January 16, 2012

Andrew Sullivan misunderstands why I did not read his "Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?" article.

He writes:
I wondered when I wrote this what the reaction would tell me. Just browsing at a few of the right-wing blogs, I see that they have attacked it without actually, you know, reading it. Althouse is a classic example:
I don't even want to read it. It just seems like red meat for Obama fans. And what a cliché! Republicans are stupid.
Half the article is devoted to liberals and Democrats! But it would be too much for her to actually read it.
If you look at my blog post, it's a reaction to the Newsweek cover, beginning with some analysis of the photograph of Obama and continuing to the question that Newsweek framed for the purpose of getting people to buy the magazine. Inside was Sullivan's article, which I did not have time to read. Not that Sullivan could know this, but we had to drive halfway across the country today. Another way of putting that is: I have a life. I can't read everything. Generally, I scan the web in the morning and find some things that feel bloggable to me. Today, it was the Newsweek cover photo and headline, and that's what I wrote about. Writing about the headline, I had the reaction that it doesn't work on me. It doesn't make me want to read. It's insulting! That is a journalistic failure by Newsweek.

Now, quite possibly Newsweek sold the article short, and I was fair enough to Sullivan not to presume to know what he said. But he has melded his web presence — once fiercely independent and alive — to the rotting corpse that is Newsweek, and he bears some responsibility for his predicament. Judging from his blog post, I think he wants his article to be taken as a sane, sober, balanced assessment of Obama's presidency, but he has opted to wrap himself in Newsweek — how much money is that worth to him? — and doing that, he loses many of the readers he purports to mean to speak to and persuade.

But how sober and balanced is he really? I can't help noticing that in talking about me, he wasn't fair. He called me "right-wing," and yet I'm a political moderate, liberal on the social issues, and I voted for Obama.

So there I was, en route from Texas to Wisconsin, pulling in the 3G on my iPad, and I could see that I had an engraved invitation from Andrew Sullivan to read his article. I read it out loud, as Meade drove. (Meade is my husband, and — speaking of personal insults to me from Andrew Sullivan — Sullivan insulted us for deciding to marry!)

The cover really does misrepresent the article. The internal headline is: "How Obama's Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics." Note the difference between calling the critics "dumb" and saying Obama will "outsmart" his critics. Sullivan does a good job of marshaling the evidence that Obama has done a pretty good job — not that it's impossible to quibble. (Sullivan claims that Obama has "not had a single significant scandal to his name." What about Fast & Furious?!) But his central theme is that Obama has an 8-year rather than a 4-year plan, so we need to reelect him to "recapitalize him to entrench what he has done already and make it irreversible."

I know that last quote will make many of my readers think: That's exactly why we need to oust him! The changes he's made need to be reversed, and if we don't act now, it will be too late. 

But maybe if you take the time to read the article, you'll agree that some of what Obama has done is admirable. It's still a separate question whether we should want 4 more years of him rather than the alternative. It might be better for the country to have Mitt Romney step in and give the Republican Party a chance to take ownership of the economy and national defense. Four years ago I saw the benefit of the Democratic Party having its turn in power after the Bush years left so many people feeling frustrated and excluded.

In short, Sullivan's article is elaborate and well articulated, but it doesn't answer all the questions, and it certainly doesn't answer the insulting and off-putting question "Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?" I don't expect Sullivan to address the larger journalistic question in which his career is embedded, but it's obvious that Newsweek fully intended to drag in some readers with that red-meat title, and in doing that, it knowingly repelled others like me. I'm not the slightest bit apologetic for passing over an article that didn't appeal to me. I can't read the entire internet. Like every other reader, I have to make choices about what I'm going to read, and that's a choice that must necessarily be made without reading the article.

If I choose not to read the article, must I also choose not to blog about it? Of course not. I'm careful not to say anything I can't fairly say. I don't assert that I know what's in an article I haven't read, but criticizing media, I often have very good reason to write about why I'm not reading something. I analyze covers as covers and headlines as headlines. I think that's entirely appropriate.

171 comments:

jimbino said...

Wow!

I'm surprised and happy that you have a life.

Irene said...

"I analyze covers as covers and headlines as headlines."

Brava! Thank you.

OldGrouchyCranky said...

Dear Sully: Get F'ed and the sooner the better! Either that or get your head out of your bloody arse and smell some roses because. sir, you are one royally f'ed up dude.

Miz Ann is doing a bang up job so go after someone who might give a rip about your f'ing hangups and general stupidity, not to mention your inability to think in or out of the box.

Sincerely, one of Miz Ann's loyal and kind readers.

Ps: Guns and Roses don't mix but we could make an exception in your case.

PaulV said...

Sullivan is the original birther, obsessed with Trig. He does not deserve anyone's time.

wv=barti Party time at the bar.

shiloh said...

Regardless, Sullivan must appreciate your obsession :-P er shout out w/out having read the article lol.

If it's not worthy of reading, surely it's not worthy of a thread, let alone (2).

Again, Althouse's irony is somewhat amusing as she protests a tad too much ~ as per usual.

Robert said...

Don't let anyone else know that you voted for Obama.

That Crack dude can be merciless.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

I didn't read the article either. What would be the point? One look at that cover and you know what to expect from what's inside. That, and the fact that it's a product of the execrable Sullivan.

shiloh said...

Eagerly awaiting the next Althouse thread re: an article she refuses to read ...

chickenlittle said...

(Sullivan claims that Obama has "not had a single significant scandal to his name." What about Fast & Furious?!)

I think it safe to presume that Sullivan is anti-gun so he probably doesn't see it as a scandal at all but rather a well-intended misadventure. To a Sullivanist, the dead are just collateral damage in an immoral drug war foisted by Christianists.

cassandra lite said...

No one else read it either. But since AA was the only one to say it aloud, he stomped his feet in her direction. Poor Andy. His one gentle reader has a life.

AprilApple said...

Bongs and shrines to Obama. I see them, through his window.

shiloh said...

Actually Sullivan appeared on Tweey's cable news show today re: his article.

One wonders when was the last time Althouse appeared on fixednoise er a cable news minutiae show as either she's jealous or a frickin' idiot!

ok, both. :D

Maguro said...

As I recall, Newsweek announced a while ago that it was more or less giving up straight news reporting to concentrate on "opinion and analysis", i.e., liberal punditry. Apparently, the grand plan is to make Newsweek a sort of downscale Salon or a slightly less crazed version of The Nation.

