants in exercising its power to regulate interstate commerce.

A betting person would not bet heavily that Thomas and Scalia can win this fight, but it would not be a bad thing for the Court to recognize that the Commerce Clause was not intended to empower Congress so broadly, and if it takes the liberals' fondness for abortion to awaken them to that reality, so be it.

Funny how Sullivan swoons. He was also deeply infatuated with Georgie, and with Georgie and his war, and with Georgie, his war and the rest of the entourage. Sullivan is still British, if I'm not mistaken. Does he make use of the National Health Service? Does he think that the NHS is 'bad' government, immorally non-conservative. After all, not even the lady of his dreams, Mrs. Tatcher, intended to dismantle it.

I'm a huge fan of Sullivan, been reading him since he started writing for TNR over ten years ago. (Full disclosure: I'm an editor at a magazine in NYC and he's written for me too.) I watch the goings-on and have to scratch my head. I ask myself: why is it the young guys who go after Sullivan? Must be because he writes the way young guys should be writing: reductive, overwrought, bloated, and, perhaps above all, patronizing.

I think sully's point about tax-policy is not that Obama's shouldn't be boring. Most people find tax policy boring, and he's playing on this assumption. So his point is that black culture has advanced to the point where they can enter the arena of tedium. They don't have to be musicians, or preachers, or Oprah. They don't have to entertain to have their opinions respected.

In Sully land, "culture war" means getting Sully his all else be damned. Which is why in the same article he calls for the end of the culture war (i.e. gays get to be married!) while talking about how stupid Black people are.

"Must be because he writes the way young guys should be writing: reductive, overwrought, bloated, and, perhaps above all, patronizing."

Sounds like a plagiarism to me. I'm sure I read a similar statement somewhere before...
:D

DISCLAIMER: First, it must never be forgotten that Andrew Sullivan is a political thug who revealed his true authoritarian colors once and for all after 9/11 with his comments about the traitorous liberals in their decadent enclaves on the coasts. Given his obvious ability to jump on bandwagons despite all counterevidence - counterevidence that even he now admits is strong -- if Sullivan had been a German in the 30's he would very likely have expressed pro-Nazi views and helped turn in Jews.

But that aside, there is a reason why Obama is not our political savior. All of our current political problems are the product of three factors: 1) Republican extremism AND 2) Democratic weakness AND 3) the postmodern media. But Obama is ill-suited to handle any of these three factors.

The extremist Republicans are bullies. The way you solve a bully problem is to stand up to the bully, not to find nice accomodating things to say to him. But that's not something Obama seems to be capable of so Obama will do nothing about 1) and 2).

The media are whores to the powerful. So there is some potential for Obama to move the media as they suck up to his administration. But as we saw with Clinton there is more to it than simply occupying the White House. Never forget: the media is OWNED by Republicans. What is really needed to sway the media is the powerful expression of opposition ideas.

But Obama is incapable of the powerful expression of opposition ideas because he is all hung up on being this Christ-like figure who helps transcend and resolve our conflicts. But, as we argued above with regard to 1), the problem of the conflict caused by the Republican extremist bullies will not be solved by all of us joining hands and singing Kumbaya with Obama on lead.

Conclusion: Obama is ill-suited to deal with any of the 3 root causes of America's political problem.

Hehehe, I found it, wasn't so hard:
"And I ask myself: why is it the young guys who go after Siegel? Must be because he writes the way young guys should be writing: angry, independent, not afraid of offending powerful people."
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=09&year=2006&base_name=coda_on_siegel
LOL!

"I remain baffled as to why purportedly serious publications treat Sullivan with such high regard."

Well, the Atlantic hired McArdle, so what do you expect? They've clearly decided that giving space to talented writers who say nothing of merit is the way to build readership.

What's driving me nuts, more than Sullivan's constant veneration of Obama, is his manic opposition to Clinton(s). It goes on and on and on. It's almost like he's become a fanatic, ie someone who redoubles his efforts forgetting his cause. From last Thursday until yesterday, Sullivan posted more than six times hitting her. His most telling was the one on the "tip" incident that even the waitress said was baloney. His take is that it's just like the Clintons to lie. It's like attacking for attacking's sake. He doesn't like them. Okay, get over it.

