With you on this one, Mr. K.  Andrew's grip on reality is a mite loose when it comes to the Clintons.  Sadly, it's a subject that he beats with the fervor of a coke-addled kettle-drummer.

A "national imperative", now, eh? Beyond parody.

Change that nick from The Excitable One to The Imperative One.

How is this misogyny?

Why in the world is misogyny the only explanation?  Why is that any more likely/sensible an explanation than hatred of blond people, or hatred of people whose name begin with an H?  Or, for that matter, hatred of Hillary herself, for reasons other than to do with her gender?  I'm not disputing that Sullivan's unhinged on the matter of the Clintons (both of them), just that you are making a logical error no less egregious than his.

I don't get misogyny out of that.  At all.  It may be a stupid argument motivated by a strong affinity for Obama and strong dislike for Hillary (the latter of which, for me anyway, has grown quite a bit over the course of this campaign for many reasons).  But how does it show woman-hate?  Even remotely?

Hmm...if you think that's nasty, you shoud check your own backyard.  Perhaps not as loathsome as Sullivan -- and he is loathsome -- but still, TNR's Get-Hillary machine has, in its own way, been just as puerile and vicious.

After refusing to touch the Jeremiah Wright story with a ten-foot poll, the Clinton campaign has evidently

Yes, James, we understand that Hillary trying to keep the Wright affair in the news is good for John McCain, and that you therefore approve. But thanks for the confirming memo anyway.

(And sorry; that's a much snarkier response than this piece deserves. The non-snarky response would be to point out that this is, in general, a good post by Kirchick. Except for the bit where he says that only "deeply-felt misogyny" could explain Sullivan jumping on Hillary for her sudden decision to re-raise the Wright issue. Where does that come from? It is not misogyny to criticize Hillary Clinton, any more than it is anti-Semitism to criticize Bibi Netanyahu. Which, I know, Kirchick would regard as proof of anti-Semitism, and therein lies the error in thinking that leads him to throw around accusations of misogyny in this instance, but the point stands.)

James Kirchick is the John Derbyshire of TNR online

Andrew Sullivan, misogynist? Of course!

First, he's a Brit, which means misogyny is in his DNA.  Second, he's a queen, so the only woman he likes is himself.

Agreed. I've read pretty much everything Sullivan has written over the past months. It's not a dislike of women or of Hillary. It's a dislike of all things Clinton, probably most significantly rooted in DOMA.

What's more disturbing about Sullivan is that he has gone so far out of his way to defend Wright (while giving perfunctory lip-service about how he disagrees with Wright each time he posts some new "view Wright in context" angle) that yesterday he started making excuses for Pat Robertson.  

Today I think he gave a clue why he's so invested in Obama and against the Clintons: Iraq.  In his response to Hitchens' anti-Obama screed, he said if it turns out Hitchens is right he'll "again" be deeply embarrassed.  I think Andrew sees personal redemption to Obama and thus Obama has become not just good but pure, and Clinton(s) not just bad but evil.  

Though I disagree with James here, it should be noted that Sullivan himself once confessed to having a tin-ear as to how women react to attacks on Hillary (responding to emailers) and promissed to do better in the future.  I think he failed.

James Kirchick responds with:

-- Yet the sum of [Andrew Sullivan's] very many unhinged and often baseless attacks against her amount to a peculiar obsession. It is an obsession that mirrors the right-wing commentary on Hillary, much of originates out of a resentment towards ambitious women.

It takes only two words, James, to prove your thesis is a crock of shit:  Margaret Thatcher.

I think you have Sully wrong, here is a glimpse of the root I believe: andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.../clinton-on-gays.html

While the clip is possibly an example of the triangulation that Sully thinks lead Clinton to throw gays under the bus with DOMA, it is hardly egregious.  Then add in Travel-0age, Whitewater, Monica-gate, etc. and you have the makings of a real dislike. After that, confirmation bias takes over...  But hardly misogynistic...

I have to agree with kirchick's take here, regarding AS and in many ways, tnrland, especially that funhouse of Hillary Hate, the Spine.

Hillary really does get to a certain kind of person, particularly a certain specimen of male. .And Kirchick raised a good - and unspoken but seemingly obvious - conclusion: She shrivels the nuts of so many of these manly men, right down to the dimuniative size of the steriod blitzed Cansesco BBs. It is painful and kind of amusing to witness.

