Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Andrew Sullivan: Obama Lost The Election

Andrew explains.

by Anonymousreply 11211/14/2012

There are two more debates so I think everyone is predicting results a bit early.

by Anonymousreply 110/09/2012

He is the very definition of a drama queen, reacting to every single campaign event with oversized emotion.

"The private sector is doing fine." OMG, Obama's going to lose!

Democratic primary: OMG, Obama's going to win!

1st Debate: OMG, Obama's going to lose!

He's exhausting ... and at this point, his prognostication skills are in serious question.

by Anonymousreply 210/09/2012

Andrew Sullivan is a gay Catholic apologist.

He is that anomalous person who is both brilliant and stupid simultaneously.

He is for intellectual entertainment only.

by Anonymousreply 310/09/2012

I haven't read the piece yet, but I have the following question, OP: Does Sullivan point out that the polling sample was heavily skewed towards older voters and whites?

by Anonymousreply 410/09/2012

no of course not.

by Anonymousreply 510/09/2012


by Anonymousreply 610/09/2012

Thank you 2012 Poll Troll!!!

by Anonymousreply 710/09/2012

Saying outrageous things is the way these punditry drones keep their gigs going. That's all it is.

If he was rational and level-headed nobody would care and he'd get no attention.

by Anonymousreply 810/09/2012

This reminds me. Bill Maher is having Ann Coulter and the GOP on his show Friday so I won't be seeing it. Andrew is usually on Maher at least once a season. Don't know if he will be around this cycle or not.

by Anonymousreply 910/09/2012

r8 is right

by Anonymousreply 1010/09/2012


He isn't going to lose. This is a campaign, everyone take a deep breath. The President is leading in the battleground states and while Romney may surge, in politics time, we have a decade before the election. Things will change and Obama will be reelected. You heard it here first.

by Anonymousreply 1110/09/2012

R11 what about Romney's spike among women voters?

by Anonymousreply 1210/09/2012

^^ which poll showed this spike, and who exactly were they polling? be specific.

by Anonymousreply 1310/09/2012

Romney erases Obama advantage among women in new poll

by Anonymousreply 1410/09/2012

So according to Andrew, just because Obama had a terrible debate night, the fact that unemployment is coming down,from 8.1 to 7.8, job growth is very slow but going up, the stock market is at it's highest levels in years, the deficit has been reduced by a couple of trillion dollars and government spending is at an all time low, Medicare has been giving a longer life thanks to $716B cuts imposed on providers like big pharma, with no harm to seniors, college loan repayment is tied to earnings now, children have healthcare who didn't have it, people can't be dumped from getting health insurance because of preexisting conditions, some of our trade agreements are being renegotiated to correct imbalances that favored other countries, the American automobile industry, which was teetering on the brink of extinction is now thriving, regulatory policies have be instituted in the financial services industry with more to come, and we have a President who has brought justice to the world's most vicious terrorist, a President who won't be bullied by other countries, who is respected around the world, who never embarrrasses us with ignorance and buffoonish behavior, this President, according to Andrew Sullivan, is going to lose an election to two empty suits who use scare tactics, lies and distortions to veil the fact they want to go back to the bad old days of Bush and get us in a war with Iran. etc.

by Anonymousreply 1510/09/2012

They are talking about the Pew poll, which has already been discredited by some sources.

by Anonymousreply 1610/09/2012

R15, I think I'm going to diagram that sentence. Amazing.

by Anonymousreply 1710/09/2012



by Anonymousreply 1810/09/2012

Wel they must have been polling old ladies in nursing homes because I can't imagine women voting against a Pro-choice President who signed the Lily Leadbetter Law for euqal pay, and who has stood strong for women's rights.

Next they will have a poll saying Romney is closing the gap with Gays because they think Paul Ryan is hot.

by Anonymousreply 1910/09/2012

R18 when you google Romney Female voters that is what comes up.

by Anonymousreply 2010/09/2012

Another troll post screaming an outlier's self important opinion.

No story here.

Is Sully still trolling the online Poz sites?

He needs to be kept in perspective.

by Anonymousreply 2110/09/2012

that should tell you something, r20.

by Anonymousreply 2210/09/2012

I would be interested in hearing Poll Troll talk about how the Pew poll has been discredited.

Meanwhile -- someone's citing a FoxNews poll as credible evidence that Obama will lose the female vote?