I live in Illinois and cannot support Obama. He actually, in my opinion, "stands" for nothing. He's mediocre and echoes words of hope and aspiration with no real meaning behind them. In the Illinois legislature his role was always the "mediator" who tried to bring together two opposite sides and never taking one himself.

I haven't come out in favor of Hillary or any of the others as yet. I have come out against Obama. Unlike Sullivan, I trust him less than the others.

Yes, Mike, this is about the Clintons. Virtually everything Andy writes about politics is motivated in some fashion by his bizzare, Ahab-and-the-whale-like bond to the Clintons.

Take Hillary out of the Dem race, and Sullivan is still agitating for Lieberman as part of a GOP-independent ticket.

Sullivan doesn't know much about maths either. A 'logarithmic' step up is much smaller than a notch. Logarithmic is the opposite (or inverse) of exponential, which should have been the word he was seeking.

How the mighty Atlantic has fallen! It used to be such a good magazine even relatively recently.

I read Sullivan daily not because he's indispensable but because he's a trained provocateur. He will find a way to insert himself and his passions in the middle of any heated discussion. On television, he's less successful since he often has to shout down other people in order to dominate. His tactic is aesthetic intellectualism - big flowery phrases inflating often pedestrian arguments. This is, in essence, the Big Idea.

His book on conservatism meanders all over the cotton-candy terrain of Big Ideas. Ultimately, you realize this isn't about any central idea so much as Sullivan placing himself at the epicenter of his own Big Idea. He's gay! He's conservative! He's hip! He's fearless!

In other words, he's Madonna and he will be heard, whether we like it or not.

Sullivan doesn't know much about maths either. A 'logarithmic' step up is much smaller than a notch. Logarithmic is the opposite (or inverse) of exponential, which should have been the word he was seeking.

Thank you!! I thought so when I read it but I'm not very mathy and figured I was just losing my mind.

Sullivan has managed to give himself no constituency by being unorthodox with virtually everything

As Ezra wrote a few weeks ago, Sullivan isn't so much unorthodox on everything as a vicious defender of the establishment who plays to their desire to sound unorthodox.
Just look at his signature issues:
black people are stupid, we don't really need to worry about AIDS anymore, those gay people who defy gender norms are weird and passé, the Iraq War went bad due to incompetence (not a fundamental problem with militarism), government spending on social programs=bad, the Clintons are gross, etc. etc.

There's nothing particularly unorthodox about any of this. He just plays it up as such.

That I should have been struck by this was born in my own racial stereotypes, of course. But it won me over.

Really? Because I always thought that his belief that black people are stupid was based in a Very Serious dedication to Science that, somehow, the bulk of actual scientists don't share due to Political Correctness.

But he's still not racist!

Sullivan missed math class. Among other things a logarithm can have the value of 1 or 0.

Compare and contrast the way Sullivan approached the McClurkin fiasco to the way he treats Hillary and the Human Rights Campaign on a weekly basis.

He has no intellectual consistency whatsoever.

As to "rebranding" US policy: Seems to me we had three white women in charge of making US foreign policy more fuzzy and warm and housewife-friendly, Charlotte Beers, Margaret Tutwiler and now Karen Hughes is heading off. We two African Americans as Secretary of State, one right after the other and gee, ya know what? Estimations of America are lower than ever! Hmm, maybe changing the color of the face at the top is completely meaningless. Maybe foreigners pay attention to what Americans do and not just to the latest advertising jingle.

There is more than a hint of gay-bashing in the attacks on Sullivan that I see right here on this thread. And more than a hint of intolerance. Unlike Duncan Black, I welcome people who change their mind in the face of evidence - as Sullivan did. He's one of the most eloquent voices against torture, and there are worse things than supporting Obama and opposing Clinton. I loathe her - as the least progressive Democratic candidate by miles. And for the relentless vote-for-Hillary-because-she-is-a-woman drumbeat from the TAPPED gang and their ilk. And I'm not even a gay man whose political preferences can be dismissed by so-called progressive commentators as being due to sexual attraction or stereotypical feminine irrationality.

