It's about time someone posted this. Can you send this to Mr. Sullivan? I've been avoiding his blog lately because he writes like it's the Clinton's fault for the media frenzy.

To be fair to Andrew, the reality is that if Clinton is in office in 2009, we will have more of the 90's type coverage of her presidency. Take a look at this nonsense that was posted on Politico today:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1107/Speaking_of_conspiracy_theories.html

This is beyon Sullivan.

Yes, but that isn't Clinton's fault! That is the fault of our media. There isn't any reason we should punish Hillary or Bill for that. We should push back against the media, not them. BTW, I'm not a Clinton supporter, I just hate the treatment she gets from the media.

I agree with Keith-- while Sully's threats are tiresome & offensive because we know that he'll be first in line (okay, maybe third after Maureen Dowd & Joe Klein) to savage her, he's also correct that that's what we're likely to see. If you ask for a restoration in the White House, it should be no surprise when the press coverage is recycled as well.

And yes, any Dem will face a lot of media nastiness, because there's a natural affinity of ignorance and self-promotion between many in the media and the GOP, but electing HRC will make that shift both easy and completely natural-seeming. IOW, it's not an unfair warning, even though he's being deliberately obtuse about his own role in the future battle (and I won't even get into his offensively ignorant musings on feminism).

well, no, sullivan isn't just saying "ain't it a shame that we'll see inane narratives repeated in the media if she gets elected."

he's saying there's a legitimate basis for these inane narratives.

which is why even though sullivan can be eloquent on a handful of issues (gay rights, torture), he is basically a jerk.

Yeah, but isn't the larger point that because insanely obsessed people will be out there again whipping stuff up, we *are* nuts for putting HRC up for the presidency? (Well, really, probably the monied right wing put her up for the presidency).

Who needs this? I really can't get it up to care about what's fair to HRC either way.
Why is it never about what's fair to us?

Finally! A liberal blogger actually calls out Andrew Sullivan for his lunatic obsession with the Clintons. This guy has an absolute shivering pulsating hatred for them that transcends any identifiable policy differences and appears to stem from some very dark corners of his id. Let's call him on his BS and remember that he helpfully called many of us "fifth columnists" if we weren't properly reverential of GWB in the two years or so post-9/11. Nothing like handing out treason accusations when you disagree with someone! The point is, Andy is quite excitable lad on some subjects where his sometimes formidable reason deserts him, and the Clintons are one of those subjects. I salute EK for telling Andy to keep the frothing to himself.

Whenever I see these kinds of things I have two opposing reactions:
1) Ugh, I totally do not want to relive the ridiculous media circus of the 90s, I'm not voting for HRC; and
2) Screw the media, I'm voting for Clinton just to watch the reaction of Sully and Broder and Quinn and the rest of their ilk as the Clintons come marching back into town (once again to clean up after a Bush).

Or stated another way, I may hate HRC's vote on Kyl-Lieberman, but the thought of Chris Matthews or Tim Russert having to address Hillary Clinton as Madame President makes me smile.

I know it's not really polite to talk about it, but ...

... of all people, does Andrew Sullivan really have any business talking about Bill Clinton's "needs and compulsions"??

You know that Sullivan's rants about the all-powerful Clinton thugs are bullshit, because if he really believed it, how would he dare to say it?

I'm with BDB. Clinton may be 5th on my list of preferred Dem candidates, she is 1st on my list of toughest competitors. I have no doubt she will hit hard and often. Like John Edwards said, the best way to deal with a bully is to smack them in the mouth.

"I really can't get it up to care about what's fair to HRC either way.
Why is it never about what's fair to us?"

What's fair to us is fair coverage by the media of ALL candidates for office, and officeholders as well. If Clinton is elected president, the media frenzy will hurt EVERYONE in this country. And, truth be told, the same thing could be said of all the Dem candidates -- to a certain degree. You may not like her (I'm not a big supporter, myself), but surely you can see how damaging this crappy coverage is?

"You may not like her (I'm not a big supporter, myself), but surely you can see how damaging this crappy coverage is?"

A absolutely do, and that's why she shouldn't run. It's not about her-- and, yes, they *do* give the sleaze mongers material to work with.

Sullivan is overdoing it, yes, but I think there is a polarizing nature to the Clintons. The way I would put it is this-- the Clintons are conservatives who don't have particularly great policy differences with the Republicans. Bill Clinton, knowing this, therefore played up partisan differences to keep his base happy.

So, even though he was screwing liberals at every turn, he was fighting those pesky Republicans and the base was loving every minute of it.

And yes, this actually reached its apotheosis at impeachment. I understand you can say whatever you want about the excesses of Ken Starr, et al., but was it really the best use of liberals' resources to defend this guy's perjury and obstruction of justice and 7 months of lying to the country-- so he could go on and betray more liberal causes by, for instance, pardoning Marc Rich-- rather than just jettisoning him and putting Al Gore in place for the 2000 election?

So yeah, I don't buy into the idea that the polarizing nature of the Clintons was all the doing of the media and the Republicans. They surely deserve their share of the blame, but the Clintons deliberately polarize the electorate because otherwise the Democratic base would not let them get away with their hard-right wing policies.

"Bill Clinton, knowing this, therefore played up partisan differences to keep his base happy."

I agree with this (and there's probably a lot more to be said along these lines). We're still stuck with this today. We have to "fight the right." Well, who can say Clinton isn't "the right"? And it feels like the whole party (and everyone else along with it) is falling off the cliff.
Especially if she ends up going off to out-hawk Rudy. She'll look reasonable by comparison, but she'll already be way off the cliff...

And then there's her Wall Street handlers-- Hell, can *we hire* Ken Starr? Does he do work for the SEC?

It's certainly true that the Clintons are politicians and, as such, do political things and that can anger people who disagree with them, but I don't think they've done anything to deserve the polarizing label. It's blaming the victim and I think Democrats should always push back against it because it's damaging to all Democrats. It basically lets the Republicans smear Democrats and make them unacceptable because, hey, Republicans will smear them and so they are "polarizing." And then, of course, they will sell their candidate as a "uniter" even as they smear the Democrat.

Let's look at the most "polarizing" Dems - Bill Clinton (only Dem president elected in last quarter century), his wife (and current frontrunner), Al Gore (2000 Dem nominee), and John Kerry (2004 Dem nominee). I'm not sure, but I think I spot a trend. And if HRC isn't the nominee, you can bet we'll be adding either Edwards or Obama to that list next year.

I can say something negative about every Dem running and some of them I like more than others, but I will defend every last one of them against Republican smears because every one of them is a decent person and every one of them has better policies and would make a better President than any of the Republicans. That includes Clinton. She may not be as liberal as I'd like on some issues, I'm particularly frustrated with her about Iran, but she is a lot more progressive than any Republican running (and her Senate voting record is virtually identical to Obama's and arguably more progressive than Edwards'). But again, any of the Democrats would be vastly better than what we have now or what we're going to see from the Republicans in this election cycle.

"But again, any of the Democrats would be vastly better than what we have now or what we're going to see from the Republicans in this election cycle."

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

Andrew sullivan is not so good on gay rights. Remember he told gays to vote for GW because he would be good for gay rights.

Andrew sullivan is wrong about everything. He should be read just for laughs.

Until you realize he is so self-loathing that you just click on the x and feel dirty and shame for actually reading him.

Ezra Klein leaves out the bigger issue; what happened in the 90s will have again next time there is a Dem president. It won't matter whom the Dems nominate. If Al Gore or John Kerry had become president we would have had pseudo scandals galore, year after year. The Right Noise Machine and their enablers in the corporate media would have done to them what they did to the Clintons.

As to Andrew Sullivan; remember he felt the same way about Al Gore in 2000. He wrote column after column attacking Al Gore's alleged character deficiencies. He also praised Bush's character. Up until a few years ago he was singing Bush's praise as the "resolute leader". Before Bush he was besotted with McCain. He now has a crush on Obama. That will not last long either.

I wish Democrats would stop enabling Republican talking points about the Clintons.

The Clintons didn't bring in the toxic political atmosphere that plagues us today. That was done by Newt Gingrich and his wingnut supporters. The Clintons are victims of this tripe, not its perpetrators.

Liberals, get over yourselves. Maybe Bill Clinton wasn't a perfect preside--nobody could be--but the peace and prosperity of the 90's look pretty good today. President Clinton demonstrated that liberal government works, and his wife appears to be smarter than he is.

The Clintons didn't bring in the toxic political atmosphere that plagues us today. That was done by Newt Gingrich and his wingnut supporters. The Clintons are victims of this tripe, not its perpetrators.

Liberals, get over yourselves. Maybe Bill Clinton wasn't a perfect preside--nobody could be--but the peace and prosperity of the 90's look pretty good today. President Clinton demonstrated that liberal government works, and his wife appears to be smarter than he is.

1. Bill Clinton is to the right of Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower. He is in no sense "liberal" and indeed trashed liberal objectives such as single payer health care, gay rights, a social safety net for poor mothers, and reducing American militarism.

2. Bill Clinton was so incompetent in his first 2 years that the Dems lost the Congress in 1994, and everything he did thereafter was defense and didn't accomplish any liberal goals.

3. The partisan battles that Bill Clinton had the left fight for him were all either on defense-- things like defending Medicare from the Congress that he helped elect-- or defending Bill Clinton personally, such as the impeachment battle, which was the result of his decision to lie under oath and obstruct justice.

4. Bill Clinton showed us not that liberal government works, but that a Democrat can implement conservative government.

For this reason, I HATE the Clintons' approach to politics. I have no problem with partisanship in the service of liberalism. But why should I go to the mat for far-right reactionary conservative Democrats like Bill and Hillary Clinton?

If you think Clinton is to the right of Nixon, I doubt you're old enough to remember Nixon.

"I wish Democrats would stop enabling Republican talking points about the Clintons."

I people would stop telling us that we need to support the Clintons-- we don't!

If you think Clinton is to the right of Nixon, I doubt you're old enough to remember Nixon.

Well, let's compare:

Richard Nixon-- created the Environmental Protection Agency.

Bill Clinton-- proposed Midnight Basketball.

Richard Nixon-- proposed a guaranteed income for poor Americans

Bill Clinton-- mercilessly cut government assistance to poor mothers.

Richard Nixon-- had the guts to stand up to militaristic anti-communists and open up our relations with China and the USSR.

Bill Clinton-- dropped bombs and murdered civilians to distract the country from his perjury and obstruction of justice.

Ricahrd Nixon-- ended, eventually, US military involvement in Vietnam.

Bill Clinton-- attempted to start the second Gulf War, signing Iraq Liberation Act; was only foiled by huge public protests that met his Secretaries of State and Defense.

Sorry, Bill Clinton is on the far right. He covers this up by playing up the partisanship. That enriches Bill Clinton, but it hurts the country. (Indeed, in that respect, he was a lot like Nixon)

I don't get it. Haven't these people, and Sullivan in particular, been shamed enough over the last 6 years? It's like he's learned absolutely nothing.

Sullivan is just making his reservation for a table close to the stage, from where he hopes to be part of the show.

Now that our world has truly achieved Orwellian dimensions, an Attention Whore is defined as a Journalist.

What makes this truly both pathetic and ironic is that this pattern of behavior is avoidable, yet willful.

Sweet Jesus. What a dumbass.

Ricahrd Nixon-- ended, eventually, US military involvement in Vietnam.

That's gotta be the biggest gawl dern "eventually" I've ever seed.

That was done by Newt Gingrich and his wingnut supporters.

Let's not forget Jerry Falwell, who funded and helped produce the scurrilous "Clinton Chronicles"

Sullivan: Clinton has "Cootie vibes"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQRW7YCXe68

We have just (barely) survived seven years of George W. Bush working out his own family psychodrama by invading a country just to teach his ol' man how to suck eggs. Or maybe it was to avenge his father for Saddam's assassination attempt. Whatever. We have to analyze the foreign policy of our government the same way we would a soap opera or a Greek tragedy, in terms of failed family dynamics.

Who needs this crap?

And so now, we need to have eight more years of the melodrama of the Clinton's marriage. Oh, there won't be another Monica. But it will still be another big family melodrama, because that's all that people seem to want or expect from their government. No wonder we are losing our liberties and are wasting lives in foreign countries.

We need a constitutional amendment to ban first generation blood relatives and spouses from running for president.

No more Bushs, no more Clintons. No Jeb Bush. No George P. Bush. No Chelsea. No politicians running solely on their family's reputation and donor fund-raising list. There are hundreds of millions of people in this country and surely we can find a non-Clinton and a non-Bush qualified to run for office.

My daughter turns 18 next year, and she will be voting for the first time in a presidential election. She has never known a time in her life when a Clinton or Bush wasn't president.

Andrew was calling us the Fifth Column a few years ago, back when his crush on Bush was still active. He's as reliable a witness as Maureen Dowd: when she's good, she's very enjoyable, but when she's bad she's psychotic. Strangely enough, they both have a complex about Hillary. I promise not to psychoanalyze your new hubby, Andrew. Stop it with the Clintons.

And to the "leftists" who favor another candidate than Clinton: go ahead. Tell us why your guy is great, and why Clinton doesn't have the better policy. I promise I'll listen to you. But the second you start sounding like the panty-sniffers, or the people who make up stories rather than reporting, I've had it with you, and I take your candidate down a peg because his supporters are nasty and stupid.

Can we, as the party of the broad left, come to one understanding: if anybody lies about any of US, we tear their heads off. It doesn't matter if it's the National Review, or certain writers for the Times, or the Irish Catholic axis of MSNBC: Russert to Matthews to to Dowd, you are dead to us. You don't count. You're finished, and if we can help to ruin your lousy career, we will. We protect each other.

Lessee - is Al Gore "polarizing"? He basically went away after the election was stolen in 2000, and focused on environmental issues. But still, the press has to bring him up - (will he run? he said he won't, but he's just fibbing again. he looks fat) - even giving all the global warming nay-sayers equal time on his Nobel day.

Anyone who thinks it's just Hillary or that it won't happen to another candidate might just look at Max Cleland or Harald Ford. Obama will get a big smack across the head 10 seconds after he's nominated, and it won't be the last.

So get out there and vote for the closest compromise to who you feel can get elected/fight back against this slime machine and the person who reflects your values. Al's been "right" and out of power for 7 years now. Close ain't good enough.

And here's a clue stick - if Hillary doesn't package up an easy enough soundbite, perhaps there's another reason than "she's playing both sides". Handing ammo to the Republicans just ain't smart, and the Democrats - especially in Congress - have been working overtime to be dumb.

Look, I don't want Clinton to be the Dem nominee. I'm firmly in the Edwards camp, as I have been for most of the year now.

But we still can't let the media blackmail us into making a different choice than we might otherwise make.

It doesn't matter whether it's just Sully and MoDo and Bad Klein, or whether it's them and Politico and half the damned Village.

If Hillary wins the nomination, and they start playing those games, we will simply have to find ways to use those games against them, not in anger, but in ridicule.

The proper approach here is to show up The Village for the idiots they are, turn them into the laughingstock they deserve to be. And we can do that. Sully or MoDo says something? "Meow." Broder bloviates? Make fun of his senility.

It's time to make them the issue. I don't remember voting for them to be the guardians of our discourse. It's time to vote them out.

Sullivan's threats seem to me no different than what was done to Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt for decades by the likes of Westbrook Pegler, et al.

Conservatives, in particular, believe that any fundamental deviation from their ideological outlook legitimizes any manner of attack--that all aspects of the non-conservative's life are worthy of even the meanest sort of idle speculation, which, to that sort of mind, naturally should lead to criminal investigation.

Let's not forget that the press alone was not the sole force behind the questionable attacks on the Clintons in the `90s. It was a concerted effort of prominent, moneyed right-wingers (such as Richard Mellon Scaife), helpfully pointing the press to its target. The press was, indeed, complicit, but it was a joint venture between them and staunch, well-heeled right-wingers. The wingers turned up the megaphone volume quite loud.

Sullivan, by issuing this threat, is merely stating for whom he really works, and on which side of that megaphone he stands. Any self-defense suggesting that his is an independent voice can be safely discarded.

What if it were to, say ... get broke?

Well, it is broken. Had blogs been around in the 90's we would have seen a different trajectory, perhaps an altered outcome in some way. We'll see this time.

And wasn't it closer to 70 million?

I'm really tired of people telling us that we can *not defend the clintons* and still get a democratic president elected. We can't. Because what happens to the clintons is going to keep happening to each and every democratic candidate and nominee. That has always been the republican strategy--go for their strenghts, not their weaknesses. Clinton was a loose living guy who had sex outside of marriage. If the press and the republicans had treated him the way the press and the democrats treated poppy bush we *never would have heard about it.* Monica lewinsky was revealed to us as an ancillary to an ongoing legal witch hunt that never would have been allowed to start absent the intense and strategic hatred of the republican congressional leaders and the millionaires like scaife. When you think of th epublic and private monies that were spent to bring them down you have to laugh at the notion that this stuff just happened because of who they were.

And I can assure you that they not only did the same thing to john kerry, they will do the same thing to obama and edwards and (of course) kucinch, gravel, and richardson. There isn't a chance in hell that any democrat is going to be heard on the merits--they will be drowned out by a chorus of rage filled sexual and moral innuendo. And the better progressives they are, the more they will be attacked.

Clinton was more conservative than I wantedc him to be but he had a conservative and activist republican majority to deal with and a hostile press. You saw the same thing happen to the utterly innocent gore when his time at bat, or at the executioner's stand, happened. And because we were unable to defend them we are facing the same sick bastards all over again. Turning on any democrats (other than the worst quislings like feinstein and schumer) is a stupid idea. It poisons the water for all of the democratic candidates.
aimai

The knee jerk reaction against the Clintons is not surprising. Our side has also bought into the right wing narrative. The Republicans can bob and weave but they get a pass. the Clintons: no. We have so many on our side that just parrots talking points against the Clintons. I will support the victor in the primaries: no question. That person may not do what I want, but he/she will be assured of my support. As for Sullivan: he shows the well known vindictiveness that characterises much of his postings against the Clintons. I would vote for Hillary just so as to give him a swift kick up his butt. No: on second thoughts, scrap that!

Sullivan sounds like a spoiled child taking a tantrum who threatens that if his parents try to make him eat his supper he'll throw it all over the room. These self-anointed pundits really need to get other jobs. Their sense of entitlement is so entrenched that they practically brag about not taking their job seriously. Twits.

Remember, if/when Sen. Clinton becomes President and when the media b.s. starts back up, lets bury both the traditional media and the nutjobs (including the GOP) once and for all.

Look on it as an opportunity, not an annoyance.

Anyone who thinks for a second that the right wing nutjobs, the instigators of that entire Clinton-era madness, will "go underground" and be less antagonistic toward another Democratic president, is nuts.

Andrew Sullivan is as naive and bitter as ever and as lost as ever.

If anything consider that Clinton has already been through the ringer and, therefore has a relatively sound immune system against baseless Republican-driven media attacks.

As far as I can see they got nuthin. Attcking her laugh, her clapping, her "triangulation." Come on this is a joke.

In fact, the main attacks on her regarding the issues (and rightfully so) have been coming from her own party.

The republicans haven't been able to make a scratch on her, leastwise a naive child like Andrew Sullivan.

Personally, I am a very liberal person and would love to see a Kucinich like president, but I have to say that a president with Hillary's experience against the right-wing attack machine is probably not such a bad thing.

That's the deal he, and some others in the media, are offering: Don't vote for Clinton, and we won't descend into hysterical Clinton-hatred again.

I agree that is the deal Sullivan is offering, but it is a complete lie. No matter what democrat wins, the Sullivans of the disgusting republican propaganda meditariat will revert to their 1990's form - it has nothing to do with the Clintons. It has everything to do with how they use personal assassination against democrats to obstruct progress because republicans have no policy and no ideology that any but the most extreme right wing Americans will follow.
.

This from a man who urged everyone to vote for Dumbya. OK, Sully, whatever you say.

It seems to me that someone with Sullivan's, ah, robust personal history isn't the best one to criticize Clinton's "needs and compulsions."

I just wanted that on the record, ok?

The greatest problem facing a Democratic candidate is a principle driven Democrat. Is the country ready for a White woman or a Black man? That will be a test. Assume the Irish mafia and the Sully types will be hostile. Get behind the Democrat chosen by the primary electors. Use the net. Fight. If your principles are more important than your pragmatism that's ok. You can deal with Guiliani or any Republican President. After all you stood for your principles while the Republicans stood for power at all costs.

I know I am some far-left punk that sees the world around me going to hell because the corporate owned media refuses to report anything that may damage other corporate interests, but really be honest if GWB was a Dem FNC would have been screaming impeachment soon as 9/11 happened. As BUSHCO scandal after scandal happens they are found out on Friday night and are ignored after Sunday morning.

Clinton's "needs and complulsions" and sexual peccadiloes: news.

Andrew Sullivan's public trolling for bareback ass-fucking: inappropriate topic for discussion.

Hopefully, Sully won't have to reach far to understand why he has no credibility on the subject of presidential politics.

It seems to me that someone with Sullivan's, ah, robust personal history isn't the best one to criticize Clinton's "needs and compulsions."

It's considered distasteful in certain (gay rightwing) circles to bring up Sully's sullied past ("why do you take cheap personal shots against such a brilliant political thinker?", etc.)

If HRC gets elected, and Andrew decides it's 1996 all over again, as far as I'm concerned the gloves are completely off. That pretentious twit has absolutely zero credibility harping on other people's personal lives.

Lord, what fools these mortals be.

Ezra is correct about Sullivan's behavior.

Further, anyone buying the idea that this indicates HRC should not run or win is a fool or a Republican (but I become redundant).

Only a fool would forget what has happened to every Democratic nominee since 1992. Either before nomination or soon after, we realize that they are completely unacceptable for America.

Only a fool would forget how one shout made Howard Dean into an unacceptable nut with no chance for the nomination.

Only a fool would forget that Kerry, once a statesman and war hero, once nominated, became a waffler, coward, traitor.

And only a fool would forget the 22 month War on Gore, you know, the one that has actually convinced Gore not to run again because of the promise of more of the same (this is the argument that commenters here are using for HRC). How a man prescient, wise, and correct about nearly every major policy issue could be so hounded is beyond sense, and angers me beyond reason.

As do the foolish comments on this thread.