Seriously? Because Obama didn't have snappy comebacks, and hordes of women immediately thought, 'Well, that big handsome Mormon Mitt will certainly fight for equal pay and rights for me instead'???

by Anonymousreply 2310/09/2012

[quote]I would be interested in hearing Poll Troll talk about how the Pew poll has been discredited.

R23, from what I can tell so far, here is the problem with the Pew poll:

They polled 400 in the South out of 600 overall, only 12% were minorities & 0% were Latino.

by Anonymousreply 2410/09/2012

Thank you for explaining that skewed result, PT. Wow.

by Anonymousreply 2510/09/2012

I don't know if Sullivan is right or wrong, but he doesn't seem very measured in his responses.

by Anonymousreply 2610/09/2012

Sullivan has been screaming about Obama for 3 years.

by Anonymousreply 2710/09/2012

Milky Loads judgment is always in question considering his viral status.

He's a hysterical moron who is largely ignored.

by Anonymousreply 2810/09/2012

He is upset because it apparently flies in the face of his Newsweek cover story.

by Anonymousreply 2910/09/2012

I think you mean Sullivan has been CREAMING about Obama for 3 years.

by Anonymousreply 3010/09/2012

[quote] Meanwhile -- someone's citing a FoxNews poll as credible evidence that Obama will lose the female vote?

The Fox News article is citing the same Pew poll that Sullivan is making a fuss about. All of this hysteria is over one poll that is likely an outlier.

Meanwhile, yesterday's Gallup tracking poll puts Obama ahead by 5, and today's Rasmussen tracking poll has Obama and Romney tied.

by Anonymousreply 3110/09/2012

Romney didn't gain 12 points from the debate

However, the best indication so far is that he did gain 5 points

For example, the Gallup polls leading into the debate had Obama up by 5.

They typically average seven days of their daily polls to get their rolling average. They did a special release of data three days after the debate that said that the two candidates were ties in those following three days

If you look at a number of swing state polls done after the debate and you compare the results of that poll to the results in the state by that same polling firm, you see, on average, a five point swing

So it isn't 12, it is 5

That being said, 5 points is a lot

by Anonymousreply 3210/09/2012

Why bother freaking out over a poll that measures the popular vote? Obama's got the electoral vote locked up and always has.

by Anonymousreply 3310/09/2012

[quote] For example, the Gallup polls leading into the debate had Obama up by 5.

And the current Gallup poll has Obama up by 5 again (50-45). Which means, according to Gallup, that any bounce Romney got out of the debate has disappeared.

by Anonymousreply 3410/09/2012

R33, Romney is taking states now that O was owning by nearly double digits a few weeks ago.

by Anonymousreply 3510/09/2012


by Anonymousreply 3610/09/2012


by Anonymousreply 3710/09/2012

If Obama had trounced Romney it is possible that Obama's base might have become complacent and not bothered to vote.

I almost think he did a very smart thing by doing a passable job yet "losing" the debate. He didn't kick the man who was down, or come across as smug or invincible.

But having had a loss, his base will be interested and rooting for him, moderates will think he was justified in hammering Romney (if he chooses to do so), and conservatives will have plenty of time to lose interest in their candidate again. "Fighting back" is much better than being the "angry black man."

I think it could have been a shrewd move.

by Anonymousreply 3810/09/2012

I don't think it was deliberate, but I think the results might be the same, so overall it is a good thing.

by Anonymousreply 3910/09/2012


by Anonymousreply 4010/09/2012

I don't know about you all but Obama didn't win the debate, so I'm voting for Romney, the man who will destroy the country and my livelihood. Take that, Obama!

by Anonymousreply 4110/09/2012

Sullivan is kinda nutty but he has a point - its too many polls showing the same thing and PPP and Pew are very respected.

Don't know what to say ... looks bad ..

by Anonymousreply 4210/09/2012

Meanwhile, the freeper invasion continues on DataLounge....

by Anonymousreply 4310/09/2012

R42, PPP is already basically saying that Obama will go back up in their next poll in a few days time.

75% of today's PPP poll was taken in the two days after the debate before the Jobs Report.

And the Pew poll's problems were discussed earlier.

by Anonymousreply 4410/09/2012

R42, which other polls "show the same thing"?

by Anonymousreply 4510/09/2012

Well - there's the daily trackers, PPP, Pew and two others last weekend, forget the names.

They all show movement in Romney's direction.

Also - hasn't the Obama campaign been kinda quiet lately - they are probably trying to analyzing data, etc., to decide how to respond.

by Anonymousreply 4610/09/2012

"Movement" is hardly the same as winning, or even having a lead, R46.

by Anonymousreply 4710/09/2012

This guy on Daily Kos says it better than me.