Ethan said...

"we need to reelect him to "recapitalize him to entrench what he has done already and make it irreversible"

Kind of like "we need to pass it to see what's in it"

Skookum John said...

That Sullivan thing, if it appeared uninvited on my doorstep, I would be reluctant to run it off even with the tip of my umbrella. I suppose I'd have to use a garden hose. What a festering heap of filth, both physically and mentally.

Skookum John said...

One wonders when was the last time Althouse appeared on fixednoise er a cable news minutiae show as either she's jealous or a frickin' idiot!


What an absurd comparison. The Sullivan thing makes its living from so-called journalism. Our host is a full-time law professor with a hobby.

chickenlittle said...

Shilho wrote: One wonders when was the last time Althouse appeared on fixednoise er a cable news minutiae show as either she's jealous or a frickin' idiot!

Well, Sullivan is a token something, right? Althouse isn't tokin anything.

Seven Machos said...

Shiloh has tried three different times this thread to say something cutting and witty and insulting that is the same thing. What's the over/under on the total?

Also, Shiloh, let's follow your logic:

(1) Someone allegedly reads and comments about someone else incessantly. (2) This makes the person sadly obsessive.

So, Shiloh, gosh. You read Althouse and comment here incessantly -- much, much more in a week or a month than Althouse has ever written about Sullivan in a lifetime. I'll let you complete the exercise.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
shiloh said...

ok, ok, Althouse holds a grudge because he insulted her getting married ...

Get over it! ie as I mentioned in the ad nauseam comment thread ~ The easiest thing in the world is to avoid someone on the internets.

take care, blessings

Seven Machos said...

as I mentioned in the ad nauseam comment thread ~ The easiest thing in the world is to avoid someone on the internets

Irony. It never ceases to amaze.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

(Meade is my husband, and — speaking of personal insults to me from Andrew Sullivan — Sullivan insulted us for deciding to marry!)

I think this is a lie. I think he just resented your presuming that your happiness was more important than his.

Seven Machos said...

Lol. And I didn't read this post of yours!

And no one reads your long, stilted comments! Meadowlark! Tell us about that conservative stalwart Justice Stevens. Tell us about dribbling. LOL!

shiloh said...

As mentioned previously, I only drop by Althouse's teabagger echo chamber every now and then for my own amusement and I'm never disappointed!

Ritmo Re-Animated said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Seven Machos says he doesn't read my blog but that somehow doesn't stop him from linking to it. Funny.

I guess he stopped having anything original and non-insulting to say years ago. Or else, he just figured that American politics had moved beyond anything relevant that he could think of.

Seven Machos said...

Come on. Shiloh. You have commented here a hundred times in 2012 alone. Yet you are not obsessive. Not you. It's Althouse -- this person whose work you read and comment on incessantly and who doesn't even know you exist.

Incoherence is hilarious, dude. Hilarious. Your psyche is hilarious to me.

Seven Machos said...

Meadowlark -- I have never read your blog. I do appreciate your thoughtful comments about me in some sorry corner of cyberspace, though. You want me to dredge those back up so you'll slink away?

shiloh said...

Seven, little buddy, feel free to stop trying to bait me at any time lol ...

or not.

You give fools a bad name!

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

So, did the comment you linked to just magically appear at your doorstep, Mass Murdering Ski Mask Guy? Or do you get someone to read my blog for you?

Who's doing your dirty work, Mr Snobby Elitist?

Seven Machos said...

Tell us again Shiloh -- in still another post in this thread to add to your posts in previous threads -- how someone is so obsessed with someone else.

Come on, man! Do it! You know you want to! You can't contain yourself.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

If there's one thing "Machos"* can't stand, apparently, it's a compliment.

As the saying goes, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy!

*And where'd he get the name, BTW? The Village People?

I notice he only shows up when the threads become too contentious for the owners to take control of the place without getting their hands dirty.

papertiger said...

Wasn't Andrew Sullivan supposed to die of aids or something?
Wish he'd get on with it.

Tantor said...

What kind of bloggers have lives? If we had lives, we wouldn't be blogging. We'd be flying to the Riviera with supermodels and demanding more champagne and caviar from the steward on our private jet. All real bloggers have no lives, are probably wearing T-shirt and track suits, and are escaping their nagging significant others online with a Diet Coke, Triscuits, and Cheez Whiz.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael said...

Setting aside who's stalking who in the comments section-- I think Ann is too kind to the Sullivan piece. It has the look of analysis, but in the end all it says is, everything Obama has done, no matter what a bungle it seemed at the time, gets the benefit of the doubt as to being a cunning plan, and everything his opponents think, no matter how obviously sensible (like, you can't borrow money infinitely), is too blind to spot the cunning plan. Heads Obama wins, tails opposition loses. There's no real there there in the piece.

shiloh said...

To be clear, my posts usually address the lunacy/lack of logic re: this blog's mistress and she's only replied to me a couple times. The last time was over a month ago and I made her look like a complete idiot at the time, so I'm not holding my breath awaiting another illogical reply.

ie a great relationship as I point out her foolishness and she's mute.

btw SM, she would probably prefer someone intelligent "attempting" to defend her rather than a buffoon like you.

apologies to buffoons ...

crosspatch said...

Of course nobody read it. It was in Newsweek. Nobody reads Newsweek. If he wanted people to read it, he should try to publish in a real news magazine, if they will have him.

Seven Machos said...

she's only replied to me a couple times. The last time was over a month ago and I made her look like a complete idiot at the time

Hilarious. It's always eighth grade for Shiloh. Shiloh is the ugly, fat nerd. Althouse is that popular girl already past the blind curve of puberty. Shiloh is talking to a friend. Imagine it:

That Althouse girl has only said hi to me a couple times. The last time was over a month ago and I made her look like a complete idiot at the time

Yeah, dude. You sure got her. You got her good. I'm sure it was totally awesome for you to win that encounter. Ummm, well, way to go. Or something.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

To be fair to Althouse, this blog post is a more balanced entry than the previous post. There are slight things I'd quibble with, but I won't. All in all I think the substance of the post does more justice to the article that I suspect she felt she might have looked at more thoroughly before than she initially did, and that's the sort of honest commentary that we could all use a heck of a lot more of.

