That Obama-A Sullivan Thing

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 10:55:17 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Glenn Greenwald:

Ambinder's Atlantic colleague, Andrew Sullivan, quickly praised Ambinder for his "reporting" and -- after arguing just two days ago that Obama was becoming retroactively complicit in Bush's torture program as a result of shielding it from scrutiny -- changed his mind and has now decided that Obama's embrace of Bush's state secrets theory shows how wonderfully "pragmatic" (the all-purpose Obama-justifying term) and thoughtful and sober Obama's governing style is.

More . . .

Sadly, it appears I am the last person who remembers Sullivan's slobbering over George W. Bush for years and years (and the last person to remember his constant slanderings of Paul Krugman and of Al Gore and Bill Clinton before that.) Not to mention his New McCarthyite attacks against opponents of the Iraq Debacle, his championing of the Bell Curve, etc. He is wearing the right team jersey now so everything is good.

Speaking for me only

< Wednesday Open Thread | The Price Is Right Stimulus Game >

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.

That Obama-A Sullivan Thing | 36 comments (36 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

No you are not (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by Jjc2008 on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 10:59:27 AM EST

the only one.

A. Sullivan to me is one of those sanctimonious hyporcrites who continues to get away with his lies, spin and contradictions, in much the same way Matthews, Hitchens and a host of other pundits do.

I love it when Hitchens shows (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:11:49 AM EST

up on the screen tanked :)


: I thought he was drunk.... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Dadler on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:22:51 AM EST

...during his entire cheerleading stint in the run-up to the Iraq war. I remember seeing him shake and tick and sweat bullets like, well, an alcoholic does, especially when they don't even believe the b.s. they are slinging.

I used to get so bent out of shape (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:03:25 AM EST

over Anne Coulter. Wow did I not like that woman. On blogs others would always tell me shhhh, just ignore her and she'll go away. Eventually Anne became so ridiculous she did go away. For some reason Sully doesn't rile me so much as I find myself wanting to shush because I want him to go away as soon as possible :)

: Also, I find myself hoping that Sully (none / 0) (#4)
by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:10:44 AM EST

creates a whole big bunch of Red Obama lovers. Man do I ever. Bring that right to the center Sully, the right has been dragging this country to hell for long enough. I know it's evil to admit. There is a new billboard in my bible belt town. A lot of churches here advertise on billboards in hopes of increasing their membership. The billboard says God Is Not Mad At You. I want to jump out and climb up on the billboard and stand up there and shout to the traffic, "Yes he is!"

I do not understand (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by lilburro on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:21:38 AM EST

why Greenwald reads Sullivan. But aside from ripping Ambinder and Sullivan, that article REALLY rips the Obama DoJ.

Greenwald:

If, as Obama's Atlantic spokesman claims, this were really the problem -- that the Obama DOJ needed more time to review what they wanted to do -- then the solution is easy and obvious: you ask the court for more time. You don't march into court and explicitly advocate a Bush weapon that you've spent the last several years excoriating as a dangerous abuse of power -- thus risking that this tyrannical weapon becomes judicially approved and torture victims forever denied the right to a day in court.

So why really is Obama invoking the state secrects privilege? Friends at Boeing (saying, hey, you did it for AT&T...so why not do it for me)?

Sure (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:23:58 AM EST

But it is the same critique.

The Obama DOJ was waving its arms.


ugh (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by lilburro on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:34:11 AM EST

I still don't get it. At some level, it seems a bit like political theatre to impress the intelligence agencies - after all as Ambinder notes Panetta hasn't been read in on a lot of classified stuff yet. Instead of asking for more time, they said, the hell with it, we'll assert the state secrets privilege. We can at least make a point of saying "up yours" to the ACLU, while we figure out stuff out.


Sends a powerful message, (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by oculus on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:38:19 AM EST

but not the one I'd like to hear.


: Indeed (none / 0) (#17)
by lilburro on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:41:42 AM EST

hopefully it gives some hardliners chuckles around the water cooler - if that was the point. But hardliners are always going to have something to b*tch about at the water cooler...
As Obama now seems to be learning, re: the stimulus bill.

Up yours to the ACLU (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:43:32 AM EST

used to be known as "triangulation" when a certain William Jefferson Clinton did it.

Today it is known as "11 dimensional chess."


heh (none / 0) (#21)
by lilburro on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:49:34 AM EST

just wait...in 8 years there will be a new generation of bloggers who loathe Obama for his betrayal of progressive values...they will say "oh, Obama? You mean the moderate Republican?" etc.


