Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

December 14, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

OBSESSION....I would just like to take this opportunity to express my awe over Andrew Sullivan's ability to dig up every single piece of anti-Hillary spleen in existence. I literally don't think he leaves any stone, or any blog comment section, unturned in his daily effort to illuminate his otherworldly loathing for Mrs. C. In its own way, it's a brilliant work of performance art.

Kevin Drum 1:26 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (96)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Maybe he has a secret hetero girl crush on her... It's called "repression," Sully.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on December 14, 2007 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin -- You know these guys better than most of us do. What is at the heart of the Sullivan hatred of Clinton? I know he published a really bad article at TNR criticizing her health plan when Bill was in office. Is that it? Or does he just hate women in general (he tends to make a lot of snide remarks about lesbians)?

You would think that having realized the right was wrong about the war, it might occur to him that they were also wrong about how evil the Clintons are. But no. That would require too much introspection I guess.

Posted by: Teresa on December 14, 2007 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

Haha, good for pointing this out (I read both your blog and sullivan's all the time). His hatred of her really is visceral but not uncommon. It seems almost genetic but he is not the only person with that affliction. While I support Obama over HRC as well, I equally dont understand the hatred that is leveled at her.

Posted by: evermore on December 14, 2007 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Its disgusting. I cannot read him anymore. Unbalanced, agenda driven, open shilling. Such a contrast to your blogging. To me, you are Michael Kinsley and he is Joe Klein. Sully was dead wrong on Iraq and used incendiary rhetoric then, and I think he is dead wrong now too. Dont get me wrong, I will embrace Obama if he is the nominee, but cripes he has done more to push me to HRC than anyone else. I just cant stand the pile-on unfairness.

Posted by: Jammer on December 14, 2007 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

really. drudge is the other drama queen. i think its called clitoris envy.

Posted by: mestizo on December 14, 2007 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

Sully may have realized the right was wrong about the war, but did he ever acknowledge that the left was right about the war?

Posted by: jerry on December 14, 2007 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

It's really quite amazing; aside from the Hillary obsession and Ron Paul dalliance, Sullivan has turned into a largely reasonable person. But on Paul, and especially on Hillary Clinton, he's now more insane than he ever was on anything previously.

You rarely see such an extreme case of compartmentalization of the ability to think rationally. Sullivan's Hillary paranoia goes well beyond religious style zealotry, past the realm of suicidal delusion, and enters realms of disassociation with reality that have not been previously explored by humankind even with the most extreme of chemical inducements, and he's accomplished this at the same time that he's otherwise mellowing out and adjusting to the concept of facts.

Baffling Sullivan is.

Posted by: R Johnston on December 14, 2007 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

What is really amazing is the fact that his Clinton hatred is stronger than his approval of the Charles Murray thesis that blacks are genetically inferior. Else how to explain his belief that "Obama Matters". Oh, wait, I guess Barack is Redeemed in being half white and that's enough to save him from dad's bad genes!

Posted by: richard locicero on December 14, 2007 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

For the most part, Hillary brings out the worst in everyone - friends and enemies alike.

Posted by: lampwick on December 14, 2007 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

Jerry, I do not believe he has done that. I believe his position evolved into: its wrong because the Bushies screwed it up. Recall that after 9-11 he was one of the first to take off after AMERICANS for daring to not believe we should do what he wanted to do. He called the east and west coasters a possible fifth column that would sell out the US in the war on terror. He personally attached Eric Alterman as sympathetic to the enemy (words to that effect), a quote Alterman has never forgiven him for and I dont blame him.

Posted by: Jammer on December 14, 2007 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

What strikes me more and more reading Sullivan is that somehow he thinks that Hillary Clinton is EXACTLY LIKE George W. Bush on all the things that matter. I think he needs this bizarro-world "balance" in his own mind to sort of justify his one-time passionate support of Bush. Yeah, his thinking goes, I was wrong about Bush, BUT THE LIBS ARE/WERE JUST AS WRONG ABOUT CLINTON! This has morphed into THEY'RE THE SAME PERSON.

Posted by: Steve on December 14, 2007 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

Are there three different people writing under the name Andrew Sullivan now?

Posted by: freelunch on December 14, 2007 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

My favorite comment sully made about the whole thing is that if he doesn't do it that, becausethe rest of the press is so enamored with or afraid of the Clintons, no one else will.

If there is anything the 90's taught us, the press is afraid to dredge up the dirt on the Clintons. Thank god for Andrew Sullivan.

Posted by: tomboy on December 14, 2007 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

I'm thinking it's lifestyle envy pure and simple (and I'm guessing most of the inside-the-Beltway crowd is afflicted with it): the Clintons have fancy cribs in DC, NYC, Chappaqua...their own private Secret Service detail...tens of millions of dollars a year from speaking engagements...access to private jets - they came from nowhere and now enjoy all the perks of the super-rich and, most galling of all, espouse a "progressive" agenda...

While Oxford-educated supergenius Sully (and I'm guessing here) still has to take Marty Peretz's phone calls, lives in a basement apartment in DC, eats in bad restaurants in P'town, and probably has to schlep on the ferry from Boston to get there...

Posted by: ricardo on December 14, 2007 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

"Are there three different people writing under the name Andrew Sullivan now?"

Sure seems that way at his/their blog. There's the moderately conservative homosexual man who's learned to mostly reject the Kool-Aid even though he's still often wrong, there's the gibbering economic libertarian who comes out of his hidey-hole on occasion to endorse crackpot economics, and there's the Hillary hater who makes Charles Manson tripping on LSD seem like an example of level-headed sanity in comparison.