Anyone else commenting on this would be well advised to consider that, I'd say.

themightypuck said...

Prof Althouse often seem to me embarrassingly defensive and sophistic with her writing. On the other hand she is brilliant on bloggingheads. She should try to get a gig on a talking heads show. I'd trade Cokie Roberts in for her in a heartbeat.

shiloh said...

The prosecution rests ...

shiloh said...

"To be fair to Althouse, this blog post is a more balanced entry than the previous post."

Damned w/faint praise lol.

Again, Sullivan appreciates the shout out! and Althouse's irony.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Damned w/faint praise lol...

Not at all, actually.

If I'm going to criticize the habit of incessantly jerking one's knee, the last thing I would want to do is spout off without taking the time to consider whether I'm really being fair to the substance of a comment or thought.

Seven Machos said...

Poor Shiloh.

I'm sorry the popular kids don't like you, dude. I'm sorry you have to eat your lunch alone.

But at least you aren't obsessed, as your vast multitude of posts in this thread alone amply demonstrates.

Palladian said...

It really is a shitty article.

"recapitalize him to entrench what he has done already and make it irreversible"

Reading that line sent a shiver up my spine. Despite appearances to the contrary, nothing is "irreversible" in America, you fucking brain-addled, beagle-worrying limey.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

That's a lot of animus there, Palladian.

I don't think he's talking about forever, as in for-ever-ever-ever?. Just about what becomes more consolidated in terms of a long-term trend.

Of course, I can see why you hate that about him, but the right could have always chosen instead to have been more honest about the reckoning it deserved after all these screw-ups. They're reflexively directing their own guilt at Obama (and a lot of other things), and taking you along for the ride.

I realize you have no choice but to pick one of two parties, but I suspect the relevant one for the near future (and perhaps beyond) will not be the same one it was. So if I were you I'd read some Wilkinson and take on the relevant libertarian debates with the left.

But of course, that's just my advice. Do what you will, but you might as well be politically savvy about what you want, as much as you resent that idea like a kid would having to eat peas, or broccoli.

Kurt said...

Instapundit writes: "ANDREW SULLIVAN IS UPSET ABOUT BEING IGNORED. This is probably happening with increasing frequency." You know, until he put it that way, I didn't recognize that as it is now 2012, I've probably been ignoring Andrew Sullivan much longer than I ever paid attention to him. I was aware of his work in the 90s but didn't read much of it, and became interested (and even read some of his books) around 1999 or 2000. His blog was the first one I started reading regularly, and that intensified after 9/11. I mostly started tuning him out in 2004, and I had a de-facto "ignore Andrew Sullivan" policy pretty firmly in place by 2006 or so.

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

Four years ago I saw the benefit of the Democratic Party having its turn in power after the Bush years left so many people feeling frustrated and excluded.

Well, if it had been the Democrat Party having a turn, that would have been a country mile better than the far-left Chicago mob that now infests Washington. But one result of the MSM's six-year negative campaign against GWB was an extreme negative reaction against him, part of which was electing our greenhorn President more out of spite than through any hope of good government.

Unless good government means the desperate looting of the Treasury of the last three years, along with stiffing GM and Chrysler creditors to pay off the UAW, and running Fast and Furious only to stonewall Congress when it questions that caper...

Chip Ahoy said...

Will you please vanish this stupid ass son of a bitch who cannot extricate him/her/itself from the vortex?

I would say the purely stalking remarks are not made in good faith.

As for Sullivan, piss off. No Newsweek. No Sullivan. No stupid ass stalking commenters.

Here, have some pie.

rcommal said...

I read both Sullivan's piece (unusual, since a few years ago, but put that aside for a moment) and Jodi Kantor's book this weekend. Interesting, it is, the timing of the release of both, generally speaking. More interesting, to me, was the juxtaposition of reading them both. Hmmm.

Levi Starks said...

"recapitalize him to entrench what he has done already and make it irreversible"

What Sullivan, and the left fails to realize is that it's not his "policies" that are going to be irreversible, it's his methods and protocol that will be irreversible.
When the next really ugly Republican president is elected the news media will find it difficult to reign him in because he will use all the new tools they have given Obama. Of course they haven't actually given him anything, But every overreach of power that goes unchallenged becomes SOP for the next president.

Gary Rosen said...

Have C-fudd and Sullivan ever been seen in the same place at the same time? Both hate Jews, Israel, vaginas.

rcommal said...

Levi:

Ought I take that comment to mean that you, too, think that those so-called "interim" 'appointments' are dangerous, too? On principle?

Seven Machos said...

On the issue of executive over-reach and power creep, you are blaming the wrong people. It's not the press. It's not the president, Democrat or Republican.

It's Congress. There is simply no questioning the factually factual fact that the Constitution grants Congress and Congress alone plenary power over the other branches. If Congress cedes that power, it's Congress's fault.

Congress needs to get its shit together. Alternatively, Congress doesn't want the power.

bgates said...

not had a single significant scandal

Ignoring bankruptcy law so his union cronies could take money rightfully belonging to GM creditors;
Shoveling money to party donors via doomed "green" companies;
Violating the War Powers Act;
Asserting the authority to decide when Congress is in session;
Fast & Furious;

Firing an IG and filling his Cabinet with tax cheats don't even make the top five scandals of this administration.

Seven Machos said...

Is Abu Ghraib a scandal but pissing on dead enemy soldiers is not?

Okay, Andrew. And you only engaged in unprotected, bloody ass sex with a completely random stranger that one time.

Gotcha, dude. Whatever you say.

Alan said...

I did read Sullivan's Newsweek article, and this sound bite jumped out as me:

The Congressional Budget Office has projected [ObamaCare] will reduce the deficit, not increase it dramatically

Anybody recall the CBO's original Obama-era debt projections? How did those fiscal horoscopes work out?

rcommal said...

That said: I suspect it won't be the case that "the news media will find it difficult to reign him in...". Not at all, not all. Why on earth do you think so? Is there a base [/basis] on which such difficulty would [/could] be founded?

rcommal said...

That said: I suspect it won't be the case that "the news media will find it difficult to reign him in...". Not at all, not all. Why on earth do you think so? Is there a base [/basis] on which such difficulty would [/could] be founded?

This was a continuation of my response to Levi.

James said...