"There is more than a hint of gay-bashing in the attacks on Sullivan that I see right here on this thread. And more than a hint of intolerance."

Blah. Just in case you are talking about me, too: Speaking strongly against any HIV positive person looking for unprotected sex (without even disclosing the illness) isn't gay-bashing, it's irresponsible person bashing. Totally ok imho, even the right thing to do.

And, btw, I'm a regular commenter at Americablog, but I haven't seen you, the huge defender of gays, ever posting there. So, excuse me pls, but imho you're simply trying to discredit critics of Sullivan the same way that every critic of Israel is regularly smeared as an anti-semite. But this dog won't hunt here.
:P

"In other words, he's Madonna and he will be heard, whether we like it or not."

Good analysis, Walt! Sad but true.

He's one of the most eloquent voices against torture,

The point is he's not one of the most eloquent voices for or against anything. He has his opinions, evidence be damned. That he changes his mind is evidence that he has changed it and it has no wider meaning.

Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.

Well, I think the fact that Obama is a Christian just might be a hang-up for certain elements of the radical movement in the Middle East that cloaks itself as some sort of movement within Islam.

That's a very patronizing thing to assert, though. What, those brown people in the Middle East will fall for anything? Don't look now, but we're going to bamboozle them and keep stealing their oil! International politics is now a sleight of hand trick? That might work with a rube on the street, but how is it going to work in the real world? And you know you've figured out what's flawed with a conservative's thinking when they claim to know how things work in the real world. We have continuously failed to understand how politically astute people in the Middle East and in the Muslim world really are. And we read Sullivan and agree with him that we think that they aren't able to see beyond the steely-eyed stare of President Obama? Of course not.

To think that we can simply elect someone who looks a certain way is to fundamentally ignore the substance of what that person might stand for. What are his policies? Who is he going to pick to run things? Will he be competent? What's he going to do to wean us off foreign oil? When will we stop occupying territory in the Middle East? If you want to make the case that Obama would be a great choice to be an instrument of convincing the world that we mean to enact substantive changes in those areas, and have him run the State Department, hey--in a Democratic Administration, Obama could certainly do that job. It's too early to talk cabinet secretaries, of course, but come on. The easiest criticism of Andrew Sullivan rests with his failure to think through what he writes.

I'll never understand this obsession with the Clintons, for as long as I live.

What? You got a problem with fucking peace and prosperity?

"He has his opinions, evidence be damned. That he changes his mind is evidence that he has changed it and it has no wider meaning."

Exactly! Sully is always long on emotions and short on reasons.
:-|

Aside from Sullivan's squalid abilities with the language how did the logarithm error get by his editor?

the relentless vote-for-Hillary-because-she-is-a-woman drumbeat from the TAPPED

Must have missed that one. I see people at TAPPED criticizing the incredibly sexist coverage of Senator Clinton's campaign pretty frequently, but that hardly amounts to an endorsement (let alone an exhortation to vote for her on the basis of her gender).

What's worse about the math thing is he doesn't even mean exponential (common mistake, like the misuse of the word literally to mean "really really, a lot, figuratively").

The word he's looking for is either "geometric" or just "more".

I seriously wonder if Sully doesn't first just write a normal essay, and then run it through some kind of "philosophizer" that turns a 1,200 word piece of thought into a 6,300 word thought-essay complete with the must-haves (references to Burke, anti-Clintonism, love for Thatcher).

Hey, this isn't the same Andrew Sullivan who's a fan of The Bell Curve, is it?

No wonder he can't write something about race and politics that isn't fucked-up or stupid.

