Comments on: Andrew Sullivan: An Anti-Clinton Compilation

By: EngGirl

EngGirl — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:59:49 +0000

You might have already run across this, and perhaps I’m sidetracking, but Christopher Hitchens too makes a strong case for Clinton-hating in this Slate article: http://www.slate.com/id/2182065

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:10:02 +0000

Oh yeah, almost forgot: Sully sucks, too. Figuratively, that is, not lit… oh, never mind.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:06:37 +0000

I think Justin is technically right that “exacerbate” can be a synonym for “aggravate,” but ultimately, wrong. The reason the two can be synonyms is that “aggravate” has a second sense that also doesn’t apply here, e.g., heavy smoking may aggravate/exacerbate/*exasperate the effects of many diseases.

By: Patterico

Patterico — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:00:49 +0000

This dictionary entry appears to confirm Justin's argument. I still think it throws people off. Where in the heck did you first see or hear that word used that way, Justin? By the way, I think you're all wet re: Sully. IMHO.

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:55:41 +0000

This is a great blog and I’ve learned much from reading the posts and comments over time. But seriously, Sully? I used to read the guy religiously until he jumped the shark over gay marriage. He’s a single issue partisan who chose a politically opportune moment to get back into the good graces of the chattering class.

Still, on the off chance that Sully might truly have become worth reading again, I clicked on and read the last eleven links you provided. He’s still cliche’d, hysterical and entirely predictable. So he doesn’t like the Clintons. Get in line. That isn’t a redeeming characteristic by itself.

This is the guy who banged the war drums louder and longer than almost anybody only to stab the troops in the back when he didn’t get a government sanction of his particular lifestyle choice.

Here is the quote where I stopped reading. It comes from link #33:

It really is time to acknowledge that Clinton is running for a third term – in flagrant violation of the 22d Amendment. He’s fighting for unelected power by proxy – just as his wife fought for hers in 1992 and 1996. Their deal is now explicit. And their goal – four terms between them – is in their grasp.

I’m sorry. I can’t stand the Clintons but they aren’t violating the Constitution by campaigning for the presidency. Sully’s just as hysterical and wrong as he has been for the last four years. His is an emotionally based appeal to whatever constituency he’s decided he’ll pander to at the moment. He’s hitched his wagon to Obambi right now but rest assured, he’ll be trashing him very soon.

By: Justin Levine

Justin Levine — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:57:12 +0000

If you want to change it because you feel the word is a distraction – fair enough. But since I have no intention of giving up the word and will likely be using it again in the future, I feel the need to have this on the record:

From the American Hertiage College Dictionary, Fourth Edition –

ex.ac.er.bate tr.v -bat.ed, bat.ing, -batesTo increase the severity, violence, or bitterness of; aggravate [Lat. ex-, intensive pref; see ex- +acerbare, to make harsh]

Some examples of it being used in a similar context as I have used it –

http://www.poetrybackwater.com/five/xi_5.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CEED91530F931A1575AC0A967958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

I have no problems with having my vocabulary corrected. But I honestly feel this is an instance of others who simply need to broaden their own.

By: gp

gp — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:03:24 +0000

Another thing to give Sullivan credit for: he’s still anti-jihadi. Even though he reversed his Iraq War opinion, and sympathizes with jihadis tortured by the USA, he still regards jihadism/IslamoFascism as a serious threat. Most other lefties (yes, Sullivan is a lefty, despite his self-identification) either discount the threat, or actually side with the jihadis.

By: DRJ

DRJ — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:16:30 +0000

Robert Reich is also exasperated with Bill Clinton, but what I found most interesting is the agreement from many of his commenters who claim to be Democrats and *former* Clinton supporters.

By: David J Harr

David J Harr — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:03:21 +0000

Your comment that “Sullivan remains a writer that should not be dismissed” brings to mind one of my favorite Dorothy Parker (an entirely underappreciated wit) quotes:

“This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.”

Frankly, in my opinion, Sully should be “thrown with great force.”

David

By: Sue

Sue — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:57:56 +0000

How did we get from Sully to “exacerbate” (which sounds kinky)? What a waste!