If you voted for obama then you are as responsible as anyone for the predicament this country is in and obama's horrible leadership or lack thereof.

rcommal said...

Congress needs to get its shit together. Alternatively, Congress doesn't want the power.

As to the latter, from what I can tell, in terms of the largest and most important issues of the day, what Congress wants is "veto" power (traditionally, one of the tools of the Executive Branch), and not so much legislative or implementation power. It appears not to want--on account of profound reluctance and dysfunction--to execute the power of its own branch. In contrast--or is that "concert"?--we now have a president who wants to implement at least indirectly, if not directly.

Congress needs to get its shit together. Alternatively, Congress doesn't want the power.

As to the former, indeed it does, in terms of how so many out here in greater America think.

But that's not how it's going to work. Congress doesn't want to use the power it has because the people within it don't want to accept the responsibility attached to the power, and even more don't want to risk their positions. They'll trade "looking the other way from usurped power" in exchange for what's more important to them.

And that, as they say, is that.

Revenant said...

If it's not worthy of reading, surely it's not worthy of a thread, let alone (2).

The great irony here is that if you had read her post, you'd know she DID read the article.

blogagog said...

My mother is an exceptionally intelligent woman, and she voted for Obama. Mrs. Althouse seems pretty intelligent, and was also taken in by Obama. Peggy Noonan was intelligent 25 years ago, and ALSO voted for Obama.

I think a better article would have been, "Why do smart women make stupid choices?"

Alex said...

I think a better article would have been, "Why do smart women make stupid choices?"

Because they're not as smart as they claim they are. You should focus less on credentials and more on real-world intelligence.

Alex said...

Honestly I'm disappointed that Althouse felt obligated to have a 2nd blog post about that pissant. You are giving him oxygen.

Seven Machos said...

I think people standing on their soap boxes and bitching about people who voted for Obama should be required by law to write a 300-word essay on the certain glory that would have been the McCain presidency.

Tell us all about that alternate reality. Tell us how things would be dramatically different. You must be realistic and your grammar and punctuation must be perfect.

This report is due immediately.

Alex said...

Seven Machos - honestly I weep for a reality that made us choose between Dumbo and the humpback.

Seven Machos said...

Now that is a great answer, Alex.

I said it at the time and it's even truer now: 2008 was a weird time in American political history. By weird I mean that it didn't make any sense. It was nearly absurd, It was the strangest time any of us will ever see in our lifetimes.

The vignette I always recall is when Jon Stewart made an Obama joke right around Obama's coronation and the crowd was scared to laugh. Stewart chided them for it.

Palladian said...

It was the strangest time any of us will ever see in our lifetimes.

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us..."

Alex said...

Palladian - quoting Dickens doesn't help my mood.

Revenant said...

I think a better article would have been, "Why do smart women make stupid choices?"

Eh, I've scooped things off my lawn that were better Presidential material than John McCain. I give people a pass for hoping Obama might turn out to be better.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think people standing on their soap boxes and bitching about people who voted for Obama should be required by law to write a 300-word essay on the certain glory that would have been the McCain presidency.

- much cleaner Administration. Much less crony capitalism (McCain is still scarred by Keating scandal - which is one of the reasons that he reflexively backs campaign reform).
- ObamaCare unlikely, or at least watered down. Remember how close it was in the Senate (with McCain voting nay?)
- Fewer out-of-control agencies run by political activists. The type of activists running and staffing agencies tend to be on the left (with the exception of Watt, etc. under early Reagan)
- Unlikely that federal spending would be up by anywhere close to Obama's about 5% of GDP, and, thus, much lower deficits - maybe half what they are now. Remember, McCain voted against much of this additional spending.
- Likely would have exited Iraq gracefully, instead of under an artificial time table. Also, handled Afghanistan better (remember, he was career military (O6) before the Senate and understands much better how the military works and what it can and cannot do).

Probably anything beyond that would be conjecture.

HA said...

"...and I voted for Obama"

Why are Obama's voters so dumb?

Sorry, Anne. I couldn't resist. That big, fat, ripe, juicy grapefruit was practically hovering over the plate.

Seriously, what were you thinking? I hope you learned from your mistake and change your vote next time.

Tea Party at Perrysburg said...

Let's face it. It's a DUMB title.

Robert Cook said...

"It might be better for the country to have Mitt Romney step in and give the Republican Party a chance to take ownership of the economy and national defense."

Isn't that what the situation was from 2000 to 2008? And didn't that turn into a monumental clusterfuck, a calamity for America?

The reason to decry Obama is that he is following too closely and expanding on the playbook of the previous administration.

edutcher said...

The implicit threat is that, if Ann ignores another of Andy's articles, he'll forget about Sarah Palin's uterus and start investing hers.

(where did Meade come from, really?)

Ann Althouse said...

So there I was, en route from Texas to Wisconsin, pulling in the 3G on my iPad, and I could see that I had an engraved invitation from Andrew Sullivan to read his article. I read it out loud, as Meade drove.

Say it ain't so. Each of you needs to rub the other's back for at least a couple of hours...

Just don't use Ben-Gay.

It'll drive Sullivan nuts.

PS If ever a thread needed comments deleted, this is it.

rhhardin said...

When there's no sign that there's game in the thicket, you don't read.

B said...

I give people a pass for hoping Obama might turn out to be better. (than McCain)

Maybe, though I suggest that people should have been able to see past the song and dance and seen Obama as a hollow man in the primaries and it would be Hillary we'd be talking about here.

I expect McCain would have been a one term president for health reasons alone. The job would have beaten a man with his health history and age after 4 years.

Haiku Guy said...

Sullivan got his irrelevancy the Old Fashioned way... He earned it.

Lashing himself to the masthead of the sinking Newsweek is only the latest of many decisions that have reduced him to a sideshow.

But I gotta say, I used to read him, in a slowing-down-for-a-car-wreck kind of way, until the Birther dreck. It was impossible to take him seriously after that.

B said...

As far as Sullivan goes, I don't read him. I don't read Newsweek. Neither entity adds anything of value to the discourse. I've no reason to confirm what I know to be true by experience.

I don't read Shiloh, Ritmo, garage etc for the same reason. I see that they post, but don't read their content. They add nothing of value.

Writ Small said...

Let's face it. It's a DUMB title.

Judging by the results, that headline was anything but dumb. Ann has richly rewarded that headline writer.

