Sully's Full CDS On Display

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:39:53 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Exhibit A - Andrew Sullivan. Kevin Drum explains:

Andrew Sullivan [writes:]
Yes, Obama would beat us, bad. . . . But that is not what Democrats want....Hillary knows that her base voters are more filled with anger at Bush than they are with hope for the future and change for all the American people.

Whatever else you think about the Clinton vs. Obama question, this is almost certainly wrong. Among the activist liberal base — the people who are the loudest and angriest about what George Bush has done over the past seven years — support is way stronger for both Obama and John Edwards than for Hillary Clinton.
. . . Conservatives tend to be so blinded by their hatred for Hillary that they're convinced that her liberal supporters are also motivated by hatred. But they aren't. Among activist liberals, Hillary is mostly viewed as as smart and hardworking, but also triangulating and mainstream. She's the candidate of caution and moderation, not the candidate of the haters. The anti-Clinton fever swamp protests too much.

Sully Deranged. Nothing new there.

< Another New Iowa Poll: McClatchy - MSNBC | Guantanamo Detainee Dies of Cancer >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Sully's Full CDS On Display | 41 comments (41 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Email (none / 0) (#1)
by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:46:49 PM EST

I think the quote is from an email that Sully received from a Republican voter and not a quote from Sully himself.

Not that that changes your underlying point. Andrew Sullivan has one of the worst cases of Clinton Derangement Syndrome I've ever seen. You'd think a guy who so fervently embraced George Bush and the Iraq war might question his own judgement, but he never does.

One of Drum's readers awhile back had what I thought was a fairly good theory for Sullivan's CDS - to justify his own blindness regarding Bush, he needs to make the Clintons equivalent to the Bushes.

As for the Republican emailer, I have to join one of Drum's commenters and ask, "Projection much?"

Response (none / 0) (#2)
by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:58:49 PM EST

And in response to the Republican emailer, let me say that I intend to vote for Clinton because I think she'd make a good president. That it also happens to drive Republicans and the Broderists crazy is just a bonus.

But, honestly, after being called traitors and terrorist enablers for eight years by Republicans, why should any Democrat give two craps about whether Republicans like Andrew "Fifth Column" Sullivan or his emailer dislike our candidate. Where was this interest in comity and bipartisanship after the terrorist attacks when it would've been the best thing to do for the country? It's nice to see Sullivan and others come around on Bush, but it's also extremely self-serving of them to encourage Democrats to get over it and nominate someone they think will work with them. Because that permits them to keep their power and influence when, quite honestly, they don't deserve to.

Screw them.


Sully quotes it and agrees. (none / 0) (#5)
by andgarden on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 01:35:25 PM EST

It reflects his own views.


He posts all kinds of emails he finds interesting. (none / 0) (#10)
by illissius on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 03:28:34 PM EST

Admittedly, he didn't put this one under "Dissent of the Day", so he could be agreeing, but you can't draw that conclusion just from him posting it.


meh (none / 0) (#12)
by andgarden on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 03:40:39 PM EST

You'll find far more worthy people to defend than bell curve Sully.

It's pretty clear that he agrees with that email. He's been trashing Hillary in that manner for months.


Anyone defending Sully (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 03:48:41 PM EST

is lessened in my eyes.


I read him uncritically for far too long (none / 0) (#20)
by andgarden on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:00:39 PM EST

But I gave up reading him a couple of months ago after one of his more delusional rants.


He is a McCarthyite racist (none / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:18:36 PM EST

One of the most despicable persons blogging.


And that isn't even the half (none / 0) (#27)
by andgarden on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:26:31 PM EST

of what's wrong with him.


It is a big part for me (none / 0) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:30:40 PM EST

: It would be enough (none / 0) (#32)
by andgarden on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:37:44 PM EST

His outright promotion of dangerous sex practices (based on dubious science) is a big part of what rankles me.

Nonsense (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 03:48:11 PM EST

He endorsed AND THEN published a dissent IR RESPONSE to it.

you really are quite the Sully fan I see.