I don't think Obama's argument about 'the 60's' is "buying into republican talking points". it may surprise people who came of age in the 60s, but a lot of people younger than they do see y'all as stuck in an earlier time, framing every issue in the same way it was done then, and prescribing the exact same remedy for complex problems over and over, hoping to get a better result each time. from this liberal's perspective, Obama's talk about moving beyond this strikes a positive chord. on the other hand, his 'can't we all just get along' shtick has grown very, very tiresome, and represents a fatal miscalculation on his part - he has grossly misjudged the mood of the country in that sense.

as someone who had been primarily supporting Barack up until recently, I can say myself that the Donnie McLurkin issue pushed me finally out of his camp. even though he was showing up on Ellen the next day or so and being very charming and non-homophobic, I can't support anyone who uses gay-baiting of any kind as a way to drum up support. its just not right, and he should have done far more to fix the situation. i think this issue will be bad for him long term, its not the kind of thing that shows up right away, but enough enough young progressives who had been supporting him heard about such a thing, he may notice a substantial drop in fundraising. as for Sullivan, he's a decent writer but only in the context of talking about issues where he is knowledgeable (he vastly over-rates his ability to analyze American politics), and is a much better writer when making a case rather than an emotional plea.

Sullivan is simply a buffoon. In fact, Hillary Clinton has consistently taken sides in favor of the pro-militarism, neoconservative side of American politics. By refusing to apologize for her vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq and stating that Saddam Hussein harbored Al Qaeda, Hillary Clinton is as complicit in starting the war in Iraq as Ahmed Chalabi, George W Bush, and Andrew Sullivan.

By taking a vocal stand against this war before the disastrous results were in, Obama set himself apart from Edwards and Clinton. Obama represents an escape valve for the American public from this complicity.

In 2000, Sullivan wrote an amazing article about his use of testosterone and the mental and personality changes he noted, along with physical changes. Might this use in any way affect his take on politics and international affairs? Does he still use it? In the same way? I must admit to not keeping up with Sully's personal life.

If he's still using it, might it explain his seemingy inexplicable variations in his stated positions on several topics?

In the "The He Hormone" (New York Times Magazine, April 2), Sullivan offered an enlightening, but also irresponsible and comically chest-thumping ode to the joys of mainlining The Big T. Sullivan, an HIV-infected homosexual, began shooting himself up with synthetic testosterone two years ago to counter lethargy and weight loss. He has since added 20 pounds of solid muscle and tremendous physical vitality. "I missed one deadline on this article because it came three days after a testosterone shot and I couldn't bring myself to sit still long enough," he brags.

Following his bimonthly injections, this one-time Oxford grad student in political philosophy suddenly starts acting like a Biblical patriarch gone bad, exulting in volcanic displays of pride, lust and wrath. Now, you might find the formerly mild-mannered journalist's enthusiasm for his new red-blooded personality even more alarming than his new fuel-injected behaviour. Nor are you likely to be reassured by his excited report that "This summer, with the arrival of AndroGel, the testosterone gel created as a medical treatment for those four to five million men who suffer from low levels of testosterone, recreational demand may soar." Will the world be a better place when all men, even gay intellectuals, swagger around like steroid-supercharged professional wrestlers?

http://www.isteve.com/ManlyMolecule.htm

I think Obama's name and backgrond will reassure muslims, much like our assurances of Muslim leaders who attended western universities, they have to be who they are domestically, but we know they can understand us if nothing else.

I find Sullivan's pro war stance troubling, its the kind of Lindberg for president stake-your-reputation mistake that should end your career as a sage for pay.

That said, I agree with him on the soft power argument of President (or more likely VP) Barack Obama.

I don't think a muslim sounding US president will make ponies fly over candy rainbows from Tunisia to Indonesia. But at this point we are in so much trouble we need any advantage we can get. Any reason for the average Muslim to believe that this american president understands them is a tick in our favor. And we are short on reasons for people to give us a second chance.

A new president who does all the right things on the ground could still lose if general perception is not changed. And if a new president attempts a less confrontational diplomatic stance, and it fails, it could lead to more right wing extremism in the US. What has fueled Israeli recalcitrance more than the perception of the rejection of Israeli "concessions" at Camp David in 00?