Posted by: R Johnston on December 14, 2007 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

On my coed softball team, there have been conflicts between women about who is going to be the dominant informal group leader. Since Sullivan has no chance of winning that battle with Sen. Clinton, he hates her guts, which is simliar to the way my softball team's women resolve their conflicts: antipathy and separation.

The men never seem to have any conflicts until their wives go at each other, at least as long as I do not bring up politics.

Posted by: Brojo on December 14, 2007 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

Andrew's blog has been kind of... mean lately. Did anyone catch that prissy post about the Huckabee family?

Posted by: Caitlin on December 14, 2007 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

It's the mirror image of his fawning admiration for W.

I wish Sullivan would read his own book (conservatives and doubt or whatever) and apply it to himself. He's not only a crappy judge of character, but once he settles on an idea he engages in wholesale confirmation bias.

Posted by: Tom Ames on December 14, 2007 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

Fawning admiration for GWB?! Are we talking about the same Andrew Sullivan?

Posted by: Caitlin on December 14, 2007 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

Or Sully could be analyzing his site analytics and watching the spikes on his HRC posts. He's cornered the market on this sort of writing and reporting.

If you want to know the rough state of the country's animus toward Hillary Clinton, you have to read Sully.

Posted by: paxr55 on December 14, 2007 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks so much for talking about this. I've been a fan of Sullivan's blog for a long time, but no longer. I'm a woman and a Hillary supporter and I can't take it anymore. I get furious every time I go to his site. It would seem he doesn't like women at all as he says things that are hurtful to all of us, not just to Clinton. He then tries to cover this with cloying comments that only make it worse, verbally patting us on the head for "knowing better" than to like Hillary. Today he's found an Iowa woman, an Obama supporter, to do his work for him. He started out saying on TV that Clinton gave him "cootie vibes." At that time, he was still admitting she was smart and competent, but no more. As for his raving about Obama, he's causing me to dislike Obama more each day. I wonder if he's thought of that, that he's laying it on so thick that it's not helpful to Obama's campaign.

Posted by: LRockstrom on December 14, 2007 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Mestizo... Hillary got into political bed with Drudge; maybe she can satisfy Sully's clitoris envy too.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on December 14, 2007 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

The heart of his hatred?

Well for starters, she's the woman he'll never be.

Having gay friends, I can attest that this hatred of Hill is pretty common.

And this dislike of Hill is in contrast to the Log Cabin Repug love of conservatism and everything Red. I live in Ohio and it's an open secret that the Repugs here 1) used the Anti-Gay Marriage vote to kill Kerry in '04 (As the man behind the booth at the State Fair so emphatically told me, "Do you WANT them homos teaching and touching your kids?"), and 2) the Repugs and their sister evangelicals even now want all gays hung from the lamposts, Memphis-style.

I've read Andrew's mea culpas about his war backing and how he's fallen out of love with the Man From Texas, but really, half the time he's back in the saddle with him spouting refried Repug orthodoxy and hate. Andrew, wake up! They want your kind dead!

I'm all for constructive debate and honest criticism, but Andrew and even a few "liberal bloggers" have lost credibility with me. (Kos is getting close to losing me. I mean how many "I love that lawyer from North Carolina" postings do I need to read?)

Posted by: LuigiDaMan on December 14, 2007 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

She has a vagina. That's all. He's afraid of/repulsed by vaginas. But Barack, mmm, lil Andy can see himself on his knees servicing him..actually, given Sullivan's race-hatred, it would probably be the other way around, but still.

Posted by: jbk on December 14, 2007 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

While I agree that Sullivan's hatred of Clinton is overblown, I don't understand some of these comments. For example:
1)"You would think that having realized the right was wrong about the war, it might occur to him that they were also wrong about how evil the Clintons are. But no. That would require too much introspection I guess."
2)"Sully may have realized the right was wrong about the war, but did he ever acknowledge that the left was right about the war?"
3)"What strikes me more and more reading Sullivan is that somehow he thinks that Hillary Clinton is EXACTLY LIKE George W. Bush on all the things that matter."

Look, people, Hillary voted for the war. If Sullivan was wrong (and has said his mea culpas), then Hillary was wrong too. But she has said no such thing. Is it really that hard to understand?
I personally can't figure out commenters who act as if Sullivan is wrong to hate Hillary so much, but who also express contempt for him because he was in favor of the war. Hello? If Sullivan should acknowledge that the left was right about the war, that will not include Hillary.

Posted by: satoria on December 14, 2007 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

I enjoy most everything Sullivan writes, except when he mentioned either Clinton. He needs therapy for his Clinton issues.

Posted by: RobertSeattle on December 14, 2007 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

Say what you want about Andrew, he's right about Hillary. This latest low blow proves it.

Posted by: waka waka on December 14, 2007 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe he just thinks that her presidency will be bad for the country (and world) and has devoted his professional life to this belief for the moment.

I don't hate Sen. Clinton like Sullivan does, but I really don't want her to win the primary season, for many of the reasons that Sullivan talks about.

They dynasticism alone gives me the heebee-jeebies.

