Many on the left will deplore my saying so, but I happen to find Sullivan's excitability lovable--even, at times, enviable. We all--including the demigod Obama--have our character flaws: Sullivan's is, as noted, the all-too impulsive punch; mine, were I honest with myself, is a too-jaded sophistication of an often feigned indifference. I envy innocence. At my age I can't alter my flaw any more than Sullivan can alter his, though I'm compelled to confess, his is probably the more attractive.
But this sentence from Sullivan, today, is incontrovertible:
I cannot imagine a pro-Romney blog doing what I just did to Obama.
I do disagree with Sullivan's strategic choice of a ruthless assault on Obama's debate failures just 30 days before what is perhaps the most critical election of our lifetimes. Yes, absolutely, I get all that intellectual objectivity stuff and the lone voice and wilderness thing; however, there is a time for courageous independence and there's a time for strategic unity--period. Some principles derived from my old Marxist days I just can't shake. Sorry (or not). I should add, though, that many among contemporary conservatism's synthetic origins were former Marxists themselves, who well understood the indispensability of hanging together. They did. And they won.
Whatever. Sullivan concludes on an inspirational note:
I haven't given up. I've just been given an electric prod to get back into the arena. And fight back.
And one can't ask for more than that. What's done is done. Forward.
Sully was just adorable yesterday. He reminded me of a ten year old girl at a sleepover, who's just seen a mouse under the bed. But I'm glad to see that today he's been prodded back to reality. I'm just wondering, though. As a Brit, can he recognize the political equivalent of Pickett's Charge? What we've just seen is the high tide of the Romney campaign.
Posted by: shsavage | October 10, 2012 at 01:24 PM
It's not so much his horrified reaction in real time that bothered me. He was hardly alone in that. It was the fact that he kept beating that horse until today, and even suggested Obama was lazy and watching too much ESPN to care about the debate.
I'm of the mind that his reaction, along with Matthews, Schultz most visibly, and others, breathed considerable oxygen into the "debate was a rout/disaster/calamity! all is lost!" narrative. When Obama's supposed cheerleaders are saying it, it gives the rest of the media more license to run with that juicy story. I'm not sure if this phenomenon moved the polls, but it certainly wasn't helpful.
I like it that our side is more honest and all, but I do sometimes envy the right wing media's ability to unify on a message and stick to it, and even drag the mainstream media to it in many instances. Were roles reversed and Obama was the slick liar while Romney was the one with the underwhelming performance, I really think the right-wing media would have immediately done everything they could to move the conversation away from Romney and towards Obama's mendacity. Obama's fans in the media were all over the place, and many of them were all too eager to let the story be about how much Obama sucked rather than Romney being a lying scumbag. Dionne's quip was on the money.
I think Obama will do much better going forward, and the media expectations game has now built Romney up as the best debater since Lincoln's day. So hopefully we'll get a better result and a better media narrative from the next one. In which case, Obama will go from the narrow lead he still has now, back to his commanding lead, I think.
Posted by: Turgidson | October 10, 2012 at 01:34 PM
I recently watched an interview on weekend CSPAN-2 with an author who wrote a book about the statistical mechanics of modern campaigns. Sorry, I forget the name and title.
He was a man in his 30s who does the micro-polling and testing of micro-messaging and test surveys of what works and why. It is obvious this field has gone through a quantum jump since 2000, especially in terms of accuracy and precision.
One takeaway is that Obama's has on-the-shelf, ready-to-deploy micro-marketing campaigns that have just been waiting for whatever Romney might do. This has been evident all year. You could also see it in how seamlessly the major speaches at the conventions were tied together in concepts and phrasing.
Based on that, I assume that the campaign has focused on swing states this week to protect the lead where it counts most. Also, those campaigns are being monitored to see what works best with what demographic. All this is being incorporated into Biden's debate strategy, as well as the formulation for the full blown counter-attack coming out of those debates.
the bed-wetting wing of the party might be having the vapors, but you can bet your sweet ass that the Chicago Boys are not. They are having fun.
Posted by: Robert Lipscomb | October 10, 2012 at 01:49 PM
@shsavage re:Pickett's Charge ... a wonderful analogy! I too believe that we have just seen the Romney campaign peak and that we will see President Obama's poll numbers recover before election day.
Posted by: Ansel M. | October 10, 2012 at 01:50 PM
F Sully and the lime-sucking horse he rode in on. Maybe he should watch ESPN. The Indianapolis Colts were most instructive this past weekend on loyalty and perseverance.
Posted by: Bruce Adams | October 10, 2012 at 01:55 PM
I just find it interesting that Willard advanced in the polls by taking positions to the LEFT of Obama. Of course he's totally lying, but I still maintain that Willard is not the etch-a-sketch candidate but he depends on an etch-a-sketch electorate.
Posted by: AnneJ | October 10, 2012 at 03:23 PM
@AnneJ: That just shows you how bankrupt neo-Reaganomics is.
Posted by: Robert Lipscomb | October 10, 2012 at 03:24 PM
I agree with you, Robert but if we are saddled with a Romney presidency, that's exactly what we'll get.
Posted by: AnneJ | October 10, 2012 at 03:33 PM
Love this. Yes, to most of us more level-headed Democrats, our reaction to the debate was, "Huh, Obama seems a bit tired and off his game. Oh well." But Sullivan lives in a world of hyper-ventilating drama. It's part of why I love him, though. His writing is punchy, fun and occasionally makes your think. You just have to realize when he's emotionally self-immolating, and that he'll come back to earth in a day or so. He. Does. It. All. The. Time. The guy's all heart. And it's a good heart.
Posted by: Jason | October 10, 2012 at 06:10 PM
I was just thinking as I read Twitetr: "Enough with the Sully bashing already!" Apparently, he's in the middle of a move from DC to NYC. He must have thought his whole world was being turned upside down. And from what little I read of him, he looks like hasn't run away while everyone and his uncle has been criticizing him.
Posted by: You Don't Say | October 10, 2012 at 07:06 PM
Hey, Mr p.m.
I found someone even more expressive than you
http://www.thesadbastardbar.com/2012/10/have-you-all-lost-your-goddamn-minds.html?m=1
Posted by: sanaya | October 10, 2012 at 11:07 PM
I don't believe in demigods and am not particularly impressed by "punchy" pundits; so I feel I'm clear in calling Sullivan a perpetually-overwrought jerk. Considerably less here than meets the eye.
Check out Joe Jervis' excellent blog for a magnum of Sullywhine. Apparently NYC does not measure up to his expectations, not at all.
Posted by: Marcia E | October 11, 2012 at 08:28 AM
Marcia, "perpetually-overwrought" might be accurate, but I wouldn't think of Sullivan as a jerk. He seems like a genuinely good guy. It's not many bloggers who publish pointed dissents of their posts on a daily basis. I appreciate that Sullivan faces the music and is willing to change his tune when he realizes how off-key he is (okay, overuse of metaphor--my apologies).
Posted by: Jason | October 11, 2012 at 09:43 AM
You're entitled to your opinion, and all the rest of it. I haven't been impressed by his goodguyness yet.
Posted by: Marcia E | October 12, 2012 at 08:51 AM