A change in foreign policy, without a change in foreign perception would be worthless in the context nuetralizing islamic extremism.

Overblown, sure, but it was still a good article IMHO.

I must have missed the memo. When was it decided that we don't like Barack Obama? I can understand the derision for smelly Andrew Sullivan, but there's something else going on here that I don't quite understand. I get that Barack had some homophobic gospel singer on the dias with him, but if any of you have any black friends, you might be shocked to learn that there's a whole lot of that among religious African Americans. You might also find sexism, if you weren't so afraid to notice.

Maybe it's something else yet again, something of which we should not be proud. It might be time to see the Black community as more than just a bunch of reliable Democratic votes and learn that there is as much diversity of opinion there as you'd find among the palefaces. If we didn't all get faint at the mention of a bad word, we might be able to change some minds. Instead, we're going to throw what could be a great leader off the back of the bus.

I wish I had a Black Friend. Wait a sec. Honey, what did we do with the last black friend we had? What? Oh. We traded her in for a Latino friend. More trendy you know.

I'm a regular reader of Andrew Sullivan's blog and find there much that infuriates and much to admire. But his position on the Clinton's is truly bizarre. He now admits he was wrong about Bush and the Iraq war in every way possible, yet this realization fails to cause him a moments hesitation in his present stand against all things Hilary. The Bush of 2000 could do no wrong, the Hilary of 2007 no right. Go figure, 'cause you can be damn sure he wont.

He's hot for Black guys. Ask around and you'll find this out. Obama does have a pretty face. Not that it would calm Islamists or anyone else who hates the US if we keep up with insane policies like invading countries that didn't threaten us (Iraq), helping to destabilize other countries that didn't threaten us (Lebanon), and empowering countries that didn't threaten us (Iran). But Obama is a real cutie. Just saying...

The only thing novel here is that a white person *admits* to being racist.

Linked in to this post and am surprised that the anger at Sullivan is so strong here. The undercurrent is that Sullivan thinks Obama is the best person for the job and a lot of people here that think Clinton has this locked up don't like it one bit.

As a long time Obama supporter I will quickly say that I will give Clinton my time and money if she gets the nomination and will wake up the day after the election proud if she wins ( unlike my clinical depression that set in after the 2004 nightmare). But all you Clinton supporters need to remember one important fact. The far right most want to run against Clinton. And deep down inside all of you know this. They think that they have the best chance to keep it close only if she gets the nod and they are right.

I happen to think we will win no matter who gets the nomination but I don't want to just win the next election. The current power centers in the Rep. party don't need to be barely beaten. They have done so much damage to our country and are so dangerous to our future that we need to CRUSH them and Clinton will not be able to do this. The right wing nuts and the crazy base hate her so much that her nomination alone will be enough to increase the turnout in the Rep. party by 20% or more. Also, a big part of the democratic party and independents are ambivilant about her at best.

If Clinton gets the nomination we will win but just barely and we need to have huge coattails here to insure a fillabuster proof majority. She cannot give us that and the future of this country is too important to let the DNC (republican lite) pick the next president.

Eric in Austin

Here's what Obama says people in other countries will think about him:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04obama-t.html

“If I am the face of American foreign policy and American power,” Barack Obama mused not long ago aboard his campaign plane, “as long as we are also making prudent strategic decisions, handling emergencies, crises and opportunities in the world in an intelligent and sober way. . . .” He stopped. He wanted to make sure he got this just right, and he had got a little caught up in rebutting the claim, which Hillary Clinton has artfully advanced, that he is not prepared to handle emergencies. Obama stopped picking at his grilled salmon in order to stare out at the sky for a few moments. “I think,” he said, in that deep and measured voice of his, “that if you can tell people, ‘We have a president in the White House who still has a grandmother living in a hut on the shores of Lake Victoria and has a sister who’s half-Indonesian, married to a Chinese-Canadian,’ then they’re going to think that he may have a better sense of what’s going on in our lives and in our country. And they’d be right.”

