Andrew, unlike someone like Geraldine Ferraro, is not a professional politician. He is a writer. And as such he does tend toward hyperbole as a stylistic device. Criticizing Andrew's ramblings about Hillary would be essentially the same as criticizing a commentary by Jon Stewart. You have to take it with a grain of salt because that's what these men are paid to do, ie make intellectualism entertaining. Andrew without the panache would not be Andrew.

Politicians on the other hand are held to a different standard. It is assumed that they mean what they say as a matter of policy. If Bill Bradley were to come out and make a Sullivan comment I think he would be criticized, as Samantha Power was.

It's probably less that you're afraid how Andrew would effect Hillary-loving Democrats than undecided Democratic voters.

But - like many Republicans- his hatred for the Clintons goes way back. And this is part of the reason way back when this election began that I knew her name should never be on the ballot - in the #1 spot or the #2 spot- in November. It's the only thing guaranteed to unite the fractured Republican party. It's perhaps somewhat unfair that that name has hampered the chances for Hillary to become President- but that name has also opened a lot more doors for her than if she'd been Hillary Rodham. Dare I say it- in many ways, she's 'lucky' she is a Clinton.

Andrew is the tip of the iceberg- and quite civil compared to some of the mad dog rabid Republican bloggers that are hoping Hillary will be on the November ballot.

I at least thought he had a misogynistic streak that is fulfilled in his hatred for Hillary.

His man crushes have extended to McCain, Giuliani, Ron Paul and Lieberman. There are times where Andrew is interesting, but his taste for character flaws is not attractive. His deference to Maureen Dowd is often laughable, and unfortunately since he's been around long enough he's started to confuse that longevity with wisdom.

That said, before I had enough of the Daily Hillary Bile, there was a decent mix of issues from cultural to racial and sexual to political.

Obama doesn't need to respond to the media on this because this is not his issue. People are allowed to voice their opinions just as Rush Limbaugh and SNL are able praise the Clintons and bash Obama in their daily and weekly shows.

As I recall, the "Sister Souljah" moment was when Bill Clinton criticized the singer/rap artist for saying essentially that all black problems were due to white people (it's been a long time, so forgive me if I'm getting the detail of the criticism wrong). They were on the same stage, and it was at a political rally in support of his candidacy.

OK - so - a "Sister Souljah" moment requires these elements:
1) Being critical of a core constiuency group
2) Sharing stage or otherwise rallying in front of that group

I don't see how Andrew Sullivan is seen as a "core constiuency" for Obama
- Media (maybe?)
- White male (50 - 50 at best)
- Gay (again 50-50 - although tilted towards Clinton)
- Republican (doubt it)

I also don't see Andrew Sullivan on a stage with Obama introducing him at a rally.

However, I think Obama's had a few "Sister Souljah's" already.
- Criticized African American community for homophobia - Ebenezer Baptist church - MLK day address
- Told largely African American audience that education was important, but that parents needed to be more involved - including turn off the TV, do homework w/ kids, don't cuss out the teacher if your kid behaves badly - Beaumont TX (wild cheers BTW from the audience on this)

John McCain's had one - criticizing Bill Cunningham (RW talk radio host) for repeated Hussein references, etc. (However, I've yet to see a repeat on the Steve King stuff)

Hillary Clinton - nothing...

Well, since Clinton has so graciously "rebuked" the comments of Taylor Marsh, Paul Krugman, et al ad infinitum, then certainly Obama should respond in kind.

Yeah, Obama will criticize Andrew Sullivan as soon as Hillary criticizes Rush Limbaugh.

Yup, I'm an Obama supporter and delegate (That's why I haven't asked for Hillary to repudiate Taylor Marsh's vitriol. Hillary hasn't promised to run a campaign whose premise is to dismiss "politics as usual", but Obama has.)

My point is simply that Obama is holding himself to a very high standard and also attempting to hold his official surrogates to a high standard. But folks like Andrew Sullivan who are diehard Obama supporters feel that their candidate has "tied his own hands" by promising not to engage in the usual sort of mudslinging, so they've decided to do it for him.

I totally agree that no politician is REQUIRED in any way to criticize the work of pundits who support them and who go overboard. Hillary doesn't have to criticize Marsh; Romney didn't have to criticize Limbaugh; Obama doesn't have to criticize Sullivan. But just think how refreshing it would be ... what a real change for the "new politics" ... if Obama did say a few pointed words critical of attack-dog Sully. Just a few choice words like, "I'm trying to run a dignified campaign and it doesn't help when some of my most vocal supporters sling mud at my opponents in a way that I find offensive. While I have no control over what they write, I do wish some of my defenders in the blogosphere who have been inspired by my message to be rid of 'politics as usual' would try harder themselves to practice restraint and balance."

And while the parallels to Sister Soljah aren't exact, there's no mistaking that Obama would be criticizing (however mildly) his own supporters, and therefore being politically bold. The point is to send a message to Clinton-admiring Democrats that Obama doesn't want to see his supporters engaging in over the top mudslinging. I think this could only help Obama in the primary process.

Andrew has indeed gone nuts. I really admire the guy in many ways, but much of his commentary has ceased to be respectable and really is Limbaugh-like entertainment at this point. The sad thing is, he's probably the brightest light on the Internet's professional non-aligned Obama supporters, so his hysteria tends to do Obama harm as well as good. I hope he'll be more readable once the primaries are over and his Clinton hatred hopefully be out of the way (assuming an Obama nomination, as I am).

I have never been much of a fan of Andrew Sullivan until now

He gets it and it is time other democrats did as well.....No it is past time that we rid ourselves of the PARASTIC CLINTONS and their fellow travelers

Joe Perez

DENOUNCEd AND REJECTed

Scales. Eyes. Clintons.
Andrew Sullivan gets it

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/scales-eyes-cli.html