A well-written fanboy screed is now the talk of the blogosphere.

toby said...

Both bloviating bloggers bumping up their numbers. I feel alliterative this morning.

Ned said...

"you'll agree that some of what Obama has done is admirable. It's still a separate question whether we should want 4 more years of him rather than the alternative"

*shakes head*...not if one is paying attention to the state of the country but alas there are those that claim to be informed that think this is a rational position...sad, in the extreme

W.C. Varones said...

I posted on it too without reading it.

I did read the first few paragraphs, but nothing Sullivan has written in the last several years has been worth reading. He is a bitter, sick man. His Trig Truther obsession indicates dementia related to his medical condition.

Howard said...

Of all the delusion going on in that column this has to be the funniest:

Under Obama’s budgets both past and projected, he will have added $1.4 trillion in two terms.

In my projections, over the next 4 years I will sleep with 7 Sports Illustrated cover models.

W.C. Varones said...

Does this mean Sullivan got fired from the Atlantic?

'Bout time.

Phil 3:14 said...

Professor ;
Why do you bother?

If I can presume that Sullivan didn't protest the headline given to his piece, then I'd see no point in reading it.

Andrew Sullivan is so brave!

Pogo said...

Since Newsweek is just Tiger Beat for Democrats, why would anyone do more than glance at the cover to know what's inside?

The Groovy Barry No One Knows by Andrew Sullivan.

Pretty soon they'll resort to sticking Newsweek under your windshield wipers.

Special Offer: Win a Lock of Obama's Hair!!

traditionalguy said...

Free speech is marvelous because you get to read what your enemy is thinking about. One could say that is 90% of what the CIA does, which is read enemy publications and listen to their lose lipped talkers reveal what is important to them.

But the Trial by Ridicule method in use by many bloggers and many commenters loses my interest quickly.

What captures my interest are any sincere thoughts well expressed, such as those of our Professor in room 409. Nothing can touch her.

And I also enjoy Garage's and Ritmo's comments very much.

Phil 3:14 said...

re: choices for '08 and '12: I still don't get the Republican/Conservative pursuit of
"The One".

I thought we put our hopes in the people and not in the government nor the men who run it.

ed said...

@ Althouse

"and I voted for Obama"

Interesting.

On the one hand you have stated that it was a mistake for you to have voted for Obama when reassuring conservatives.

On the other hand you use it as a defense so it clearly has value for you when communicating with liberals.

mv: dannon. yeah there's a bit of a fermented smell to all this.

Pogo said...

Garage and Ritmo aren't doing 'Trial by Riidicule'?

Pogo said...

Worse, Newsweek itself does Trial by Ridicule in having such a headline on its cover.

That was Althouse's point.

And I disagree about ridicule. It is the only tool left when rulers over-reach and their power becomes illegitimate.

What else can the average joe do but mock the leaders who have chained us and our descendants to penury?

Bender said...

"How Obama's Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics."

Well, with his short game Obama has, time and again, played Boehner for an absolute fool. And this month with the debt limit extension and this spring, he will show Boehner to be a clueless idiot again. (I've yet to hear Boeher even comment on Obama's anti-constitutional power grap with his non-recess "appointments," but I'm sure that Boehner et al. will continue to "work with" Obama as if nothing had happened.)

But that just shows what an utter boob that Boehner is, it does not show that Obama is smart -- he isn't -- it's just that the Republican leadership makes anyone look like a genius by comparison.

Writ Small said...

Ann employs ridicule regularly, too. Apparently, ridicule is bad except when it isn't.

Bender said...

"Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?"

And if the Stupid Party does end up nominating Romney, then that will just go to show that the title is right after all.

Jay said...

shiloh said...
Eagerly awaiting the next Althouse thread re: an article she refuses to read ...


Dum-Dum:
She read the article.

Could you be any more incoherent?

Matthew said...

It's not a scandal if no one reports it!

Jay said...

Robert Cook said...

Isn't that what the situation was from 2000 to 2008? And didn't that turn into a monumental clusterfuck, a calamity for America


Um, no.
See Tom Daschle was Senate Majority leader after the 2000 elections.

And the Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007.

But you keep on with your meme there.

singleton said...

I started reading the article, but found there were many representations regarding what Obama accomplished. For example he said that Bush raised the debt 4T in 8 years (which is true) and that Obama had only raised it 1T (I believe it is more like 5T in 3 years)

Jay said...

Under Obama’s budgets both past and projected, he will have added $1.4 trillion in two terms.


Why would anyone take someone who says something this idiotic, seriously?

traditionalguy said...

Ideology wars are boring.Calvinism is boring. Believing right is boring.

People are interesting, and people are always searching for meaning and expressing themselves to reach out and share meaning with others.

Ridicule is an easy way to crush opponents for expressing their thoughts that are impure from our ideology's tenents.

But the beauty of skilled writers expressing sincere beliefs remains the gold that shines.

Issob Morocco said...

And this surprised you?

Pogo said...

"Believing right is boring."

Poverty is boring too. Death, taxes, zoning, the cleaning of streets, regulations, and political debates are all horribly boring.

I understand what you're getting at, I think, but the fact is we have a boring President who has created a massive boring deficit that extends into the next 5 boring generations and threatens to destabilize the nation.

Our decline, like the Soviet Union's, will be mostly boring. And sad. So we'll have that at least.

kcom said...

"But his central theme is that Obama has an 8-year rather than a 4-year plan, so we need to reelect him to 'recapitalize him to entrench what he has done already and make it irreversible.'"

It would be a massive violation of truth in advertising to hear anyone, including Andrew Sullivan himself*, ever call him a conservative again. All one need do is read this quote. It's high time that piece of fiction was buried forever.

Or, maybe he's a conservative in Bizarro-land. Yes, maybe...

* Andrew Sullivan Talks Republicans On CNN: ‘I’m Still A Conservative, And They Are Not’

Robert Cook said...

"...Tom Daschle was Senate Majority leader after the 2000 elections.

"And the Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007."


Hahahaha!

And because Tom Daschle was Senate Majority leader for the first two years of Bush's term, (ousted from office entirely in 2004), and because the Dems became the majority in Congress during the last two years of Bush's term, the catastrophe of Bush's eight years in office was either a)not Bush's responsibility or, b)somehow the fault of the Democrats?