This is rings true to me.

"Obama was 49 to 46 among white women in the previous poll. He's losing 57 to 38 among white women now. And you can see in the details that most of the damage was among white women with less than a college education. There Romney was leading 49 to 45. Now he's leading 63 to 31.

"These are the low information voters. These are the white ladies who work and don't follow politics online because they probably don't sit at computers while doing their jobs. The probably don't watch the news very often because after busting ass all day and taking care of kids, who wants to? The debate watch number was huge...60+ million. More than any debate in the 2008 cycle. It isn't unreasonable to say that for millions of these women they got their first look at Mitt Romney outside of ads and media coverage. And he made the best of that opportunity. Meanwhile, our guy was somewhere else so there was nobody to call Mitt Romney on his lies and bullshit."

by Anonymousreply 4810/09/2012

That idiot on Kos is a notorious malcontent who would rather bitch about Obama on any given day. A lot of the Kos krew live for being "more liberal than thou."

by Anonymousreply 4910/09/2012

Kos does have a point in that the less educated don't read the newspapers or watch the news, so the debate exposure had a big effect (probably not as big as he'd like, but big).

The only thing we can do to combat that is donate to help pay for TV ads that might reach the same population. Or volunteer to go door-to-door to reach same.

by Anonymousreply 5010/09/2012

Jim Lehrer, moderator of last Wednesday’s presidential debate, missed a golden opportunity. He could have asked these men any idiosyncratic questions he wished—questions that not only would have elicited revealing answers, but couldn’t have been censored and couldn’t have been rehearsed in advance. Indeed, in that unique setting (live TV, with 67 million people watching), Lehrer was the only man on earth with the power to pull this off.

True, had he done it, his career in broadcasting would have ended, and he likely would’ve been sued by the RNC. But on the positive side he would have gone down in history as the rogue journalist who, in front of a national television audience, asked the candidates questions that were halfway interesting.

Here are 10 questions Jim Lehrer could have asked:

1. What was the most difficult class you took in college? Good question. Gives them a chance to come off as pleasantly humble. If they say Organic Chemistry, we know they’re not lying. If they can’t recall even one class that gave them trouble, it’s not going to ruin them, but they’ll come off as inattentive or evasive.

2. What trait or talent does your opponent possess that you most admire or wish you possessed? Wouldn’t we all like to know this? Mitt might say he wished he could debate or play basketball as well as the President, and Obama might say he envied Mitt because, as a Mormon, he gets to wear magic underwear.

3. With the exception of your wife or mother, what woman has had the most profound effect on your life? Tough question, especially being sprung without warning. That’s why it would be fascinating to hear their answers.

4. Who are your favorite writers? They better have some, otherwise they’re going to sound uninformed, uninquisitive and uncultured….positively Palinesque.

5. Who are your favorite singers or musical groups? We’d all like to know this. Wouldn’t it be shocking if Obama said he liked the Carpenters and Eagles, and Romney admitted to being a fan of Lil’ Kim?

6. Do you believe that, even with its atrocious human rights record, we should continue to give financial aid to Ruwati? A trick question meant to test their honesty. There is no such country as Ruwati. Would these guys admit to having never heard of the place, or would they try to bullshit us?

7. (to Obama) Not counting Abraham Lincoln, who is your favorite Republican president? It’s Obama’s opportunity to answer with Dwight Eisenhower.

8. (to Romney) Not counting Harry Truman, who is your favorite Democratic president? This one could really hurt Mitt because he’s never followed politics, and doesn’t know who’s who. Moreover, shifting gears like this is alien to him. He must be careful not mention Ben Franklin or Alexander Hamilton, who were neither Democrats nor presidents.

9. What’s the last thing you did that you’re ashamed of? Granted, this bombshell could bring the whole shebang to a screeching halt, but it would be interesting to see them struggle with it.

10. What part of the Bible seems the most far-fetched? If Obama answers “None,” he’s clearly lying. If he says it’s Adam and Eve or Noah’s Ark, he risks alienating those Christians who don’t already think he’s a Muslim. As for Mitt, he’d be forced to admit that the Book of Mormon takes precedence over the Bible, finally bringing the topic of religion into the open. Not good.

These questions would not only be a mild exercise in psychodrama, they would force Obama and Romney to provide the American public with some genuine insight. If the point of the debates is to offer a close-up glimpse of the candidates, then why not do it right? Why not ask questions the public really wants to hear?