Due respect, I think less of you because of it.


asdf (none / 0) (#21)
by illissius on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:11:11 PM EST

You're right. Wasn't clear from just the post itself.

Due respect, I think less of you because of it.

Good for you.


: Good for me indeed (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:17:55 PM EST

I have no patience for Sully defenders.
He is a racist.

What? (none / 0) (#11)
by illissius on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 03:34:30 PM EST

"You'd think a guy who so fervently embraced George Bush and the Iraq war might question his own judgement, but he never does."

Sullivan questions his own judgement more often than any blogger I've read. (He endorsed Kerry in 04, for one thing.)

He does have CDS, though, and basically admits as much:

"I know many of you think I've become a shill for the Obama campaign. So be it. I admit to a visceral response to the Clintons and their machine. But it isn't just visceral. It's a function of watching and following them very closely for many years. They have many, many qualities. They are both extremely talented. But they are also deeply flawed and would in my view, be terribly divisive for the country. I guess my elbows have been a little sharp with respect to Clinton. But I make no apology for throwing myself into this Clinton-Obama struggle. After these last few years, it seems to me to be an epic battle between fear and hope. I think we need more hope right now and less fear. We need fresh voices, not exhausted and bitter ones. We need to believe in America again. Clinton cannot do that. Obama can." -link


He questions nothing (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 03:47:14 PM EST

Have you read the guy?

He is a deceitful delusional freak.

One of the most vile persons I have ever read.


I have. (none / 0) (#28)
by illissius on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:27:24 PM EST

It's an interesting read. Certainly not "one of the most vile persons" I "have ever read". Are you sure you don't have Sullivan Derangement Syndrome yourself? The things he writes don't seem to merit this level of abhorrence.


: You like his work (none / 0) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:30:12 PM EST

on race and intelligence?
I know him all too well.
I know about his McCarthyite Fifth column work.
I know about his printing lies and nonsense at TNR.
I suggest and hope you know very little about what he has written and done.
If you know ALL about this and STILL think he is great, then that says a lot about you.

: Ah. (none / 0) (#35)
by illissius on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:52:34 PM EST

So it's racism. That makes sense. (Regarding why you say "vile" and "despicable", as opposed to just "idiot"). Maybe just haven't been reading long enough to pick up on some of these things (and what BDB mentions below).

Fear (none / 0) (#25)
by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:22:50 PM EST

He was one of the biggest fear-mongers around in the lead up to Iraq. If this country is bitterly divided, Andrew Sullivan is one of the people after 9/11 who helped do the dividing.

And he doesn't ever question his judgement until he's been proven wrong, like with Iraq, and sometimes not even then. He still shills for the Bell Curve and Clinton healthcare hit piece he edited at TNR. Both were utter crap and the political discourse is much worse for them.

As for his CDS, I think it speaks volumes that all that Bush has done to destroy this country, things Sullivan readily admits, he still says he doesn't hate Bush. But he hates Hillary Clinton. Screw him.


: Exactly (none / 0) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:24:15 PM EST

He endorsed it (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 03:46:02 PM EST

He owns it. And he could have written those very words.

He published a dissent of the day in res[ponse to it. He wrote EVEN MORE deranged drivel throughout the day.

The guys is nuts.


Get used to it. (none / 0) (#3)
by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 01:02:15 PM EST

I don't know why they hate Bill and Hill, but they do. She's tried to lance the boil, ala Tony Blair, but nothing has worked.

I mean if Biden was the nominee, for example, would they be as angry, no.

That's the way it is. That's what we're going to have to fight for the next 10 months.

I Know (none / 0) (#4)
by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 01:10:03 PM EST

I think it may even work in our favor if Clinton is the nominee. The American people don't hate the Clintons nearly as much as the hard-core wingers and MSM, which seems to make the wingers and MSM hate the Clintons even more.

But I think they will work themselves into a froth over Edwards, too, if he's the nominee. Sullivan doesn't hate him as much as the Clintons, but he hates him. And given the misogyny that runs through so much Hillary hatred, I think we can expect Elizabeth Edwards to get the full Hillary treatment. I'd like to think they would show some decency due to her health issues, but this is not a crowd who understands the word "decency."