Posted by: crazymonk on December 14, 2007 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

You guys, some of the comments here are getting kind of offensive. Can we try to reign it in a little? Sullivan's rants on Hillary are definitely weird and crazy, but we don't need to bring his sexuality into it. :(

Posted by: Caitlin on December 14, 2007 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

Sullivan is irrationally, obsessively anti-Hillary, yes. Kevin's keen to make fun of it, and I agree it's silly. But silly or no, there's something to learn from it. Andrew isn't a unique case. Lots and lots of otherwise normal, non-crazy people are irrationally, obsessively anti-Hillary, and deserved or not, that fact in itself speaks against her campaign. There's a reason there hasn't been any legislation with Hillary Clinton's name on it. There's a reason the landmark piece of campaign finance legislation was called McCain-Feingold and not McCain-Clinton. And the reason is that the irrational, obsessive hatred of Clinton is so widespread and vitriolic that to even be SEEN as cooperating with Hillary Clinton is a political liability among Republicans. Drum is keen to mock that sort of irrationality hatred, but mocking it won't make it go away, and that very irrationality promises to be both a serious impediment to Hillary's chances to take the White House, as well as a substantial obstacle to her being able to pass legislation should she win. And to that extent, Andrew Sullivan's anti-Hillary ravings aren't something to be mocked - they are something to be taken very seriously by Democrats.

Nate

Posted by: Nate W. on December 14, 2007 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

Even creepier than Sully's Hillary hatred is his worship of Ron Paul. That's just fucked up.

Posted by: Rev. Jim on December 14, 2007 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

Along with Kevin and most of the other commenters here I've noticed Sullivan's weird and frothing-at-the-mouth hatred of Hillary. Even sent him a couple emails about it. No response. For your amusement here they are:

________________
Andrew, In your story on torture you throw out this silly line:

"... Clinton (because nothing she says can be trusted) "

Exxagerations such as those reduce YOUR OWN credibility. I know when I read such tripe I wonder what color glasses you are wearing.
_____________

followed by another letter to sully:
_____________

Is there sufficient hyperbole in this statement regarding the Clintons?

"They reflexively lie, the way other people breathe. "

Honestly Andrew. Have you gone off the deep end with Clinton Derangement Syndrome?

Do you really believe the Clintons are exceptionally different than other aspirants to the Presidency in their usage of spin and falsehood?

You are coming off as irrational in your treatment of the Clintons.

Highly irrational.
_______________________

For some reason I don't seem to have gotten thru to him. ;)

Posted by: Curt M on December 14, 2007 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

I'm a Democrat, and I also hate Hillary. When I read Sullivan's blog, I usually agree with him about her obnoxiousness. I can't stand her laugh, I can't stand her voice, I can't stand her attitude. And I know many Democrats (and independents) just like myself. I live in Ohio, by the way.
I also have many Republican friends who say they will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances, and will vote for whoever the Republican nominee is if Hillary is the Democratic nominee. And yet they are surprisingly open to voting for Obama, because there's something different about him.
I don't think you can chalk all this up to something crazy or obsessive. Maybe people hate her because they can see right through her. The woman is an automaton. She isn't running for president for the sake of improving the country, she's running for her own personal ambitions. She leaves me absolutely cold. And I can assure you, there are many people like me who understand where Sullivan is coming from.
Picking on Obama because he wanted to be president as a kindergartner? Talking about his past drug use and insinuating that he was a dealer? Do you people remember the "politics of personal destruction" from the Clinton years? It's happening again, and this time the instigator doesn't have much charisma or wisdom or substance to make it bearable.
No, we do not want this woman in the White House. We do not want 4 or 8 years of Hillary after 4 years of Bush 41, 8 years of B. Clinton, and 8 years of Bush 43. We need a break from these kinds of people.
Obama represents a clean break, and also has more chance to win. Hillary will be a disaster, as nominee and (God forbid) president.
This does not make me nuts, it makes me someone who happens to think differently than many of the commenters here. But I know too many people who think similarly, who are liberals and progressives and Democrats. Pay attention to Sullivan's reasons for dissing her - they are prophetic of what many Americans will think if she is on the ballot.

Posted by: dem who understands on December 14, 2007 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

I do think it's possible to say that Sullivan does not like or respect women in general without bringing his sexuality into it. He has espoused in print the view that men are simply superior to women because testosterone makes them so--evidence being that he personally feels good when he takes supplements.

Posted by: rabbit on December 14, 2007 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

He has espoused in print the view that men are simply superior to women because testosterone makes them so--evidence being that he personally feels good when he takes supplements.

Sullie is a juicer? That explains alot.

Posted by: Disputo on December 14, 2007 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe people email the 'pieces of anti-Hillary spleen' to him.

And most bloggers, myself included, and (IIRC on the matter Bush's TANG record) Kevin himself, tend to go off on periodic obsessions. Obsessive blogger behavior isn't really new or noteworthy.

Posted by: Stephen on December 14, 2007 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK
Even creepier than Sully's Hillary hatred is his worship of Ron Paul. That's just fucked up.

What's creepy or fucked up about worshiping a racist social authoritarian obsessed with destroying the economy by returning us to the gold standard?

Posted by: R Johnston on December 14, 2007 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

As I said on John Coles' Blog "When it comes to the Clintons I’d take anything Sullivan says, links to or refers to with a massive grain of salt. Have you seen his site recently every third post is a CDS statement, soon he will have her digging up Vince Foster to kill him again."

I guess we learned nothing from the 90’s, when Republicans and so called Moderates say anything about the Clintons please take a deep breath and analyze through you CDS filter.

And Kevin, I'll ask you the same thing I asked John, please up a post where you can list the reasons you dislike the Clintons. I’ve never understood the hatred of the Clintons by the Republicans and some Moderates. Is it personal, then why? Is it policy?

F

Posted by: F on December 14, 2007 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

Gay guys dislike domineering women, it's that simple. They get along fine with feminine women in general.

Posted by: Dilbert on December 14, 2007 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

He carried water for Bush for years, hyped the war, then discovered his conscience.... I am voting for Hillary just so he has something to do every day during her 8 year administration. Maybe he'll take up doggie-blogging on Fridays. He mentioned on his blog that he has been under the weather and perhaps his daily spleen venting of anti-Hillary blogging perks up his spirits. A vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill.

