Andrew Sullivan poners Clinton's motives and can only conclude that he is.........

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

PSYCHO!!

The New Republic

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), March 01, 2001

Answers

What's more, he "ponders" as he "poners".

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), March 01, 2001.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe Andrew Sullivan is a psycho?

-- cyber freud (think@about.it), March 01, 2001.

I've always thought highly of Andrew Sullivan. Excellent piece.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), March 01, 2001.

Psychobabble garbage. Nothing but one man's opinion.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 01, 2001.

SENIOR EDITOR Andrew Sullivan

Andrew Sullivan has been with The New Republic since 1986, when he was an intern, and now writes the weekly TRB column. He graduated with first class honors from Oxford University with a B.A. in modern history. He received his master's in public administration and a Ph.D. in political science from Harvard University.

Sullivan served as associate editor and deputy editor before becoming editor from 1991 to 1996. During his tenure as editor, he was named ADWEEK's 1996 Editor of the Year. Under his editorship, The New Republic won the National Magazine Award for Essays and Criticism in 1995, and the National Magazine Awards for General Excellence and Reporting in 1992, with the first two National Magazine Awards overlapping with Hendrik Hertzberg's tenure as editor.

Sullivan is also a contributing writer to the New York Times Magazine, the American columnist for the Sunday Times of London, and editor of andrewsullivan.com. His writing has also appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Esquire, Poz, The Public Interest, Interview, The Advocate, The New York Post, The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, Slate, Forbes ASAP, America, and The New York Times Book Review.

He is the author of two books, Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality, and Love Undetectable: Notes on Friendship, Sex and Survival, and the editor of Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con.

*****

The "one man's opinion" of President Clinton comes from a writer and senior editor of a liberal bastion. If you do not agree with Sullivan's conclusion, Tarzan, can you provide an alternative explanation of the 11th hour pardons? Senior staff advised against the Rich pardon--quite vehemently if we are to believe their testimony. Sullivan (unlike many) does not think it was quid pro quo. If President Clinton did not receive cash or some other considerations, than how do you explain his actions? Perhaps you can make the case for the Rich pardon on its "merits?"

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), March 01, 2001.



Just because he's educated doesn't mean he's not out of his depth. All this man did is look at Clinton and say, "His behavior doesn't make sense to me, so he must be delusional," Then, Sullivan indulges in a long fantasy about exactly what is wrong with Clinton's mental health.

Frankly, it's nothing more than mental masturbation on the part of Sullivan. I can't believe you would actually defend it by pointing out how educated Sullivan is. You really shouldn't be so credulous and naive. It's sort of, well, sad.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 01, 2001.


And for the record, yes, I can provide an alternative explanation.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthoughthejunglewithouta.net), March 01, 2001.

Perhaps you can make the case for the Rich pardon on its "merits?" I don't think anyone will step up to that plate!

My guess is that he granted all these pardons as to thumb his nose, one of his many parting gifts. Though the psycho angle may hold some truth.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 01, 2001.


Tarzan the "Straw Man,"

I posted the TNR description not for his education, but for his liberal pedigree. I find a bit surprising that the senior editor of a well-respected liberal journal has made such a scathing attack. I do not find it surprising that you misread this point.

Sullivan does not call Clinton delusional. The former American president does not think he is Napoleon or Christ. Sullivan notes that Clinton has (among other things) a history of reckless and impulsive sexual behavior. It would take a professional evaluation to determine if these asocial behaviors were due to a clincally signficant mental disorder.

I do not think Sullivan is qualified to make this examination, however, he has every right to question Clinton's actions... and even his mental health. Clinton faced the same questions during his presidency... except that they rarely came from a noted senior editor of a leftist journal.

Oh, and I suggest you call senior Democrats with your explanation of the pardons. They seem unable to find one without your capable assistance.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), March 01, 2001.


Clinton pardoned Marc Rich cuz he thought he could get a piece from Denise Rich later on. Clinton is a scuz trailer-trash, always has been, but that's what makes him so loveable.

-- clinton's motives (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), March 01, 2001.


Nice bio Jose. I have always appreciated Libs that wern't constrained to spout the officially sanctioned boilerplate--Paglia, Sullivan, Kondracke, even Kingsley. I even think that Mort is straight.

Sullivan admits he is not a psychiatrist. So what? If people were obliged to have degrees in a subject in order to speculate on that subject then everyone here should shut up.

Tarzan, sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Maybe you don't remember how many remote speculations were made in the 70s on Nixon's mental health. There were even books written on it.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 01, 2001.


Jose-

I didn't miss it. I just figured you weren't simple minded enough to believe that liberals fall into lock-step on issues anymore than conservatives. Looks like I was wrong.

Of course Sullivan has the right to question Clinton's mental health. And I have the right to call bullshit when I see it. It's a free country, Jose. If you don't wish to read opposing opinions, I advise you to permanently sever your internet connection now.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 01, 2001.


Lars,

Alas, there is no requirement for a resume to post here. If so, I am certain he stands astride us (and Mr. Sullivan) like Atlas.

Tarzan,

I must defer to your expertise on the simple-minded. Given your recurrent use of the "straw man" argument, you must have far more experience debating the dim-witted than I.

If you do bother to read, you will see that I did not say Sullivan's article was unprecedented. If I thought liberals marched in lockstop, unprecendented would be the appropriate verb in English, I think. Instead, I said unusual. Why? Because in my reading of liberal journals during the past eight years, the literati have been quite kind to former President Clinton. I note, with some amusement, that the feminists who skewered Clarence Thomas were extraordinarily quite during l'affair Lewinski. Remarkable about how a difference in power was tantamount to rape until the sitting American President decided to sample an intern just old enough to have a glass of wine. It is somewhat comforting to know the high-minded feminist movement is as realpolitik as everyone else.

Finally, you have the oft-touted American right to an opinion, and even grace us with a stunning command of profanity. One can only wonder what new scatalogical insight you will offer next. At least until we are so graced, I will continue to remain connected to the Internet.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), March 01, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