Joseph Stalin should have caretakers of his reputation and legacy as assiduous as you.

Jay said...

during the last two years of Bush's term, the catastrophe of Bush's eight years in office was either a)not Bush's responsibility or, b)somehow the fault of the Democrats?


Er, you should pay more attention to what you said which was that the Republicans had "ownership" of the situation was from 2000 to 2008.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

Jay said...

the catastrophe of Bush's eight years in office

When Democrats took control of Congress the deficit was $260 billion and the umemployment rate was 4.6%.

Calling Bush's years in office a "catastrophe" is silly hyperbole.

Though one must wonder what adjectives would be used to describe Obama's term.

machine said...

Ann, you may consider yourself to be "moderate" but your blog is right wing. Moderates question both sides of the spectrum....

Just read the comments posted to it everyday: any time a "moderate" or heaven forbid, a Democrat, posts anything questioning right wing dogma the post is attacked almost immediately and the poster is personally attacked...even when it is a post simply noting factual inaccuracies, it is roundly dismissed and it's poster ridiculed...

So, you may consider yourself a "moderate", but your comment section is right out of Red State...just watch:

Pogo said...

It's fascinating how the definition of "moderate" swings from tree to tree.

Jay said...

any time a "moderate" or heaven forbid, a Democrat, posts anything questioning right wing dogma

That's funny.

Yes, all the "right wingers" believe in "dogma" which smart, informed people like you see right through and refute like all the time!

Astro said...

C'mon, Sullivan's article was DOA and we all know it. The notion that Obama could out-smart his critics is laughable. He is too incompetent and too inexperienced. Lacking any kind of plan, he merely has an agenda, and we already know what that is.

pm317 said...

With guys like Sullivan, it is always some 11th dimension chess with Obama that we are not smart enough to decipher. Same shit that went on during the 08 campaign. Leadership is not some big puzzle that people have to solve to see.

Henry said...

It may be a sign of Newsweek's putrescence that they can't hire good headline writers.

* * *

"But his central theme is that Obama has an 8-year rather than a 4-year plan, so we need to reelect him to 'recapitalize him to entrench what he has done already and make it irreversible.'"

This sounds risible, but I have to admit it comes close to the reason I held my nose and voted for W in 2004. Vote for W and there was a chance that gains in Iraq could be solidified and made irreversible. Vote for Kerry and reversibility was guaranteed.

So I can understand the desire to think strategically when electing a President. But there's also something deeply flawed in Sullivan's advocacy for centrally-administered multi-year economic planning. I hear the echo of the Five-Year-Plans so attractive to the zombie states of communism.

Our government is designed for pragmatism and flux. The great political cost of the welfare state and the military-industrial-complex is that they force centralized planning upon future leaders and future generations. Obama's greatest accomplishment (thinks to Nancy Pelosi) is the insertion of yet another poison drip of command control into a nation founded on liberty.

Only power-blinded technocrats and soft-hearted fools could possible salute this accomplishment. Which one of these is Sullivan?

Henry said...

... thanks to Nancy Pelosi ...

DADvocate said...

If I choose not to read the article, must I also choose not to blog about it?

I choose not to read the entire magazine, every issue. If I hear they have taken a more worthwhile path I may read it to see. Sullivan's not worth reading as you can pretty much predict what his conclusions will be, the only question is what words he will use to get there. I'm not interested in finding out those words.

Robert Cook said...

I know exactly what I said. You haven't demonstrated that the Republicans didn't own the situation for virtually all of Bush's disastrous term in office. They were the majority for most of those 8 years, the President was a Republican, and the Dems offered no significant pushback to Bush at any time. (Which is why they're nearly as criminally complicit as he and the Republicans for the illegal invasion of Iraq and the war crimes associated with the so-called "War on Terror").

sydney said...

Why did you bother reading the article? It's obvious he didn't read your post or he would have realized it was not about him but about Newsweek's cover. That is, assuming average reading comprehension on his part.

turtle said...

It's way past disgusting to watch the liberal media go down on 0bama yet again.

edutcher said...

Bender said...

"Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?"

And if the Stupid Party does end up nominating Romney, then that will just go to show that the title is right after all.


And they should nominate whom, of the remaining 4?

machine said...

Ann, you may consider yourself to be "moderate" but your blog is right wing. Moderates question both sides of the spectrum....

Says the man who only questions things to the right of Dingy Harry Reid.

Henry said...

Ann, you may consider yourself to be "moderate" but your blog is right wing. Moderates question both sides of the spectrum....

A spectrum doesn't have "sides". Moderates know this.

RebeccaH said...

If you're a writer, and you write for a publication that hardly anyone reads anymore, it's not surprising that hardly anyone will read your article. Apparently Sullivan doesn't understand this. He also doesn't understand that most literate people don't want to bother reading a writer who has spent so much time obsessing about an ex-vice presidential candidate's uterus.

William said...

We, all of us, read to have our prejudices confirmed. I doubt Andrew Sullivan would be in a big hurry to read an article entitled "Why Only Dumb People Read Andrew Sullivan". I also feel that he would dismiss such an article out of hand without even taking the bother of reading it without pausing to consider the mountains of empirical data that support such an argument.

shiloh said...

"PS If ever a thread needed comments deleted, this is it."

Better to just delete the whole thread, which is Meade's one useful purpose in life. :-P

ok, now that the cat's out of the bag, just leave it. Paraphrasing Paul Newman at the end of "Towering Inferno" ~ I think they ought to just leave it as is, a kind of monument to all the bullshit in the world!

bagoh20 said...

I no longer read Sullivan. I've read enough to know that most people I talk to have managed to avoid the stupid mistakes and insane logic he falls for. Just because he has a writing gig does not mean he's worth my time. He's kind of like the Kardasians - he's now only known for being known. I'm sure as hell not gonna read him because he says I should. If his sucking at the teat of Newsweek means he doesn't get read, that not your problem. You should have refused to read it - instead you rewarded them both or being lame and "uncivil".

shiloh said...

Indeed Scott M as being a legend at Althouse and $2/$3 will get you a cup of coffee ...

Good to see you're still payin' attention.

take care

gregq said...

Dear Excitable Andy,

Our time is valuable, your writing is not. If you want us to read what you write, it is your job to make it interesting enough to us to get us to want to read it.

