Andrew Sullivan jumps the shark

In The Daily Dish at TheAtlantic.com Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) supporter Andrew Sullivan writes on January 25, 2008: (emphasis added)

For understandable reasons, most coverage of the Clintons' dual political persona focuses on the oddity of a married couple each seeking the same executive office in turn. This is indeed remarkable in American politics, although more familiar to historians of India, the Philippines or South America. And it allows for people to write as if having a power-couple as co-presidents is just an interesting, even appealing novelty.

But the trouble with such an arrangement is not its tabloidy and democratically primitive charms. It is its under-appreciated threat to democratic accountability and even the Constitution. In the first Clinton term, we had an unprecedented situation where a woman elected to nothing and with no Cabinet rank was given responsibility for the entire healthcare system. She was accountable largely to a man she was married to - not the American people. She functioned not as the traditional spouse of a president, but as a free-floating second president whose line of authority was at once clear (no one dared cross her) and confusing (what legal authority does she have anyway?). As the Clinton term progressed, it appeared that she reverted to a more traditional role - but we do not know since the records of the couple's political arrangement remain sequestered from public scrutiny.

But if we faced a problem in the first Clinton presidency, imagine what we confront in the second. ...

The problem of political dynasticism is the least of it. American politics have been riven by dynasties from the start. What America has never dealt with is this strange and corrupting arrangement whereby voters are being asked to support two-people-as-one as president. The last two weeks have shown beyond any doubt that this is indeed what is going on. By blurring the lines of accountability, by giving a former president vague but enormous powers in what amounts to an unconstitutional third term, we are sacrificing an important democratic principle and the transparency required to stymie corruption and secret deals kept from public scrutiny by the sacred bonds of matrimony.

There is no reason a constitutional republic should be forced to sacrifice its principles this way. This basic issue of accountability needs to be placed firmly on the table. One option for Barack Obama is to demand now that all the records of the Clintons' marital/political dealings with each other in their first two terms be released in full for public inspection.

Priceless!



Display:


Tip jar. (2.00 / 1)

As always, be kind. Constructive comments are welcome. Snark is not.


by Artificial Intelligence on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:40:31 PM EST

Thought we could all use a good laugh (none / 0)

:> )))


by Artificial Intelligence on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:47:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Andrew Sullivan jumps the shark (2.00 / 2)

This "constitutional" argument is so incredibly sexist.  Never before in history have we made an issue out of whether the President's spouse is eligible to the office in her own right.  Somehow, though, because Hillary is a woman people can only see her through the prism of Lurleen Wallace.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:42:44 PM EST

Re: Andrew Sullivan jumps the shark (2.00 / 1)

A full accounting of Bill and Hillary sex life?

Does the media have no shame? Imagine the insular little Georgetown cocktail party world they must live in?

Keep in mind that this the same Andrew Sullivan who said that Hillary Clinton needs to take voice lessons to learn how to speak really low so that she sounds like a man.

Do these people ever listen to themselves?


by hwc on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:44:59 PM EST

Heh (2.00 / 1)

He has lost his mind.
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:45:24 PM EST

Re: Andrew Sullivan jumps the shark (2.00 / 1)

Sully's head is about to explode.  And it shows.  ROTFLMAO!   I am so loving the meltdown in the ranks of punditry!  


by WMCB on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:46:56 PM EST

Re: Andrew Sullivan jumps the shark (2.00 / 1)

"this strange and corrupting arrangement"

he simply hypostatizes this notion, as if all of us should take it as axiomatic.  perhaps sullivan will cite constitutional clauses in order to buttress this claim?


by truthteller2007 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:49:49 PM EST

Re: Andrew Sullivan jumps the shark (2.00 / 2)

He's just mad as hell that we amended the Constitution to allow those damned women to vote in the first place.


by hwc on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:54:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Andrew Sullivan jumps the shark (none / 0)

It has ZERO to do with sexism and it is people who can't see that who are the sexist ones.

Are we voting for Hillary or Bill or Hillary and Bill?

