Andrew Sullivan Watch #00000000001

There is something wrong with Andrew Sullivan. Are his opinions the result of years of repressed anger and personal vendetta? If I were someone close to him I would recommend psychotherapy, but since I'm not I'll just highlight his skewed perspective:

This Strange Campaign

17 Jan 2008 02:10 pm
A reader writes:
I just do not know what to make of the fact that the two candidates who are by far the most competent - Romney and Clinton - are the two I loathe the most, the two who seem least willing to run on their own competence rather than on their their PR directors' advice. If only they would let me trust them by trusting me first, then I could be happy with either of them. As it is, I must support McCain and Obama.

I'm not sure Clinton is the most competent. She's just the most competent at conveying the sense that she is the most competent. I mean, she's not going to win on charm, is she?
Permalink :: TrackBacks (0)

Sullivan's comments in bold...
Then regarding Open Left author Matt Stoller's audacity in disapproving of Obama's stumble in his positive comparison of Ronald Reagan, Sullivan awards Stoller the "Moore Nomination" in reference to Michael Moore- that being a very bad thing to Sullivan:

Moore Award Nominee II
17 Jan 2008 03:09 pm
"Reagan was a psychotic man who nearly blew up the world and used paranoia and fear to change our culture and government in horrible ways. He also wasn't particularly popular, though as a politician, he's worth admiring for his raw political skill. Conservative ideology is based on greed and fear. There's no such thing as a good conservative leader, period. It is a fundamentally bankrupt, corrupt, and fraudulent ideology, and there is nothing laudable about people like Reagan who tap into the worst of America," - Matt Stoller, Open Left.
Permalink :: TrackBacks (0)

You can take the conservative out of the gay but you can't take the Reagan out of the conservative!
Later on he does what he does best and cherry-picks a view that makes Sen. Clinton a "disgrace" while totally ignoring Sen. Edwards's by far the absolutely phoniest response to the Nevada debate's question on weakness:

Obama, Clinton, Honesty
17 Jan 2008 03:51 pm
David Brooks makes a point about the Nevada debate that's worth revisiting:
"The third thing that happened is that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards disgraced themselves in the minds of debate-watchers everywhere. At some point in each campaign, candidates are asked to name their greatest weakness. Only the lamest political hacks answer that question this way: Goshdarn it, I just care too much. I am too impatient for good things to happen. Giving that answer is an insult to the art of politics. And yet Edwards and Clinton both gave that answer. They didn't even give artfully disguised versions of that answer. They gave the straight, unsubtle kindergarten version of that answer. Obama, honestly, admitted that he's bad at organizing his paperwork. Truly, here is a man willing to stand for change."
And Clinton has used that moment of candor since as a way to imply that Obama is unready for the presidency. God, she's slimy. At least this campaign has revealed that to those of you with '90s amnesia.
Permalink :: TrackBacks (0)

And why shouldn't we raise our eyebrows about a potential president being a bad manager ?? Gosh, how slimy of us to want somebody who is organized?