You failed at that task. That is your failure, not Prof. Althouse's. Your further failure to understand that is a demonstration of why we don't value your writing.

Rusty said...

machine said...
Ann, you may consider yourself to be "moderate" but your blog is right wing. Moderates question both sides of the spectrum....

Just read the comments posted to it everyday: any time a "moderate" or heaven forbid, a Democrat, posts anything questioning right wing dogma the post is attacked almost immediately and the poster is personally attacked...even when it is a post simply noting factual inaccuracies, it is roundly dismissed and it's poster ridiculed...

So, you may consider yourself a "moderate", but your comment section is right out of Red State...just watch:



Gratuitous assertions can be equally gratuitously denied.
Show up with facts and be prepared to defend them.
Don't try and shoot lightning bolts out of your ass and claim you're a god. Dat shit don't scan here.

shiloh said...

As Rusty personally er childishly attacks Machine lol.

and the band played on ...

Paul Zrimsek said...

With guys like Sullivan, it is always some 11th dimension chess with Obama that we are not smart enough to decipher.

Well, not always. Back in 2002 it was some 11th dimension chess game with Bush that we were not smart enough to decipher.

Pastafarian said...

"It might be better for the country to have Mitt Romney step in and give the Republican Party a chance to take ownership of the economy and national defense."

"Take ownership" -- does that mean "take responsibility"?

That's what it seems like you're saying: Now that Obama has turned everything to shit, and spent more money in 4 years than anyone dreamed possible, and probably taken us past the Rubicon along the way to our own national catastrophic insolvency, let's allow the Republicans have a milktoast do-nothing president for 4 years so that they can get some of the blame.

That's why liberals support Romney. He will give the liberals' horrendous decision in 2008 cover; once we're all in loincloths and driving El Caminos with tripod-mounted belt-fed machine guns mounted in the bed, no one will know what caused society to devolve into Thunderdome.

shiloh said...

When the legend becomes fact, print the legend ~ The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

carry on

future toothless bum said...

Sullivan is much like Shiloh, you read a little drivel and it's much like aversion therapy, the next time you see the name attached you skip on to the next read.

One poster said if it's not reported it's not a scandal. True that. Scandalous for sure, but if you are busy worshiping the O then whatever is done is not a scandal.

There will be a time when the buzzards come home to roost, as the God Damn Reverend Wright would say. When that day comes your worship of the O will result in gnashing of teeth. Just lead on PIGGS, we see the light.

Me personally, I feel the O doesn't need a second term to make what he's done permanent. We are screwed until the investment bankers run the course of manipulating the fiat.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

4th post overall by PaulV says it all with regard to the author's reputation.

Obviously Ann, he thinks you are dumb, too. You see, that's the thing about these elite types - totally devoid of humility.

This, a fatal character flaw.

wv - tryinn

Amartel said...

And now a word from Andrew Sullivan's vagina*:

Obama's critics have to be dumb because, otherwise, Obama would be dumb, and then all those "elite" liberals and RINOs who voted for him would be wrong, and then (nononononononononononononononono)
I, I, I, the center of the universe, I, would be wrong.
And
that
cannot
be.*

*Andrew Sullivan's virginal vagina cannot lie, not even to itself.

EMD said...

once we're all in loincloths and driving El Caminos with tripod-mounted belt-fed machine guns

My Subaru Brat will corner better.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

My Subaru Brat will corner better.

Perhaps, but will it have the carrying capacity for the weight of not only the machine guns and ammo but several armed men to operate the equipment?

Hmmm?

Scott M said...

Perhaps, but will it have the carrying capacity for the weight of not only the machine guns and ammo but several armed men to operate the equipment?

Sexist. Women weigh less. Plus, if you have four truckloads women, you simply split them up into four squads and make them bunk together for a while. After a short time together, that weird PMS black magic will take hold. This will enable you to know precisely which truck to send on a mission any given week of any given month.

Michael K said...

I used to read Andrew and even contribnuted to his blog once. When he began to go off the rails after Bush opposed gay marriage (what did he expect?)I wondered what was going on with him. Eventually I even emailed him to ask if he was alright. He is, after all, on a lot of medication with a disease that can alter thinking. He wasn't very polite in his reply and I lost interest.

Andrew may have a touch of AIDS dementia as some of his writing makes little sense.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

About this oft-mentioned 'boring' meme - this is employed by many commenters at this site.

It indicates individual disinterest, nothing more. What someone says is 'boring' may be fascinating to someone else.

Really, the only thing boring here is people that are 'bored'.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Sexist. Women weigh less. Plus, if you have four truckloads women, you simply split them up into four squads and make them bunk together for a while.

Ah, but you are looking at it as conventional warfare. The women are better suited to the more covert (aka sneaky) methods. Poisoning the enemy's food supply for example. Setting booby traps. Manufacturing lye and other caustic substances.

Subversive actions from within are the forte of women. You think Sampson and Delilah was just a myth?

Huh? Wut? too much information?**)

Also instead of doing the heavy lifting of machine guns....reloading ammo such as shotgun shells is something that women AND children can do.

I won't disagree with the PMS coordination. That is just another one of our secret weapons.

**just watch some libtard will think I'm actually serious ;-P

Don't Tread 2012 said...

"I won't disagree with the PMS coordination. That is just another one of our secret weapons."

I respectfully submit that this is not a secret.

Unannounced store 'sales' and fake orgasms are much more secretive ;)

shiloh said...

No DBQ, you're only serious when you're incessantly whining ...

DADvocate said...

but it has nothing at all to do with you readers, my standards.

As it should be. Another blogger I visit has this on his banner, "Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you." If you write for profit, like Sullivan, you have to worry about appeal. If not, write what your heart desires.

BTW - I particularly like your take on Romney's tax returns.

Harve3 said...

Yours truly has been unable to take seriously any of Sully's effusions since his attacks on Ms Palin for her marriage, her children and esp. her special needs son and her presumption in appearing on a national political ticket.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

No DBQ, you're only serious when you're incessantly whining ...

Proving my point.

Mike said...