Posted by: * on December 14, 2007 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo, Sully is not only a juicer, he's practiced bareback gay sex. Caitlin, Rabbit, and any others, Sully's left himself wide open for comments like this.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on December 14, 2007 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

Not to elevate her to Sullivan's status, but he has plenty of counterparts on the bash-Obama all the time mode, like Taylor Marsh. There are others as well, TalkLeft, TheLeftCoaster, etc.

Posted by: Rolla, MO on December 14, 2007 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

sullivan is still shining a bright light on "...The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts...", or in this case an outpost in the interior, eh?

Posted by: supersaurus on December 14, 2007 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

"Are there three different people writing under the name Andrew Sullivan now?"

That would explain the volume--the guy's become a posting machine. Being sick in bed for a week hasn't slowed him down any, either. The only way to get through it all is to skip the anti-Hillary stuff and his book plugs, trimming it down to a pretty fun read.

Posted by: lahke on December 14, 2007 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

I challenge any poster who has ascribed Sullivan's Hillary-phobia to his homosexuality or homosexist-misogyny to explain why he is also a huge fan of Camille Paglia.

Posted by: lampwick on December 14, 2007 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

Rolla, no way you can compare what Taylor MArsh writes about Obama with what Sullivan writes about Clinton. No way. Post one article from Marsh that descends into the vituperative, super loathing of Sullivan. One.

dem who understands,thanks for the Obama campaign speech but your hatred of her laugh and her voice puts you in Sullies camp for sure. How can you say she wants to be president for her own power grab and not to help the country? Give me one piece of evidence for that astonishing statement. The Clintons have been doing what Bill Clinton campaigned on in 1991: waking up every day and trying to figure out what they can do to improve our country. I have no doubt lots of people think differently, I hear it all the time and argue with people about it, but in our history lots of people have been on the wrong side of issues and politicians all the time. The fact that so many people are out of their minds about her doesnt influence my view at all. Ive been in the political minority most of my life and I cherish that position because the masses are frequently wrong. Heck, at least 20% of the country lost their minds after 9-11 (Dennis Miller a prime example)and they are as dead wrong as the HRC visceral haters. And polls have shown that 20% of our brave voters wont vote for a woman at all, ever. Its OK for Pakistan, England and other countries, but not the "progressive" US. If you dont like her views or her policies, fine. Dont vote for her. But spare us all the hatred will you? It demeans you, not her. Hate her voice and her laugh: for crying out loud.

LRockstrom, I agree with everything you said.

Posted by: Jammer on December 14, 2007 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

Jammer,

For fun I like to watch Hillary-haters when I tell them their hate is actually repressed attraction combined with knowing they wouldn't have a chance.

Hee hee. Any denial just supports my point of course.

Posted by: Tripp on December 14, 2007 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

why he is also a huge fan of Camille Paglia

Paglia doesn't challenge Sullivan's informal group leader role and Sen. Clinton does.

Posted by: Brojo on December 14, 2007 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

I challenge any poster who has ascribed Sullivan's Hillary-phobia to his homosexuality or homosexist-misogyny to explain why he is also a huge fan of Camille Paglia.

Uh, because Paglia's homosexuality trumps vaginality?

Posted by: Disputo on December 14, 2007 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

Btw, I don't believe that homosexual men are more likely to be misogynists than het men are; they are just more likely to be able to express their hatred of women without fear of their significant other cutting off access to sex.

Posted by: Disputo on December 14, 2007 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

Well, first of all, these kind of obsessions are Sullivan's specialty -- does anybody else remember his campaign against the NYT and Howell Raines after Raines dared to fire him? I think it was even nuttier than his current anti-Hilary campaign -- he would pick up on any criticism of any NYT article and post it as further proof of how degraded the paper had become -- often without any attempt to find out if their was any merit to the criticism.

Second, it's just not true that Sullivan hates women -- as he pointed out, Maggie Thatcher is pretty much the love of his life.

Posted by: peep on December 14, 2007 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

Since AS's move to the Atlantic, I have noticed an increase in the number of posts -- often it is over 35 day! Everyday, weekends included. And yes, this happens even when he is sick. I remember that in one post, shortly after the switchover to the Atlantic, he said that part of deal included one (or maybe it was two) interns. I wonder how much and what exactly they do? I have noticed, for example, that captions for his "Face of the Day" photo series are often very different in tone compared the his other posts. As for his HDR, I hate it too. I do not like her, and lost faith in the Clinton's when they sold out and implemented "Don't as Don't Tell," but really, I wish he'd give it a break. I skip his Hillary posts, just as I do those that trash the Human Rights Campaign or those that insult pretty much every gay rights issue as "lefty." I really wish he'd read his own book and learn to doubt himself more often.

Posted by: snartly on December 14, 2007 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

Er, change that "HRD" to "CDS." The TLA's get confusing.

Posted by: snartly on December 14, 2007 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

Actually I think it's a bit more complicated. Right-wing women like Paglia and Thatcher fit because they love masculinity as much as Sullivan does. Clinton represents the nanny state: an excessively strong state that forces us all to be pussies. (As opposed to an excessively strong state that promotes unadulterated social Darwinism--which is A-OK.) Her gender makes her the perfect symbol of the nanny state, but it's not a flawless equation of gender with gendered ideology.

But again -- I don't see how being gay has all that much to do with it. Lots of straight men are in love with masculinity too.

Posted by: rabbit on December 14, 2007 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

I think that a major reason Sullivan hates Hillary is that it's a simple carryover from his days when he was totally on board with virtually all of the right wing program.