Voters will want to know and you may dismiss Sullivan and insult him all you want but it will be an issue. I also take note how people focus on the one albeit more controversial line (bolded) while ignoring the rest of the piece. For all the talk about how Obama voters are low information voters- we saw this line of attack for months- it would seem it is the Clinton supporters who are low information. They won't read and if anyone says anything against the Clintons they are accused of being wholefoods shoppers or part of the political punditry.

The constitution prohibits third terms and last time I checked we are not a banana republic.


Slash and burn politics baby! Say anything do anything lie cheat steal railroad the opposition into submission: CLINTON FORMULA FOR 2008.
by crackityjones on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:54:27 PM EST

Re: Andrew Sullivan jumps the shark (2.00 / 2)

You'd think that, after twelve months of Hillary Clinton kicking Obama's ass from one debate stage to another, it would be pretty clear to him who he is running against.


by hwc on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:56:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dude (2.00 / 2)

Do yourself a favor, do not defend the racist Andrew Sullivan. Do you knowe a fucking thing about him? BTW, the Constitutional problem? Do you buy that nonsense? Seriously, do not make a fool of yourself on this.
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:56:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dude (none / 0)

The trouble with these comments from Crackity is just how seriously do you take them. I he a dedicated Obama campaign worker. Does he get paid for working in the Obama campaign. Is he just a Naderite Hillary hater. Is he a visitor from Planet Redstate. They are so completely off the wall with the incessant talking up of known extreme Clinton haters like Sullavan or Dowd or Broder or Gerson etc etc. Does her really expect anyone to take Sullivan seriously. It's totally bizarre. Clearly Sullivan can see the writing on the wall and is starting to lose it judging by this piece. It's so monumentally silly it's laughable. Can't anyone with an IQ over 100 see that. Apparently not.


by ottovbvs on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:17:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dude - don't take this seriously (none / 0)

The purpose of posting this was two-fold (okay, maybe a gazillion fold, but these are MY points): #1 we all needed a good laugh; and #2, so-totally-worth-ignoring Andy Sullivan is the tip of the proverbial iceberg (see #1).


by Artificial Intelligence on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:42:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dude - don't take this seriously (none / 0)

I don't but I am genuinely mystified by the input from the true believers like Crackity. I suppose I'm searching for explanations for his apparent irrationality. But then I suppose there is no explanation for human irrationality or why would we have Dubya.  


by ottovbvs on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:53:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dude (none / 0)


Yup.  The final dodge/argument from the anti-Hillary crowd is all about their horrible ethics.

Yes, Sullivan is hitting the depression point- his bitterness and slimy attacks were worse a few days ago.  Don't know about when he'll turn on Obama, which is predictable.  That Christianity Today interview will probably become Sully's reason to excoriate Obama eventually.


by killjoy on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:02:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dude (none / 0)

You have it wrong.  If Obama loses the nomination, he will forever be seen as a martyr in the annals of the Clinton-haters.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:08:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dude (none / 0)

Some truth in Obama as Clinton martyr story but it's a tricky area because he could also be widely seen as a whining JJJ type. You really have to look at who the Clinton haters are. Broadly speaking it's the core Republicans about 37% of vote and a sliver on the Naderite left say 2-4%. Now these folks are disproportionately represented in the media. When did you last hear from a moderate Repuplican commentator. And the leftist commentators have a variety of motives for dissing her. Actually I think the stories about arguments and conflict are totally over hyped. Once the primaries are over they are going to kiss and make up pretty fast.  


by ottovbvs on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:28:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Andrew Sullivan jumps the shark (2.00 / 1)

When it's a man running, no one ever suggests that his wife is the "real" candidate and that he's just a puppet.  No one ever questions if his wife meets the constitutional requirements to be elected President, because everyone knows she's not the one running.  But let someone like Hillary run and suddenly everyone can only talk about Lurleen Wallace.

If Hillary wins, then Bill will be a powerful, unelected advisor, much as she was in his administration.  The idea that there's a constitutional concern with getting advice from a former President is ludicrous.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:25:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Andrew Sullivan jumps the shark (none / 0)

In case you hadn't noticed, Bill and Hillary Clinton are actually 2 separate people.  They can actually function in separate environments, I have actually seen Bill without Hillary, and vice versa. As a second term U.S. Senator from NY, she is a viable candidate for president, regardless of who her husband is.  


by AnnC on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:49:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Andrew Sullivan jumps the shark (none / 0)

His hatred of women is so obvious, it's almost funny. He's not a U.S. citizen, but he wants to change our Constitution. Why does anyone pay attention to him?


by LakersFan on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:23:45 PM EST

Re: Andrew Sullivan jumps the shark (none / 0)

Not just that, but his unvarnished racism on display when he talked up, defended and praised to the heavens Charles Murray's "The Bell Curve" as "right on" makes Sullivan into a despicable character.  He gave that piece-of-crap only-good-for-toilet-paper moronic "theory" a national stage and then went on to give it even more credence by defending himself and this modern-version of "Mein Kampf" against all critics.  


by georgep on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:56:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Andrew Sullivan jumps the shark (none / 0)

I'm not familiar with that book (luckily). Sullivan is just such a sad character. His combination of politics, sexuality, and religion have left him so full of self-loathing, I guess we can't be surprised that he hates everyone else too.


by LakersFan on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:09:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Andrew Sullivan jumps the shark (none / 0)

Read some of it here:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1271

http://www.slate.com/id/2128199/

"And I'm proud of those with the courage to speak truth to power, as Murray and Herrnstein so painstakingly did."

The central theory advanced in the book is that there is an inherent genetic difference between Whites and Blacks, which manifests itself in many ways, but most profoundly in the fact that Whites possess higher intelligence than Blacks at the time of birth.  


by georgep on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:21:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Andrew Sullivan jumps the shark (none / 0)

Very little comment on the substance of Sullivan's article which is not about her being a puppet, as some have suggested, but rather that of a co-Presidency.  That is something the Clinton campaign has not so subtly suggested, that you get two for the price of one.  The Republicans are in fact the Party which has pulled off the Puppet Presidency but were less open about it.  All you  have to do is look at the difference in behavior during the campaigns between Papa Bush and what Bill has been up to in this one, to realize this is an area which will be made something of.  The Clinton dynasty aspect of her campaign was always lurking as a theoretical negative, but the behavior of the campaign from New Hampshire on have now put it into play, like it or not.


by Piuma on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:46:29 PM EST

Re: Andrew Sullivan jumps the shark (2.00 / 1)

The "co-Presidency" was an issue in 1992 as well, but nobody suggested we actually needed to go check Hillary's constitutional qualifications for the Presidency.

This is not simply the mirror image of 1992.  Indeed, as Sullivan says, "He will have immensely more power in his wife's first term than she had in either of his. To understand how this power is exercised, we are compelled to understand the personal emotional dynamics of a marriage...." and so on and so forth.

It's remarkably silly for Sullivan to pretend we have any more insight into the dealings between, say, George Bush and Karl Rove as we do between Bill and Hillary Clinton.  We never know what the President discusses with his closest advisors, we never get to look through a microscope at what sort of relationship he has with them, so why is it suddenly so critical in this case?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:56:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And while we're on the subject of W (none / 0)

... are we any closer to figuring out what in the name of reason Jeff Gannon/Jim Guckert was doing slipping and sliding in and out of the White House? was he working undercover(s) for the CIA? and why exactly did Karl Rove abandon W? The questions are endless. However, none of them require rewriting the Constitution, for heaven's sake.


by Artificial Intelligence on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:37:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Andrew Sullivan jumps the shark (none / 0)

He will have immensely more power in his wife's first term than she had in either of his.

This part of Sullivan's absurd thesis isn't even close to true.

Not that we would expect the media to ever deal in facts, but we have seven full years of Hillary Clinton's US Senate career to turn to (you know, the "experience" thing). I have seen no indication that Bill Clinton has been actively involved in wielding power or that Senator Clinton has needed much help.

This whole thing is just another avenue for calling into question the leadership of a woman.


by hwc on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:47:15 PM EST

Re: Andrew Sullivan jumps the shark (none / 0)

I just read someone make a great quote- it said the primary has not been that nasty, but the coverage on it has.

These pro-Obama pundits don't seem to live in the world of reality.  It's much too late for all this "demanding" this or that.  We're at the "wire"- save it.


by reasonwarrior on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:38:48 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.