Score one for kirchick. Now, go tell your mentor to read this post and look in the mirror.  

misHillary?

"deeply-felt misogyny?"  Would Kirchick write that if Sullivan weren't gay?  No, Sullivan's post doesn't reveal mysogny; but Kitchik's reveals homophobia.

James, good of you to respond. Brave of you to respond! Kudos. And aside from the misogyny argument, I do appreciate the quality and tone of your two posts today. Good stuff.

I know you tend to think in terms of categorical associations, wherein if person A argues for X, and Trotskyite anti-Semites also happen to argue for X, then person A must also be a fellow-traveller with the Trotskyite anti-Semites. Hitchens also thinks this way. It can, at times, offer insights into ideological connections that other modes of thinking do not catch.

But most of the time, and this is one of them, that mode of thinking about the world is crap. For example, I am not a Nazi fellow-traveller because I happen to favor a robust national superhighway system, and I'm not a Reaganite dupe because I happen to favor significantly increased spending on the U.S. Navy. Nor does the fact that Sullivan dislikes Hillary in stronger terms than you feel warranted make him a woman-hater, no matter how much some other people might dislike Hillary because they _are_ woman-haters.

I can speak from personal experience when I say that it is quite possible to be a Democrat who strongly prefers to vote for women for public office and still think very, very poorly of Hillary Clinton as a potential nominee and/or president. Simple reference to her record of dishonesty, incompetence, and active support for anti-liberal policies is quite sufficient to single her out for harsh criticism and low expectations among all leading Democrats.

misogyny? James do know what this word means? Does is it strike you as strange that that you  of all people would write "the sum of his very many unhinged and often baseless attacks against her amount to a peculiar obsession.."

While you're looking up the definition of misogyny, try irony, too.

as a Catholic I don't exactly choose my pastor or my church but am assigned my church and pastor by virtue of my neighborhood. the fact that kirchick and hillary don't seem to know this simple fact is pretty scary. Or am I supposed to drive halfway across town to go to a different parish church because of a dumb sermon my pastor has said? Or should I renounce my faith because of what some Pastor said (which would please agnostics such as kirchick or Hillary)

What Hillary said was dumb. Obama belongs to the United Church of Christ, which is essentially a white church (at least in percentages of membership and leadership.) perhaps he chose his faith based on the dogmas of his faith and not because of any Pastor. below is a list of all the evil people who belong to the UCC:

   * Daniel Akaka — U.S. Senator from Hawaii (Democrat)

   * Max Baucus — U.S. Senator from Montana (Democrat)

   * Julian Bond — Chair NAACP (2004–present)

   * Walter Brueggemann — contemporary theologian, poet, and UCC minister, retired professor at Columbia Theological Seminary

   * William Sloane Coffin — Late Presbyterian/UCC minister and activist; 'pastor, prophet, poet'; former Chaplain at Yale University and Senior Pastor of Riverside Church, New York City

   * Common — Rapper, recording artist, member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

   * Jon Corzine — Governor of New Jersey (Democrat)

   * Howard Dean — Former Governor of Vermont (Democrat)

   * Mark Fernald — Former New Hampshire State senator pg 10

   * Donald Hall — United States US Poet Laureate [42]

   * Mills Godwin — Former Governor of Virginia

   * Bob Graham — Former U.S. Senator from Florida (Democrat)

   * Judd Gregg — U.S. Senator from New Hampshire (Republican)

   * Jim Jeffords — Former U.S. Senator from Vermont (Independent)

   * Dean Koontz — American writer and author. Raised UCC, now is Catholic. [43]

   * John Williamson Nevin — notable 19th-century theologian [44]

   * Barack Obama — U.S. Senator, 2008 presidential candidate

   * Robert Orr — Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations [45]

   * H. Richard Niebuhr — notable 20th-century theologian

   * Reinhold Niebuhr — notable 20th-century theologian

   * Sally Pederson — former Lieutenant Governor of Iowa (Democrat)

   * Leonard Pitts — Nationally syndicated Pulitzer prize–winning (2004) columnist

   * Marilynne Robinson — Pulitzer prize-winning (2005) author of the novel Gilead

   * Philip Schaff — notable 19th-century theologian [46]

   * George Smathers — Democratic Senator from Florida [47]

   * Max L. Stackhouse — public theologian and professor at Princeton Theological Seminary

   * William "Bill" McKinney — President of Pacific School of Religion, since 1996

   * Paul Tillich — notable 20th-century theologian

   * Andrew Young — Civil rights leader, ordained UCC pastor, and former member of Congress, UN ambassador, and mayor of Atlanta, Georgia

yes, kill them all for worshipping at such a radical and divisive church.