What's really happened to Sullivan is that his affection for that program has been dismantled, one policy at a time. Of course, it started out with his rejection of the right wing contempt for homosexuality. But then all the foreign policy junk started falling apart, and other policies came in its train. He's been remarkably good at insulating the effects of one rejection of a particular aspect of the program from another -- all the way back to his rejection of their abhorrence of homosexuality.

But nothing has gone on that would require Sullivan to stop hating the Clintons. Doing so, for Sullivan, would probably require a total rejection of the right wing paradigm, and I just don't see how he has reached anything like that level of evolution.

Posted by: frankly0 on December 14, 2007 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Think of Sullivan's situation in the following way.

Yes, he has had to reject the right wing contempt of homosexuality. Yes, he's had to reject its crazy foreign policy. Yes, he's had to reject its unconstitutional barbarities.

But, by God, there's one thing he and they have been right about, and that's the damn Clintons. They are just horrible, horrible people.

Posted by: frankly0 on December 14, 2007 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

Geez, what a timely post, Kevin. Yesterday I sent an email to Mr. Sullivan, telling him that I had removed his bookmark from the sites I check everyday because his obsession was getting soooo tiring and boring to read.

By early afternoon, the guy had posted 5 hits on Hillary. His obsession is killing his website. I'd wager that most of his readers are at least as smart as he is, and they are all capable of drawing their own conclusions, thank you. It's like he's trying to lead us by the nose ring off to Hillary-hate land. I'm not sure whom I'll support, but geez, enough already.

Posted by: Kim on December 14, 2007 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

Sullivan's loathing of HRC is actually less than that of Chris Mathews'. Hardball spends a good amount of every show finding ways to castigate her for everything from the laugh to wearing pants to the attack, attack, attack theme that the RNC likes to use.
But KD can point to Sullivan because Sullivan doesn't control the guest list of a TV show.
MSNBC, except for perhaps KO, genuinely hates HRC at least as much as Sullivan does.

Posted by: TJM on December 14, 2007 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

Sullivan has merit, but he's beyond the bend when it comes to his Hillary derangement.

Is it his British snobbish contempt for successful Americans of middle-class origin?

Is it misogyny or gynophobia?

Is it contempt borne on the fact that her husband worked his way up from what, in his elitist perspective, would be the contemptible rural working class?

Is it general snottiness of the stereotypical Brit-twit?

Who knows, but there's something unseemly and small-minded about it.

Posted by: fidelio on December 14, 2007 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

Er, change that "HRD" to "CDS." The TLA's get confusing.


err.. acronym overload. you've lost me

Posted by: evermore on December 14, 2007 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

The weird thing about Sullivan is having edited a completely fictitious takedown of Clinton's healthcare policy while running an ostensibly liberal* magazine, he criticizes the Clintons for being paranoid about the press. Gee, Andrew, I wonder why that might be?

*"liberal" only in how it was described since I don't think any magazine that falsely attacks a universal healthcare plan and claims blacks are teh stupid actually qualifies as being liberal. And I would note for all Sully's claims of Clintons lying, he has never backed off his Bell Curve or healthcare pieces even though they've been thoroughly debunked.

And he never misses a beat to drag us all back through the BS psycho-sexual drama the Village loved to write about in the 1990s and then argues he doesn't want Clnton elected because SHE'LL force us all to relive it. Somehow I'm pretty sure Hillary Clinton wasn't thrilled about living through it the first time and would be happy never to have her marriage mentioned by any commentator ever again.

But if you read his posts, it's pretty clear that Andrew Sullivan knows nothing about women's sexuality. I know he's gay, but that doesn't mean he has to be ignorant.

I admit that I have policy reasons for supporting Clinton, but it would certainly be an added bonus to watch Andrew Sullivan's and Chris Matthews' heads explode upon her election. A real public service.

Posted by: BDB on December 14, 2007 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

She [Hillary] battled for Goldwater through the 1964 debacle and arrived at Wellesley in the fall of 1965 with enough Goldwaterite ambition to become president of the Young Republicans as a freshman. -Counterpunch Article

Sullivan dislikes ex-Republicans, Who knew?

Heh.

Posted by: Ya Know... on December 14, 2007 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

Sullivan is pathological in his disdain for Hillary. What would he say in his defense: that she is calculating and cautious? Does he not realize that every word she utters gets analyzed to death?

That she has always wanted to be president? Well, look what we got from aWol, an individual who must have been talked into it by James Baker at the 12th hour.

Posted by: Rula Lenska on December 14, 2007 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

Its disgusting. I cannot read him anymore. Posted by: Jammer

Why would you read him in the first place? After the Glass fiasco at TNR, he should have been summarily dismissed and sent back to Merry 'Ol England. He's nothing but a useful idiot for the right.

I not so secretly rejoiced when Kelly met an early and probably deserved demise in Iraq. I thought that once he was gone the Atlantic might be over it's ideological difficulties. But then they started giving Hitchens and O'Rourke more space. Now they've got "Little Roy" on their masthead. Other than Fallows, there's pretty much no one to read in the magazine any longer.

Posted by: JeffII on December 14, 2007 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

Sullivan's loathing of HRC is actually less than that of Chris Mathews'.

Posted by: TJM

Yes, but for the same reason.

Posted by: Econobuzz on December 14, 2007 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

"What is really amazing is the fact that his Clinton hatred is stronger than his approval of the Charles Murray thesis that blacks are genetically inferior. Else how to explain his belief that "Obama Matters". Oh, wait, I guess Barack is Redeemed in being half white and that's enough to save him from dad's bad genes!"

Or as Andy said, "Brothers welcome."

As for Clinton, his visceral obsession with her might be an indicater that he's turned into what I believe is called in some neighborhoods a hag fag.

