Sullivan on HRC

When Andrew’s on his game, he’s tough to beat:

Puke-worthy self-pity:

    “Every so often I just wish that it were a little more of an even playing field but, you know, I play on whatever field is out there.”

Is she fucking kidding me? You think it was a level playing field for Nita Lowey as she was bigfooted out of a New York Senate seat for the carpet-bagging former president’s wife? You think it was a level playing field when Clinton bullied and cajoled and intimidated every Democrat to back her a year ago? You think it’s a level playing field when you deploy a former president to tear down your opponent?

Clinton has more privilege, more clout, more intrinsic unearned advantages in this race than any non-incumbent Democrat in living memory. And still she failed. And still she whines. There are moments when you almost feel pity; and then you realize what a petty shameless narcissist she is.

Yeah, but what do you really think?  cool smile 

Posted on Friday, February 29 2008 | Permalink

But when Andrew is off his game, he is really off. 

Andrew said today about McCain not denouncing Hagee (who is supporting McCain): “And yet the GOP parades its bigots in the open… There really are double standards for white fundamentalists, aren’t there?” http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/mccain-on-hagee.html

No doubt there are some religious folks on the right who are offensive, like Hagee.  I do not agree with Hagee’s positions.  I am also sure as a Barak Obama supporter, Andrew Sullivan would enjoy McCain hobbling himself with the GOP “Christianists” so Obama is guaranteed victory in November.  Andrew’s overall agenda is pretty obvious. 

While Andrew is exceedingly quick to point out the specs in McCain’s eyes, he seems to be missing the motes in the eye’s of the other candidates (other than Hillary).  Isn’t there a double standard here?  For example, I do not recall Andrew similarly demanding Dr. Paul denounced every white supremacists who comes out and supports him (and while I do not believe in automatic guilt by association, Dr. Paul has quite a few offensive folks on his side).  And I do not recall Andrew ever calling out for Barak Obama to denounce the rather radical views of his current pastor in Chicago, Jeremiah White (who is just as controversial and bigoted as Hagee).  Why is that? 

As for embracing offensive folks, the Democrat Party openly embraces and welcomes former Weathermen, Black Panthers, and other radicals back into the fold all the time with nary a worry about their past sins.  They rarely ever even apologize for those views, oftentimes it is held out as a badge of honor.  Yet Bill Buckley will always be remembered for calling Gore Vidal a “Goddamn Queer” in a moment of anger after being called a “crypto Nazi” (although I would have preferred Buckley just went ahead and socked Vidal and put him down). 

I seem to remember in the distant past...hey just a few days ago...McCain apologizing to Barak Obama for Bill Cunningham’s rhetorical excesses at a McCain Rally (including the unforgivable sin of actually using Barak’s middle name “Hussein") and as a result having Cunningham going on Hannity that night and declaring he was now against McCain and supporting Hillary Clinton.  Another example of no good turn going unpunished.  When McCain fails to take the far right attack position, he gets pillared by those folks.  When McCain fails to live up to the impossible standards of Andrew Sullivan and the new left, he gets pillared for that. 

Meanwhile, Obama can walk on water and turn it into wine at the same time.  Unless he wants to join the ranks of the subjective pundits, Andrew needs to look and discuss these issues honestly and objectively.

Posted by  on  02/29  at  08:34 PM

The “more privilege, more clout, more intrinsic unearned advantages” angle didn’t bother Andrew when he supported Dumbya Bush in 2000, of course.  They didn’t bother a single Republican as far as I noticed.  But it’s 2008 and Clinton-hating will never go out of style even for defrocked laterconservatives.

Posted by  on  02/29  at  10:24 PM

Joe would be more credible if he used grammatically correct English and said Democratic (adj) instead of Democrat (n).  To do otherwise is a childish, intentional insult and severely diminishes his argument.  Is he a member of the Republic Party? (heh)

Posted by  on  02/29  at  10:37 PM

Hey rickm, who appointed you school marm?  I did not intend an insult to the Democratic Party or its members, I committed a gramatical error.  I grant it was sloppy on my part, but how is that a childish insult? Funny how members of the Democratic Party are called Democrats.  Lighten up.  While I am a McCain supporter, I do resent Andrew putting various candidates to different standards. 

I do not mind him criticizing McCain and Hillary, as much as giving Obama and Paul a complete pass.

Posted by  on  02/29  at  10:43 PM

Funny how McCain claims the same sloppy mistake.  Sorry, but when calling it the Democrat Party is routine among Republicans from the President on down to Rush, sloppy doesn’t cut it.  If you don’t want to be thought of a partisan hack, don’t talk like one.

Posted by  on  02/29  at  11:07 PM

Play nice kids. Remember, my dictum is a paraphrase of Ronald Reagan’s line: I pay for this microphone. I expect a certain amount of decorum.

Posted by Professor Bainbridge  on  03/01  at  01:40 AM
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: Chicago '68 Redux

Previous entry: Five Million

Introduction


Recent Punditry Entries


Hot Topics on Food & Wine

Hot Topics on Law & Business


Punditry RSS Feed

Flickr

Archives

My Books



Blogroll