Yeah, I don't think it's misogyny.  Sullivan hates Bill Clinton equally, if not more so.

The source of his hatred (which is fair game for speculation since his blog is so confessional) is most likely that he feels that Pres. Clinton betrayed the gay community.  He has no problem with those who never pretended to be other than enemies to gay people (e.g., Reagan), but he focuses his wrath when he feels scorned.

This would also explain why he defended Ron Paul when it was evident that he was consorting with anti-semites but stopped once Jamie exposed that he was also consorting with homophobes.  Similarly, Wright's anti-semitic ravings may be offset by his positive "context" considering Wright has been atypically accepting of gays.

I think Andrew is a little overblown here, but not clear on why his Clinton-hatred is any different in quality than, say, Marty Peretz's. Is Mr. P also a mysogynist? Safer to say he's got an anti-Clinton bias, and leave the psychoanalysis out of it.

That said, while her invoking of Wright isn't any more "desperate" or "out of bounds" than any of her other recent behavior (and somewhat less so than some), it's so transparently political and cheezy that it's more annoying than anything else. Kind of like her "hand still extended" after snub-gate or her "change you can xerox" line. It's just an attempt to score points in the most obvious and unsubtle way.

That it buys into the Fox talking points (i.e., assumes that Obama knew the content of the most probematic sermons, and that such sermons were far more commonplace than they actually were), is just an accident. If the liberal media were at him about this, she'd be no less likely to pile on.

And, on defending Wright, he's far more pro-gay than pretty much any African American preacher with that kind of profile. Whatever his flaws may be, that's a Good Thing.

PS. The more obvious example of stupid political chese that Clinton serves, that's also very similar is her "denounce and reject" criteria for dealing with Farrakhan.

It's not particularly desperate. It's just standard BS.

Deep and abiding dislike of a particular ambitious woman is not misogyny, Jamie.  That his disdain for her is motivated by misogyny is decidedly not "as reasonable a conclusion to make as any."  There is no shortage of non-sexist reasons to dislike Hillary.  My own personal distaste for her has grown a great deal over the course of the campaign (I had previously been puzzled by the degree of venom towards Hillary from the Right).  Is it reasonable to conclude that  I am slowly becoming more misogynistic?

If you want to accuse somebody of misogyny, you could at least cite some misogynist comments that he made, or at least some evidence that relates to more than one specific person.

blackton -- I think Hillary is referring to what you do in the first part of your post: she's talking about the particular church, not the branch of Christianity.  

I still don't find the "forces you to drive across town argument" convincing.  Here's an example: Father Caughlin, one of the worst anti-semites in American history.  If he was your pastor, wouldn't you make the drive?

Obama went to a church that gave him a certain level of cred with the folks in Chicago that didn't think he was black enough: white mother, raised by white grandparents and attended Harvard Law. Cynical? Yeah, sure, of course it is. But is it any more cynical than John McCain, a lifetime Episcopalian, changing to Baptist when he decided to make another run at the White House? Or Sam Brownback, the guy that attends the Catholic and Methodist churches? Or how about all the Republicans that spend time kissing the ring of Reverend Moon? I guess guilt by association only goes so far.

I'm with ndmackenzie on this. Andrew is no mysogynist. He merely sees Hillary as an extension of Bill, whom he loathes. I think he fears (not entirely without good reason) that she would represent the worst of the Clinton years combined with the worst of the Bush years. And this playing of the Wright card -- after playing just about every other card in the deck -- does little to counter that fear.

bigm - fascinating post, esp about The Excitable One's sudden turnaround on Dr. Paul. Good catch.

Hell hath no fury...

mpatrick - exactly my point. This thing never would have gotten legs if Obama had just treated us all like adults and said, in so many words with his usual skill, "I'm a politician. This is what politicians do! Chill, already." We know this, we get it, and we expect it from politicians right left center white brown black male female dubiousgender etc.

But we all know that Obama is no mere politician. He contains multitudes.