That's what I dont get (none / 0) (#6)
by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 01:35:39 PM EST

This is not an insult, but Bill and Hill are centrists and deal makers.

You would think their vitriol would be reserved for strident progressives, not possible partners in potential deals.

For example, in 1998, Clinton wanted to invest the budget surplus in the stock market:

Partly to increase the projected rate of return, and partly to steal the privatizers' thunder, the President also proposed placing some $600 billion of the projected surplus into the stock market to earn a higher return
source

They believe their own propaganda (none / 0) (#7)
by Molly Bloom on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 01:54:26 PM EST

HRC is a dangerous socialist. This evidence you present does not help their case, therefore it doesn't exist in their eyes.

Tell a a conservative that HRC is a MOR deal maker. They won't believe you. No matter how much empirical evidence you present.


Weird. (none / 0) (#8)
by manys on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 02:14:00 PM EST

HRC is a dangerous socialist.

Uhh....OK.

Tell a a conservative that HRC is a MOR deal maker. They won't believe you. No matter how much empirical evidence you present.

No, they disklike Hillary because she fakes centrism better than any of the Republican candidates. They've spent the last 10 years invested in tactics that won't work against someone smarter than Karl Rove, so the tears start flowing. Republicans have painted themselves into a corner and are lashing out at the enemy closest to them on the political spectrum: HRC. This is the same thing as when the Republicans demonized Saddam Hussein, the most westernized of the available Middle-East dictators.


I do not understand this comment (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 03:44:44 PM EST

: me neither (none / 0) (#37)
by Molly Bloom on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 05:03:05 PM EST

Quotes from Sullivan (none / 0) (#9)
by illissius on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 03:25:03 PM EST

"But I will say this: Elizabeth Edwards is a truly remarkable human being. And her marriage is an inspiration." -link

"I'd back Elizabeth Edwards for president in a heartbeat." -link


And? (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 03:44:04 PM EST

How does that effect your view of his irrational, deranged view of the Clintons?


It doesn't. (none / 0) (#19)
by illissius on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 03:59:55 PM EST

I was responding to this:

"And given the misogyny that runs through so much Hillary hatred, I think we can expect Elizabeth Edwards to get the full Hillary treatment. "


: Ah (none / 0) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:17:09 PM EST

My mistake.
That said, Sully is a racist, Obama support notwithstanding.

: Should've Been Clearer (none / 0) (#41)
by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 07:52:27 PM EST

I didn't mean that Sullivan, per se, would hate Elizabeth Edwards, just that the rightwing will hate her for a lot of the same reasons they hate Clinton. But I sure wasn't clear.
I had no idea that Sullivan professed liking Elizabeth Edwards. And here I thought the only truly strong woman he liked was Margaret Thatcher.

No cursing at this site please (none / 0) (#33)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:45:19 PM EST

I'll have to delete your comment.

this was to illyrius (none / 0) (#34)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:46:22 PM EST

Reposted without. (none / 0) (#36)
by illissius on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 04:54:03 PM EST

Apologies. Wouldn't have guessed.


: No problem (none / 0) (#38)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 05:19:34 PM EST

I'm not sure who is the bigger idiot (none / 0) (#39)
by DA in LA on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 06:21:04 PM EST

Sullivan or Drum?

I'm sorry what is the difference between what Sullivan said and Drum said? Sullivan says Hillary's people are the haters and Drum responds, no, it's the Edwards and Obama people?

They both sound like morons to me.

I don't think that's Drum's point (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 07:00:12 PM EST

I think his point is that Republicans like Sullivan's correspondent presumes that Hillary's support comes only out of revenge fantasies and hatred. When, in fact, some of the angriest folks don't support her at all. It's not that Obama and Edwards folks are all haters, just that people support Clinton for reasons other than hatred of Republicans, but Republicans can't see this because of their own hatred of her. They presume it's all about them and their pathologies when it's not.


: So, Hillary's supporters (none / 0) (#42)
by DA in LA on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 08:44:27 PM EST

Are happier people?
Again, not seeing a difference.