Posted by: Steve Paradis on December 14, 2007 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

The Democratic video AdStravaganza, over at TPM (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2007/12/tpmtv_dem_adstravaganza.php) has a short spot that sums up the Clinton’s political life, which I have been watching since the 1970s.

Note the malevolent look from the man near the beginning of the video. His look conveys the sort of hostility the Clintons have faced from day one. The hatred of the old segregationists was the primary source in the early days. Hillary has had to stare down those looks her entire adult life.

Anyway, I couldn’t believe this ad. I need to track down the whole thing.

Sullivan’s unhinged hostility fits right in. Ditto for Christopher Hitchens.

Posted by: little ole jim on December 14, 2007 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

Jammer, sorry for the delay, on the road. Hey, Taylor's gone hysterical on Obama, and it's caused a backlash among the few readers who stomach her rants on the guy. She's now "moderating" her comments section. Free speech and all.

Up now "Obama Slings Sex to Combat Drug Story" with her "Comments Will Now Be Moderated" underneath.

Posted by: RollaMO on December 14, 2007 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

Is it contempt borne on the fact that her husband worked his way up from what, in his elitist perspective, would be the contemptible rural working class?

I agree that Sullie's and Hitchens' hatred for the Clintons stems from their mutual disdain of all those who are not to the manor born.

Posted by: Disputo on December 14, 2007 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, you folks are complete assholes. I guess supporters take after their candidates.

Posted by: Adam on December 14, 2007 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINK

Let me try this again:

Say, you folks (we really need a 2nd person plural
in English!) will be interested in the following link about Hillary Clinton and
religion ("HILLARY CLINTON HEAVY INTO RIGHTWING RELIGIOUS POWER CULT" ultimately
sourced from Mother Jones, not a rightie rag.
The subsequent one is also interesting about Candidates including Obama:

http://prorev.com/2007/12/hillary-clinton-heavy-into-rightwing.html
http://prorev.com/2007/03/myth-and-audacity-of-reality.htm

Posted by: Neil B. on December 14, 2007 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

You're right, Kevin. I read his blog daily, but I just skip over the anti-Hillary posts. They're so predictable, he should just post the same one every day. It's always the same old same old.

Posted by: mollycoddle on December 14, 2007 at 7:56 PM | PERMALINK

It's no secret why I read you every day. We think alike on so much In particular, Andrew Sullivan. He's one of those guys who has been so wrong on so much but thinks we should take him seriously.
I poke and prod him frequently thru email to remind him-"Why should we?" I accuse him of having Clinton Orgasms with each reference he makes. That's probably true.

Posted by: fillphil on December 14, 2007 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, you folks are complete assholes. I guess supporters take after their candidates.
Posted by: Adam on December 14, 2007 at 7:36 PM

Must be why George called call Karl Turdblossom, eh?

Posted by: Ya Know... on December 14, 2007 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

@Ya Know

Damn straight.

I'm a liberal massachusetts democrat.

That's why I'll never vote for HC.

Posted by: Adam on December 14, 2007 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK

Several days ago, Sully posted about his unreasonable loathing of Hillary & basically admitted it made little sense to him. He also talked about how Rudy scares him to death & gives his reasons. Yet at the end of the post, he asks the rhetorical question: *If we end up with Rudy & Hillary & Rudy in the general election, who would he pull the lever for?" Talk about a conflicted mind!

Posted by: bob in fla on December 14, 2007 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINK

Aye Sullyman - conservative, Roman Catholic, homosextuelle maverick - must take issue with the verbal ejaculations of Drum.

PS My book "the Conservative Bosom: a Treatise for the Benefit of all Mankind" can now be purchased in the form of a tablet or scroll at fine booksellers everywhere.

Posted by: Sullyman on December 14, 2007 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

Peep -- Maggs Thatcher probably strikes Sully as butch in some way.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on December 14, 2007 at 10:02 PM | PERMALINK

Re: dem who understands, who said:

"We do not want 4 or 8 years of Hillary after 4 years of Bush 41, 8 years of B. Clinton, and 8 years of Bush 43. We need a break from these kinds of people."

I am tired of this silly complaint. The first President Bush and Bill Clinton were fine presidents. The only problem with a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton sequence is the second Bush in the sequence. It’s stupid logic to think that Bush II’s failure means anything about the others in the sequence.

Posted by: McCord on December 14, 2007 at 11:18 PM | PERMALINK

As a gay man I find some of the sweeping generalizations made here about gay men to be hugely offensive & wildly inaccurate. The gay population is large and various & ascribing necessarily individual characteristics (like misogyny, diasaffection with powerful women) to a complex & differentiated population is nothing short of bone-headed bigotry. It's right up there with garbage about Jewish stinginess, Asian inscrutability & black laziness & should have no place in a forum of this calibre.

As a matter of fact Andrew Sullivan is hugely loathed within the gay blogosphere. Hillary Clinton, by contrast is widely admired & genuinely respected by the overwhelming majority of the gay men I know & read, and that runs into the thousands.

I personally support Hillary Clinton & think she'll make an outstanding President. I'm a dual citizen of the US & Australia & unlike Sully, I can actually vote for her. All his talk about who he'd pull the lever for is just mendacious crap. He can't vote in the US. Never has, never could, never will. He's an elitist, hypocritical, authoritarian-loving twit tortured by long held grudges, prejudices & neuroses that I have no interest whatsoever in fathoming. Whatever meagre glib facility he has as a writer is insufficient for me to endure the bilious dreck he posits, particularly about the Clintons. Anyone who thinks Sully's poisonous, reactionary views are somehow reduceable to his sexuality would be well advised to read the brilliant, insightful, progressive writings of the equally gay Glenn Greenwald.