As recently as late 2003, Sullivan worshipped Bush. His falling out with Bush was over gay marriage, foolishly brought into the 2004 campaign by the Mayor of San Francisco. Sullivan's falling out with Clinton occurred when he didn't fight hard enough in the struggle over gays in the military.

You can't blame Sullivan for defending gays, but he should, as a matter of full disclosure, come clean on the matter.

Why Marty hates Clinton is beyond me. Probably got snubbed by him at some unimportant event that Marty wangled an invitation to.

No, attributing Sullivan's opinion of Hillary to misogyny is not, as Kirchick would have it, is not as "reasonable a conclusion as any."  It is completely ridiculous.  On the other hand, my dislike for Kirchick is absolutely attributable to my misogyny, or at least that's as reasonable a conclusion as any.

remind me again why anyone pays any attention to andrew sullivan any more? after his "fifth column" remark and his multiple views on iraq and his various obsessions that come and go.. seriously, what do you get out of reading him?

r-ennis, good explanation about why he hates Cllinton -- he didn't fight "hard enough" for gays in the military, even though it cost him big poltically.  In Sullivan's "excitable mind" (thanks, tep), not fighting hard enough ifor his agenda s like a betrayal.  Sullivan has made a career of special pleading.

Exactly the same thing has run through my mind about PM's animus towards Clinton.

perk - I checked out of reading The Excitable One years ago. The secret of his success on the innernets is that at any given moment his obsession de l'annee will attract a large following of obsessives. When he was maniacally pro-invasion, he attracted a huge following among the Glenn Reynolds crowd; when he did his 180, he swapped Reynolds for Arianna Huffington's followers. Now he's gets all the Obama boyband groupies: in another 2 years or so when Obama goes hard right on gays, he'll demonize Obama and win back the Glenn Reynolds crowd.

E la nave va

I'm sorry James, but it seems unfair to argue that someone is misogynistic, acknowledge that there's not really any direct evidence of misogyny as such, and then say, well, it's as good an explanation as any.  The burden of proof is (justifiably) higher for incendiary accusations of that sort.  If I didn't know better, I would suspect on your part the sort of homophobia that brands gay men generally as misgonynistic.  Does that mean there must be a smoking gun before an accusation like that can be made?  No, but in this case there are numerous explanations that have little to do with attitudes toward women, or strong women.  While I suppose that much of the Hillary-hate out there is colored by a bad attitude toward women, the fact is, I'm beginning to understand Hillary-hate a lot more than I did before.  An impression has been forming in my mind anyway that Hillary is unguided by principle and will stop at nothing.  Others have been saying this for years, but I never internalized it because, frankly, I was never aggrieved by it.  As an Obama supporter, like Sullivan, now I am and so now I'm attuned to that critique of her and, to some extent, buying it.  Partisans of any stripe *routinely* exaggerate their candidate's virtues and the other candidate's faults, especially if they feel strongly about the contest as Sullivan does.  Meanwhile, in the quote you cite, Sullivan talks about *the Clintons* and not Hillary exclusively, which explicitly takes gender out of the equation.  Moreover, he talks about a *long-standing* hatred of the Clintons, motivated, no doubt, by the view that *Bill* is a sleaze -- that long-standing dislike strikes me as a far more plausible explanation for his over-the-top criticism of Hillary now.

Why does Peretz hate the Clintons?

Two words: Al Gore.

perkowitz writes:

-- remind me again why anyone pays any attention to andrew sullivan any more? after his "fifth column" remark and his multiple views on iraq and his various obsessions that come and go.. seriously, what do you get out of reading him?

Andrew Sullivan is relevant today because he produces an interesting blog. His various obsessions enhance his blog rather than diminish it.  I am sure there are many readers who appreciate his very public agonizing over Iraq. I find his multiple views on Iraq to be more preferable than the rote monotony of far too many commentators on the right. Andrew Sullivan has done an incalculable service in publicizing American use of torture.

The irony is that the criticism of those who read Andrew Sullivan appears in a comment on a blog post by James Kirchick  who is easily the weakest blogger on The New Republic.  It is impossible even to imagine a James Kirchick blog absent the institutional crutch provided by The New Republic or Commentary magazine.