Back in the early days of the inter-blogs the Daily Dish was a witty and refreshing place for a conservative to drop in and read. Sully has a gift for trenchant prose and in those days -- when Instapundit and Althouse and the Bleat and the Daily Dish were the few good blogs to have in your roll -- a reader could drop Andrew a note and sometimes expect a response. He had a unique take on conservatism. In the uneasy days after 9/11 Sully would write quick takes and introduce new writers to his readers (he had more than one back in the day), like Asparagirl and Little Green Footballs. His sudden change after the fall of Baghdad is inexplicable. His stridency drove away readers. No one I read regularly EVER links to Sully anymore and we only hear his name when he's making weird inferences about Palin's...well about ANYTHING to do with Palin.
I think it's a sad turn of events.

Alex said...

I think once Sullivan decided that the gay thing was the #1 thing for him he went left-wing on all issues as revenge about the gay thing.

raf said...

@Henry:
Only power-blinded technocrats and soft-hearted fools could possible salute this accomplishment. Which one of these is Sullivan?

Sullivan is a sick man who has a personal interest in nationalized health care and gay marriage; he will tote whatever barge he thinks will move those forward, the rest of us be damned.

Dudley Do-right said...

Doesn't anyone here have a job? Good grief, people, commenting again and again and again on twaddle is silly and undignified as well as a huge waste of time.

I'm retired and I don't even have time to do that.

Scott M said...

I'm retired and I don't even have time to do that.

And yet...

Bill Peschel said...

I haven't read the article, so I admit this could be wrong, but I have not heard any plans from Obama, any discussion of any ideas or concepts or reasons or plans, that would justify Sullivan's notion that he is playing a long game.

Instead, we have Sullivan's interpretation of what Obama is doing. We have absolutely no idea what Obama is planning on doing. We only know what he has done, and I will be basing my vote on that. Not on what someone of Sullivan's reputation thinks Obama is doing.

Unknown said...

So all this writing and commenting is about your opinion and reaction to an anonymous Newsweek headline writer?

Read the article. Then write.

DADvocate said...

I suspect that many think like me, and are sick of this "hate on the rich!"

I with you on this. I've met many wonderful rich people. My son ran a valet business at a very upscale country club (Rolls, Maseratis, etc weren't unusual. Ever park a car worth $250,000 or more? Be careful.) The rich folks treated him great. Many told him to contact them when he finishes college. They likes the way he worked and his attitude.

I say, why hate what you would love to be? Makes no sense.

DADvocate said...

commenting again and again and again on twaddle is silly and undignified as well as a huge waste of time.

In the words of Euell Gibbons' wife, "Twaddle! He says everything tastes like hickory nuts."

BFM said...

At least you read the article to fairly assess it.

Obama has also begun cracking down on marijuana dispensaries, despite saying he wouldn't. Not quite a scandal but more than a broken promise.

The cover IS offputting, but it's a good article nonetheless. It's actually insightful. And despite Republican rhetoric, my first job out of college one year ago came through a federal stimulus grant for cancer research. So he gets my vote. He enabled me to work for my money, contrary to the GOP welfare-state argument.

TMink said...

"But how sober and balanced is he really? I can't help noticing that in talking about me, he wasn't fair. He called me "right-wing," and yet I'm a political moderate, liberal on the social issues, and I voted for Obama."

But you have a womb and thus meet the criteria for the full Palin freak out.

Your interest in Sullivan and surprise when he acts consistently reminds me of a favorite saying: Don't wrestle with a pig. You'll just get dirty and the pig actually enjoys it.

Happy Trails!

Trey

DADvocate said...

So he gets my vote. He enabled me to work for my money, contrary to the GOP welfare-state argument.

Another person sells out to the Dems for a few bucks. That's principles!!

damikesc said...

So, BFM, you like Obama because he forced others to pay your salary. Truly noble.

wildswan said...

"Prosperity is just around the corner"
Sums up Sullivan and Newsweek.

Petunia said...

Soon Newsweek will be a failed publication, and only available for free on the internet, or in those free newspaper boxes at the grocery store.

Just like Madison's "progressive voice" "newspaper", aka the failed liberal rag, the Crapital I mean Capital Times.

rcommal said...

I think a better article would have been, "Why do smart women make stupid choices?"

Uh-huh. Of course, I could ask why guys like you, for example, so dislike women like me who, for example, made a different choice, electorally speaking (for example, I did not vote for Obama in November 2008) and have made many different choices, quite apart from electoral politics (or even politics), well before then and well after that.

You do so dislike, you know. Is your problem really about choice-making? Or is it

...

Alan said...

Why do people familiar with the Second Law of Thermodynamics vote for The Party That Gives You Free Stuff?

rcommal said...

BFM:

Thank God for that. At least you didn't have to go waiter, or short-order cook, or aid-an-elder [private pay, 30-years-ag0 standard], or clean things, or God knows what else (!) just out of college.

Heaven forbid.

Tug said...

Sorry Ann, but your claim that your original post referred only to thee cover and not the Sullivan essay is disproved by -- and this is rich irony -- the title of your blog post: Newsweek's "Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?" cover STORY and photo (Emphasis added).

Ann Althouse said...

"Sorry Ann, but your claim that your original post referred only to thee cover and not the Sullivan essay is disproved by -- and this is rich irony -- the title of your blog post: Newsweek's "Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?" cover STORY and photo (Emphasis added)."

Read the post again. It covers exactly what it covers and it says nothing that I was not in a position to fairly say without reading the article. It was a post about the cover photo and the off-putting headline that went on to state what needed to be in the article for it not to be "insipid." I didn't say I knew what was in the article, only how it needed to fulfill the headline without being bad.

balkanization said...

"If I choose not to read the article, must I also choose not to blog about it?" I didn't actually read this blog post, but I just thought I'd note that I disagree with it in this blog post. Really?

Tony DeSantis said...

FAst and Furious is not a personal scandal, like Monica Lewinsky. This was a scandal in which the people running it were fired. They weren't protected, unlike Lewis Libby.

Alan said...

Monica Lewinsky was related to a personal scandal and a legal scandal. In the wake of Tailhook and other related scandals, the lefty feminists pushed for a change in sexual harassment laws; the result was that in harassment suits the defendant's entire sexual history - consensual and nonconsensual - could be brought forth in trial. The Lewinsky affair was legally relevant to the sexual harassment case, and Clinton was legally obligated to tell the truth about it. The NOW gang got what they wanted, and Slick Willy got caught in the crossfire.

vanderleun said...

Meanwhile, back at the Daily Dish, the drug addled and physically degraded Sullivan chortles, "Har, har. Made ya look!"