Posted by: DanJoaquinOz on December 14, 2007 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

Glenn Greenwald is also way hotter too.

Posted by: Fighting Words on December 14, 2007 at 11:45 PM | PERMALINK

Bottom line, Obama can win Iowa and even NH and come 2/5 Clinton sweeps the map and all the swooning and "Knowing Hope" nonsense goes down the crapper. I like Obama and HRC both, but when it's all said, he's not ready. She'll stand toe-to-toe with the Repubs and give as good as she gets. If he's not fortunate enough to get a solid Dem majority in both houses, they'll eat him alive, even with Oprah holding his hand.

What absolutely kills 40% of the American public about the Clintons is that after 16 years of hitting them with every bit of artillary they can muster, the Right just can't bring them down.

Bill Clinton sleeping in the White House again. Hannity, O'Reilly, Hume, Sullivan and Paglia will all have to have their meds adjusted just to handle the shock...Know hope.

Posted by: Chris on December 14, 2007 at 11:50 PM | PERMALINK

Somone earlier made this really illogical comment that because Sullivan hates Hillary that we Democrats shouldn't choose Hillary to be our nominee! So, Sullivan is Democratic party's oracle now! Give me a break! Sullivan is an egomaniac who believes that he the most thoughtful social and political commentator out there! When he was slandering war opponents in 2003 and 2004 he was petty and unfair. He claims he has become more thoughtful now and yet he constantly takes cheap shots at Hillary and rants about her in this frighteningly irrational manner. I am disgusted to see the Obama supporters carrying water for him. Obama supporters I bet are all anti-war. They have forgotten how he slimed all of them and questioned their patriotism not too long ago. Now that he is become anti-Hillary, he has become their friend. He is anti-universal health care, he is for unhindered free-trade, he is against unions, he is against teachers and public schools, he wants to preserve Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and is pretty much against any progressive idea. He ranted against Al Gore in the same irrational and unfair manner in 2000. Obama supporters, listen carefully,he is not your true friend! Ideologically, Hillary will always be your friend on policies that matter to you and your family whether you support her or not. The only short-term common cause you have is that he presently happens to support Obama. To talk of him as an ally and to talk of Hillary as an enemy is plain silly.

Posted by: TPS on December 15, 2007 at 1:31 AM | PERMALINK

RobertSeattle: >"[Andrew Sullivan] needs therapy for his Clinton issues."

So do a lot of people, including a number of posters commenting here on this blog. Maybe they could all go together and thus qualify for a group rate.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on December 15, 2007 at 5:14 AM | PERMALINK

Adam: "I'm a liberal massachusetts democrat."

Really? Boy, you sure had me fooled.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on December 15, 2007 at 5:24 AM | PERMALINK

Hey Sullyman -- are you Andrew Sullivan? You sure have a distinctly different 'voice' when making comments here than at your own pad.

Posted by: sheila on December 15, 2007 at 8:46 AM | PERMALINK

Dear Dan from Oz,

I'm one of those guilty of painting the gay community with a broad brush. I'm sorry for the overgeneralizations. I must caution you that the Red Staters really do want to eat your babies.

I own a small farm in Ohio and have two kids. In short, I LOOK like a redneck conservative. So, the people who wish to push their Repug agenda often open up to me.

My singular point is this: The hatred they spew is both startling and deep rooted. In their version of America, a black man and a white woman will never be President. I reccommend heavy security for both Obama and Clinton. I am tired of having our leaders gunned down by hate.

And above all, these people hate, man I cannot emphasize that word enough: HATE gays. Homophobic, stupidity, whatever - these people will launch a 21st Century Holocaust against all lesbians and gays at a moment's notice. They are just waiting for the all-claer sign from the White House.

Of course, Sully should be ashamed of himself. He does nothing to advance intelligent and reasoned behavior with his anti-Clinton and "Oh, the Repugs are really good people" approach. The sooner we realize that the Repug party is devolving into a modern day version of Hitler's brown shirts, the quicker reaction to this un-American mindset will be.

Posted by: LuigiDaMan on December 15, 2007 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

Add me to the list of former AS readers who've stopped because of his increasingly unhinged rants on the evil perfidy of Hillary.

I used to be a daily reader of his, and it was heartening to read a former Bush supporter and self-professed conservative hammer Bush & Co. on a wide variety of policy matters over the last year, especially regarding torture and constitutional issues. Frankly, I wish some of the leading Dems had been as openly critical of Bush.

I'm no particular fan of HRC, and there's no doubt she has her faults. She has little of the native political talent of her husband, and her campaign has committed some ridiculous blunders over the last couple of weeks. Regardless, given Sullivan's clear recognition of how contemptible a president Bush has been, it's telling that he essentially draws no moral or ethical distinction between HRC and Bush. It's all too reminiscent to me of the view held by many Nader voters and disaffected Dems in 2000 that there was no meaningful difference between Gore and Bush.

That anybody could maintain that HRC will be as thoroughly evil and despotic a president as Bush has been is an impressive feat of mental gymnastics, but I guess that should be expected of someone who supported Bush in the first place. That someone as intelligent and educated as Andrew Sullivan could have been bamboozled by a zero like George W. Bush is a testament to the powers of willful self-deception.

Posted by: bluestatedon on December 15, 2007 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

DanJoaquinOz: Right, that's why I don't read Sullivan.

Chris: yeah, my right-wing relatives from Arkansas always got really excited whenever another pseudo-scandal was thrown at the Clintons. They would always say, "Maybe they'll get'um this time". It was very unattractive because they couldn't care less if was something legitimate. Each failure made them hate more.