Gosh, Blackton, what a weak argument. So by your logic if you knew your parish priest was a child molester you wouldn't drive three miles to the next church? If your priest advocated that women shouldn't work outside the home, you wouldn't switch your place of worship? If your priest proclaimed that Protestants were responsible for all the street crime in your neighborhood, you'd stay put?  

The Dish is a great resource for funky youtube clips. I've discounted it's political content a long time ago.

"Kitchik's reveals homophobia."

Are you kidding? Say what you will about him, but that's, like, the one thing where Kirchick actually isn't a hater.

NDMAC:  Two excellent posts.  Odd how I agree with you on most topics but Israel, where we are mortal enemies.

JIM RICE:  You're really on a roll today.  Have you ever met an offensive slur you didn't like?  Furthermore (this part is also  for r-ennis, whose views, as with Rice's, I have on occasion agreed with): It wasn't only Bush's anti-marriage stand, it was EVERYTHING.  His chucking out human rights vis a vis torture (which he's been discussing almost ad nauseum, on this topic, if such a thing is possible); his complete bungling of this war; his huge federal spending; his using gay marriage as a hate-mongering technique; uh, oh yea, Katrina.   And lest I forget, his absolute moronitude. His constant propaganda.  Oh, God, I could go on. Do you ever read Andrew, or does your homophobia keep you from typing in his address, out of fear you might catch cooties.  (And God knows whether there's also a little homosexual panic going on.)    

MPATRICHENDRI:  Great point on guilt by association.  

Wow, Molly, thought you were messing with all of us for a minute there, with an imagined online conversation between eNdee and jack, and mpatrick popping in for a non sequitur.

peter, this got dropped, so sorry if it shows up again. I just am a bit hyperdefensive about the rights of churches having belonged to an underground Catholic one during my 7 years in China. Believe you me, there was no recording of sermons (to be honest, i didn't really understand most of them anyhow, the regular church service I know regardless). In the Patriotic Catholic churches priests are forced to speak glowingly about China's leaders so I have a different take on cursing out injustice. Yes, Wright went way overboard but isn't it wonderful to live in a country where people can curse out their leaders (or maybe not, since it seems it is true only in theory that they can). My wifes cousin also spent two years in prison for practicing Falun Gong, which I admit is a crackpot religion but so what?

I certainly don't condemn anyone who goes to the Patriotic churches or the priest who practice there though there are many who do.

So now in America we are going to surrender our true freedom of religion (which includes dissent, even nasty dissent) in the name of what exactly? Faith is far too easy in the United States whee we can get sidetracked by this nonsense.

Tep:  Wow, it gives one ideas.  You're very clever, and I think you should be the one to attempt a potentially very funny, very Beckett-like idea.  All the loud-mouths, including me, could talk over everybody else.  

I'll defer to Yard on that one, maybe adaglas and Chan as well, with boneill and danny in supporting roles as Vladimir and what's-is-name

ndmackenzie, again, I agree with you entirely. You're dead right about Sullivan and why he continues to be one of the most influential and important bloggers out there. His positions aren't hard-wired and he treats his readers like adults, rather than the red state/blue state robots that the rest of the blogosphere panders to. I respect him very much for his evolution on Iraq -- which mirrors my own -- and I admire the fact that right wingers and left wingers hate him pretty equally. And that, to my mind, is a significant badge of honor.

Your post is idiotic, and implies that merely disliking the Clintons strongly is tantamount to sexism.  Find another job.  What Sullivan said was dead-on.

writeth tep:

"Now [Sullivan] gets all the Obama boyband groupies:.."

funny. Thinking I might really be an "Obama boyband groupie" turns me on. An Obama fetish? S & M's for Obama. Lipstick dykes...

Jamie, would you please do us the favor of revealing one or two of your secret hates and blind prejudices. From your writing you would seem to be as sterile and inscrutable as a nanoid.

(Apologies to nanoids.)

tomeg:  Hilarious.  

Nope. Sullivan worships Margaret Thatcher, and [the undeserving] Madonna. If anything, he LIKES powerful women. Just not this one, you know? It's not as though he hasn't explained and explained and explained the basis of his hatred. And as someone who shares it and absolutely I swear is not sexist, I can vouch for it being enough. You don't have to assume he must be sexist, for lack of any other explanation. We haters, a lot of us just care about honesty and integrity, that stuff. Both Clintons drive us nuts, and we are in turn baffled by those who don't see what we see.