I too find mystifying the high regard many seem to have for Sullivan. I only skimmed this article, but what I saw was the claim that the Republicans and the Democrats are pretty much alike, and in particular that the right's smear campaigns such as Swift Boat Veterans are no different from what the left does. This is one of the Big Lies of our age. But perhaps had I been a cheerleader for the worst excesses of the Republican party, it would be comforting to pretend that the Democrats would have done the same thing.

How the mighty Atlantic has fallen! It used to be such a good magazine even relatively recently.

Really? You mean in 2002 when Michael Kelly became its editor? Or back in the early 1990s when Barbara Dafoe Whitehead made the cover for her "Dan Quayle Was Right" essay and Dinesh D'Souza was given a 10,000 word excerpt from Illiberal Education?

Sullivan is just stupid: a poor writer, a poor thinker, a man who thinks Madonna is a fascinating cultural reference point. I am among those who find his post 9/11 hate, and his intoxicated love for the President to be unforgivable. He is gleefully intemperate and should be shunned.

Why do magazines publish Andrew Sullivan? For the same reason they publish the work of other braindead pundits. It's all about the provocateur, intellect be damned. And, of course, Andrew is happy to play the freak -- the gay barebacker who until recently was an apologist for the Bush Administration. He didn't really shift his opinion until Bush said he favored a Constitutional amendment to ban marriage between members of the same sex, Andrew's longtime cause celebre.

Those of us who have followed his career know that he is a racist, even in this dreadful example of promoting the noble black savage, Obama. It wasn't enough that he published and defended the Bell Curve's author. He was himself shopping a book proposal about race a few years back. (He was laughed out of several offices.)

And I'm not even a gay man whose political preferences can be dismissed by so-called progressive commentators as being due to sexual attraction or stereotypical feminine irrationality.

Well, I'm a gay man, and I find nothing homophobic in the criticisms of Sullivan on this thread. And I think Sullivan is a preening, narcissistic hack.

I only skimmed this article, but what I saw was the claim that the Republicans and the Democrats are pretty much alike, and in particular that the right's smear campaigns such as Swift Boat Veterans are no different from what the left does.

Yep, that's our Andy. Never a criticism of the right without a fair and balanced "But of course the left's just as bad." You can't blame him for not wanting to mess with the formula: it's been paying handsome dividends for him throughout his career.

This is what has turned me off Obama. His candidacy is based on a personality cult.

Obama's argument amounts to this; all our political rancor is due to personality of our leaders. With a kinder and gentler leader we can bridge our political differences. The day Obama is inagurated, supposedly the entire Right Wing Noise Machine will go out of business. Rush/FOX/WSJ will all decide to give Obama a warm welcome and close shop. The GOP leaders in Congress will say gee what a nice guy, lets work with him and get things done for the good of the country.

Sorry guys, I am not buying this fairy tale. We have poisonour politics in this country because one party, the GOP, has declared war on the opposition. They will not change tactics with a different Dem president. They will do to Obama what they did to Clinton/Gore/Kerry. The only way to end this is to defeat the GOP decidedly.

As to Andrew Sullivan it is a mystery to me why people take him seriously. He has serial crushes on politicians based on personality, nothing more. A few years ago he was fawning over Bush. Before that it was McCain. His crush on Obama will end, just like his other crushes.

Eric in Austin,

"The far right most want to run against Clinton. And deep down inside all of you know this. They think that they have the best chance to keep it close only if she gets the nod and they are right."

And if Obama is the nominee they will treat him with respect and give him a fair hearing? Do you honestly believe this bs?

Obama has become a cult figure to his followers. They believe he can walk on water and part the red sea. They think if he is the nominee Democrats will win 50 states, including Miss, Alabama, Oklahoma........They have absolutely no credible evidence to back this up. It is a fantasy.

"The Bush of 2000 could do no wrong, the Hilary of 2007 no right."

In the eyes of Andrew Sullivan the Bush(and McCain) of 2000 could do no wrong and the Al Gore of 2000 could do no right. Sullivan savaged Gore non stop throughout the 2000 campaign. The guy has a record of being consistently wrong.