Posted by: little ole jim on December 15, 2007 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

not to the manor born

And Bill went to Oxford and performed better than those to the manor born. Arkansas hicks are smarter than upper crust English twits, and that hurts.

Posted by: Brojo on December 15, 2007 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

The interesting thing about Sullivan's site is that although I know exactly what he's going to write about the Clinton's even before he writes it, I have to go check it out each day anyway. It's like the urge to slow at a car wreck and take a quick look even though I know I shouldn't.

On this morning's post, he offers Bill Kristol's brilliant insight that America just can't stand more of the Clinton's brand of politics as more evidence that HRC is really too divisive. The same Bill Kristol who has been universally incorrect in every "serious" observation he's made, regardless of the topic, for as long as I can remember.

It's kind of pathetic to listen to Sullivan, Kristol and all of the beltway types who make these half-baked observations and pronouncements over and over again, and they're ALWAYS wrong.

These are the same types who accused HRC of being a lesbian one week, killing Vince Foster due to their failed affair the next, accuse Bill of running drugs, putting a bullet into Ron Brown's head, being a serial rapist, destroying the White House keyboards before he left office and then saying the Democrats can't possibly nominate HRC because SHE'S too divisive.

Sorry gang, there is absolutely no reason that we Dems should be tempering our nominee based on that type of foolishness. I don't care if 45% of the country has bought into it. I'm telling you all, if Obama is the nominee, the modern day Republican machine will eat him up and spit him out. He seems like a very nice and talented guy, but he seems more like everybody's favorite law professor than a hardcore politician who's going to change Washington. Wake up. "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" was a movie. In real life, the Repubs aren't going to listen to his worldly insights and suddenly realize what nasty assholes they've been all this time.

HRC has her faults for sure, but if we collectively buy into the mainstream rhetoric of "anybody but Hillary because she's so divisive", we'll be watching the swearing in of President Romney and it will be all our fault.

Roll back the clock six years to the way several of us bought into the nonsense propagated about Gore. Enough Dems bought into it, voted for Nader, and now alot of the same folks who voted for Nader are swooning over Gore like he's Christ reincarnated and hoping he'll run to save us all from the evil Hillary.

I'd also like to add that just like Sullivan, the folks over at Kos are just as whacked with their short memories and determination to support the wrong nominees. There's alot of "well if HRC wins, then I'm not voting" attitude running over there, and it really makes me wonder what it is about the American Left that makes losing elections with an idealistic gleam in their eyes their apparent priority.

Posted by: Chris on December 15, 2007 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

As some on this thread have remarked, another obsession of AS's is the IQ of black people. A previous obsession was Iran, and about that I wrote to him and asked him to explain precisely why he was so obsessed with that country; the query was never posted by him, nor answered. His obsession with IQ and race also needs a proper explanation by the man himself. Why is it important to him, or - a better question - why does he think it is an important matter? But he never addresses the question, confining himself to carefully choosing comments that might seem to support the case for a lower average IQ among black people, and the case that this alleged lesser intelligence is genetically determined, and then asserting with a show of bluff open-mindedness and the light-hearted taking of responsibility that this is to contribute to the 'debate' - a debate that is largely in his imagination (as well as in the imagination of a number of racists). One strong reason for his obsession, apart from an unadmitted but straightforward racialism (barely disguised by his smoke-screen of support for Obama), is surely that his conservative 'principles' lead him to believe that the interference of government in matters like education and the improvement of social conditions is wrong, and therefore of course anything that smacks of affirmative action is wrong and poor and unintelligent people should be left to stew in their own juice. Like many Catholics - I apologise for generalising, but I have come across the phenomenon quite often - he clings to little rules or maxims that he regards as absolute, and if reality doesn't fit those little rules and maxims, then so much the worse for reality.

Posted by: Tim Harris on December 15, 2007 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINK

LuigiDaMan - Apology accepted & warning acknowledged. I used to live in Lubbock, Midland & Fort Worth, Texas, so I've experienced the enduring, visceral reality of the homophobic, racist attitudes in the heartland you describe. My parents were prominently pro-civil rights during the '60's & we had "Nigger Lovers" painted on our house. It's not that different here in Australia once you get outside the big, coastal cities. Fortunately, 90% of the population here lives in those big coastal cities, so the electoral weight, if not the virulence of that hatred, is considerably less significant.

What I'm most heartened by is the fact we 2 are even having an exchange that would have been unthinkable a decade ago. You're a rural farmer, father of 2, from Ohio, often mis-identified as a 'redneck'. I'm an urban technocrat from Sydney, Australia, often mis-identified as 'straight'. Because of our mutual misidentification we both get to hear, and share, the uncensored hate-speech of zealots. I love that the blogosphere facilitates a dialogue between 2 like-minded people that would otherwise, apparently, have nothing in common. It makes me feel genuinely hopeful for the the future & the world your 2 children will inherit.

Best regards.


Posted by: DanJoaquinOz on December 16, 2007 at 5:26 AM | PERMALINK

mjpnt qobc ikybds hknifmpzw ycxsm nsljupbo ywxhmqb

Posted by: lqbidso chtjs on April 14, 2008 at 3:50 AM | PERMALINK

hkfwenrct qexj lhsko xjgqnfea ditrkm ujql ulptbhdo http://www.nptyasem.qeuphzjxm.com

Posted by: ghkaf gqshkroxe on April 14, 2008 at 3:51 AM | PERMALINK

lypz khrgvelza xcfriojg xmjgfuanw apboiycu muicb xejog ycing mwapydkb

Posted by: hnjsarpx rtvw on April 14, 2008 at 3:51 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly