Andrew Sullivan: Can Barack Obama fix it? Yes he can

[RamboLiberal]

Magnanimity in victory: that was Churchill’s advice. And since his precocious victory last November, Barack Obama has walked that Churchillian walk. It is not common in politics, especially after a meteoric rise past every prejudice, every smear and every Clinton, but Obama has an old soul’s perspective and an intellectually secure man’s confidence. Perhaps he has too much confidence — except that every time his friends feared that in the campaign, he proved them wrong.

-----

He sensed that Hillary Clinton needed independent respect in defeat. He couldn’t give her the vice-presidency, which she desperately wanted, because it would have given her a dangerous rival power base if they succeeded. So he offered her the next best thing, and she, unlike her husband, was smart enough to say yes.

He realised that Rick Warren was an egomaniac and wanted some kind of platform, so he gave him a largely symbolic role at the inauguration and allowed Warren to preen. He knew that what Washington pundits really craved was not the truth, but a sense of their own importance. So he let them throw him a dinner party.

He sensed that McCain was in deep emotional withdrawal after his horrifying and crude descent into raw partisanship last autumn. And so he celebrated the old, bipartisan McCain and asked for his support in the Senate.

This is not typical for politicians in any climate and era. In the post-Clinton, post-Bush divide of the US, it’s a shock of sorts, and one most Washingtonians have yet to absorb. More shocks, I suspect, are to come, as people begin to realise that the new politics Obama promised is actually more than just a marketing device for a campaign.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5536734.ece

[navarth]

1. Thanks for the post. But I'm still gonna need a couple more years of this from Sullivan

before I forget his egregious behavior supporting Bu$h.

My answer is still: thanks a fucking lot, Andrew. Where the hell were you when we needed you?

Sorry if I'm a party pooper, but it takes a good long time for me to stop being pissed off about that kind of stuff.

[nsd]

7. Sullivan turned against Bush five years ago.

How many more years do you need?

I've really enjoyed reading the Daily Dish, Sullivan's blog. I don't agree with him on many issues, but I'm always interested in hearing what he has to say.

[navarth]

8. 5 years ago? Not how I remember it.

I specifically remember hearing him on Bill Maher numerous times, spouting Bu$h support. If you say he changed 5 years ago, I'd like to see proof, but I won't make a big deal about it.

As to how many years I need: MORE. There's a mountain of dead bodies as a result of the last 8 years. Sullivan could have been fighting it from the beginning. He wasn't.

This won't keep you from enjoying his blog, so I won't worry about that.

[PM Martin]

9. I am with you.

Also, it seems Sullivan is more in love with Obama's words than anything else. He still opposes and moderate/center left economic policies.
Sullivan is trash.

[QC]

10. Sully has been a creep for a very long time, going back to publishing racist crap

in The New Republic and cheerleading for Bush's wars.

The fact that he's been somewhat reasonable for a year or so doesn't make up for that.

[PM Martin]

11. Exactly right.

And to think he wants to preach to us about race relations and morality.
Considering his colorful past, he still fits in with the group of right wing extremists he came from.

[nsd]

12. Here is a Sullivan article from July 2004 in which he indicts Bush.

link

If you look at the archives of his blog, you'll see that Sullivan had been anti-Bush for some time before that.

Trying to lay a "mountain of dead bodies" at the feet of everyone who supported Bush in 2000 or even those who supported the Iraq invasion in 2003 is going to get us nowhere. It would mean the bitter divisions of the past eight years would just go on and on. Fortunately, that's not what PE Obama is about.

[PM Martin]

16. Well

too many around here lay the "mountain of dead bodies" at Hillary Clinton's feet all the time.

[navarth]

18. Hillary is responsible too, isn't she?

She voted for it. And IMO she did it based on political expediency rather than what was right; this kept me from being enthusiastic about her canidacy.

OF COURSE I would have voted for her over poor John McCain. So what? That doesn't mean I put blinders on.

I think we ALL share the blame to varying extents. But Sullivan, Hillary....they had a direct say in it. All I could do was vote, blog, contribute, argue, knock on doors, call representatives, etc.

If you want to start a pro-Hillary flame war with me, please do it privately. I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings and I don't want to trash this thread. Like I said in my 1st post, I don't want to be a party pooper. I just have a reaction when I get the feeling someone is trying to exonerate people that don't deserve it. Maybe I'm wrong.

[PM Martin]

20. I still don't like Sullivan.

and will say that he is a ton of a lot worse than Hillary.
Didn't VP-Elect Biden co-write the law that gave Bush the power to go to war against Iraq?
Just saying. It's a fact.
We should be more forgiving towards those on our side who we agree with 90% of the time than
our opponents who agree with us only 10% of the time.
It is wrong to place Hillary and company in the same boat as conservatives who supported Obama/Democrats due to their disdain for their own party.

[navarth]

23. agree wholeheartedly.

Happy MLK Day!

[navarth]

17. "going to get us nowhere"

Okay, then what do you suggest we do? Forget about all the carnage? Excuse me, but....

Look. I understand the concept you're talking about. No revenge, let's move on, etc. I understand.

But if you let them get away with this shit you're leaving it open for somebody else to do it. It should not be forgotten.

Letting Nixon go scot free back in the 70's led to the abuses of the Bu$h IMO. There should be a reckoning. Or we can let our children or grandchildren deal with this kind of fucking evil all over again.

I hope that you can understand MY point of view.

[nsd]

19. Blame Bush. Blame Cheney. Blame Rumsfeld.

That's fine, but if the net of blame sweeps up everyone who supported Bush in 2000 (a bit less than half the voting population) or those who voted or voiced support for the IWR (which includes Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton), then that's going too far. At some point, you have to allow that, whatever mistakes they've made in the past, people still might have something valuable to say. It does no good to pretend there's no difference between an Andrew Sullivan and a William Kristol -- they're not the same.

(And specifically about Sullivan, my main point was that your assertion about the recent-ness of his anti-Bush conversion was simply incorrect.)

[navarth]

22. okay.

Happy MLK Day!

[tblue37]

14. He endorsed and actively promoted Kerry on his blog

in 2004.

[Cha]

2. He is certainly magnanimous

in victory as he would have been a good loser.

[MadMaddie]

3. Andrew has written a fine piece!!

I will see how he covers the first 100 days.

K & R!!

[firedupdem]

4. Recommended. That is really interesting article. I don't know if

all the answers are spot on but they sound reasonable to me. I'm so glad we elected this guy.

[rug]

5. Undoubtedly. Now who can fix Andrew Sullivan?

[PM Martin]

6. Who can?

A few weeks back, this $%$#*$& wanted to talk with Rick Warren, now he sees Mr. Warren as being self-serving. Sullivan can't keep anything straight.

[MaraJade]

13. Hope Hillary reads this one. . .

She has been used as a dupe, and she needs to know that. Hopefully she finds out
before too late.

[PM Martin]

15. What do you mean?

"Hillary has been used as a dupe?

[Number23]

21. Damn fuhr'ners... what the hell do they know??

Happy to rec... :)