Or, maybe, in four years. (none / 0) (#23)
by oculus on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:51:28 AM EST

Months? (5.00 / 3) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:53:38 AM EST

I'm thinking the prevalence of CDS (5.00 / 0) (#25)
by lilburro on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:55:17 AM EST

will lead to late onset ODS in many.

8 years until people really start ripping into Michelle Obama's cankles anyway.


I think Michelle Obama is safe (none / 0) (#26)
by oculus on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:57:55 AM EST

if she keeps her true personality and intellect under wraps per the campaign advisors' counseling. But I really hope she shrugs off that advice. Bright, forceful person.


by "bright and forceful" (5.00 / 0) (#28)
by lilburro on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:41:37 PM EST

do you mean "shrill" ;)


: No. I was quite impressed (none / 0) (#33)
by oculus on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 01:12:45 PM EST

with her solo campaign event on C-Span from New Hampshire during the primaries. No notes but totally on point and very persuasive.

Well, no. (none / 0) (#30)
by Salo on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:45:49 PM EST

He is Black and a Democrat. He gets an infinite ideological pass it seems.


Immaterial Chess. (none / 0) (#29)
by Salo on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:44:30 PM EST

Or "Wanking" as it's known to Grand Masters of Chess.


Hoping the 9th Circuit would (none / 0) (#13)
by oculus on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:33:15 AM EST

say: no state secrets privilege here?

I tried that once during a prelim in which my star witness had to be brought in on a failure to appear warrant and put into county lock up to sober up so she could testify after lunch. I tried to signal the judge: please don't bind this over to superior court! But he did.


: I meant to Ambinder (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:41:45 AM EST

What the Obama DOJ did before the 9th Circuit was quite clear - embrace the Bush expansive view of the state secrets doctrine.
Are they hoping the 9th Circuit does the dirty work? Possibly. But then they face the pressure of going to the Supremes.

Well, anyone who takes (none / 0) (#3)
by dk on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:07:57 AM EST

Sullivan seriously only has him or herself to blame. It's Ambinder who is more insidious at the moment, IMHO.

Don't worry BTD (none / 0) (#5)
by lobary on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:11:42 AM EST

You're not alone. Eric Alterman won't forget what Sullivan said during those years because Sullivan famously questioned his patriotism for opposing the Iraq War. No love lost between those two.

I don't know why anyone takes this guy (none / 0) (#7)
by masslib on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:15:13 AM EST

seriously. It's like Frank Rich, who reviewed theater for crissakes. Why do people rely on clowns to form their opinions?

Clowns know how to entertain (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by andgarden on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:18:12 AM EST

I like this comment:

Sullivan's writing is big, billowy, and colorful. Just like cotton candy!
And like cotton candy, once chewed upon for awhile, one realizes that it's just a bunch of spun sugar and hot air.

I dunno (none / 0) (#8)
by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:17:03 AM EST

I only know they do


What I really worry about is (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by oculus on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:40:48 AM EST

why I read about people reading Sullivan.


I can tell you why I write about it (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:42:19 AM EST

Because I want to discredit Sullivan.


: You are doing an excellent job. (none / 0) (#22)
by oculus on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:49:47 AM EST

A theatre critic... (none / 0) (#32)
by Salo on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:49:14 PM EST

...would seem to be the perfect analyst. Politics today are mainly Rhetoric, smoke and mirrors, over dramatized and made for TV. Rich is a manifestation of the true political culture and it's a very uncomfortable thing to realize.


I've started to see and hear (none / 0) (#27)
by Anne on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:57:58 AM EST

the word "cr@ptastic" whenever the word "pragmatic" appears, as they seem to mean pretty much the same thing lately.

As for the Obama DOJ's handling of the state secrets issue - which, let's face it, is really Obama's handling of it - that's a big disappointment. The explanation, per the Greenwald excerpt, is the kind of WORM that denotes sloppiness, negligence or disingenuousness, and is just not acceptable.

It's just, you know, cr@ptastic.

Really, there was always (5.00 / 0) (#34)
by NYShooter on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 01:19:33 PM EST

ZERO chance Obama (or any President)would voluntarily surrender any power.

You know, "Yes, yes, it's just terrible. So I'll just put it in the closet where it will never, never, never see the light of day again."


Wankermatic. (none / 0) (#31)
by Salo on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:47:35 PM EST

Seems to be a bit radical and right on, but turns out to be the same sort of GOP policy anyway.


How about crapmatic? (none / 0) (#35)
by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 02:18:26 PM EST

: Hey - I like it! (none / 0) (#36)
by Anne on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 03:21:24 PM EST

It even sounds enough like "pragmatic" that if someone said, "What did you say???" you can just act innocent and say "'Pragmatic.' What did you think I said?"
So sad that we're even thinking this way, isn't it?