Are we more interested in the candidates giving their well-rehearsed, well-oiled views on Dodd-Frank, Simpson-Bowles, and deficit reduction, or would we rather hear them respond spontaneously to the oddball questions above?

by Anonymousreply 5110/09/2012

The scariest comments out there in the press are the mentions about how he actually thought he had done well in the debate when he left the stage.


I'm tired of all of the excuses - it is the moderator's fault, it is the altitude in Denver, Kerry didn't push him hard, Romney lied

The bottom line is that Obama (for once) needs to take some responsibility here

He didn't prepare well. His performance was for shit

Identifying and admitting the problem is part of fixing it.

If all of his advisers are telling him (and the world) that it wasn't him, he won't prepare well for the next debate

by Anonymousreply 5210/09/2012

In other words R51, you wish the debate would have looked like the multiple interviews Obama has done with People magazine, the View, etc

Stupid idea but at least he would have been prepared

by Anonymousreply 5310/09/2012

Maybe Obama should have made up lies and steamrolled the moderator, would the pundits have made the same conclusions about him as Rmoney?

by Anonymousreply 5410/09/2012

[quote]The bottom line is that Obama (for once) needs to take some responsibility here

You really are a fucking asshole. Just an absolute fucking asshole. Even during the debate, he took responsibility. He admitted to not having been perfect. He's even said it in interviews, so WTF is wrong with people like you who watch the GOP lie about everything and never take responsibility for anything -including the God damned economy which they were blaming Obama for within days of him taking office- lying about Obama never having taken responsibility?

They GOP even thinks Obama has been "apologizing" for this country, that's how fucking warped you people are.

You watched a party not take responsibility for eight years, then when the new guy came in, that shit party unloaded their own failures onto him, so don't mention Obama not taking responsibility considering what we witnessed prior to him entering office.

You're just disgusting.

by Anonymousreply 5510/09/2012

Obama's first words to his team offstage were that it was on him.

by Anonymousreply 5610/09/2012

Why aren't Democrats and liberals demanding that Obama and Company make debating the #1 priority right now? Remember, how Repubs publicly scolded Romney last month and told him he had to get his act together and do several things to keep from losing. Where is the Democratic accountability toward Team Obama to ensure that they are not blowing off more debates and have a winning debate preparation plan that is nothing like the plan they had for the first debates? Moreover, why aren't more debates demanding that Obama clear his schedule and make debates his ultimate priority? Repubs know how critical the debates are, that is why Romney started practicing in July and brought in some of the nation's best debate coaches. Dems know Obama stunk last week, but seem to be impotent when it comes to demanding evidence that it will not happen again.

by Anonymousreply 5710/09/2012

i love r55.

by Anonymousreply 5810/09/2012

[quote]Why aren't Democrats and liberals demanding that Obama and Company make debating the #1 priority right now?

Because he is President of the United States.

He has a job which requires most of his attention with crises in Libya, Syria, Spain and Greece.

"Ummmm...Mr President...look, we know the whole Syrian thing is important and Turkey business is, you know, worrying but can you just take a couple of dates for debate prep?"

Computer says no.

by Anonymousreply 5910/09/2012

r59 is right.

by Anonymousreply 6010/09/2012

If Obama loses and he causes the Congress to go Republican, Democrats should officially expel him from their Party.

by Anonymousreply 6110/09/2012

You should be muzzled, idiot r61.

You really are THAT stupid (or bad at trolling).

by Anonymousreply 6210/09/2012

Is he even a citizen? Deport him.

by Anonymousreply 6310/09/2012

[quote]If Obama loses and he causes the Congress to go Republican, Democrats should officially expel him from their Party.

The hint is "their", really.

If you're going to rabble-rouse, you need to make others think you are part of the rabble.

by Anonymousreply 6410/09/2012

I am siding with the poster who said that Obama needs to take more responsibility

This quote from a New York Times article (so I believe it is true) demonstrates the issue

[quote]Mr. Obama made clear to advisers that he was not happy about debating Mr. Romney, whom he views with disdain. It was something to endure, rather than an opportunity, aides said.

He was not happy about debating Romney???? What did he think was required to win reelection? Did he think this was a coronation?

Well, i certainly feel so very sorry for our president. How terribly difficult and monotonous it must be to have to actually work to get reelected.

I can hear him now - "Why can't I simply do another interview with People magazine or go on the Kelly & Michael show? Can't we just raise more money, ask people to go door to door and make calls on our behalf and be done with it?"

Arrogance kills and the (at least temporary) death of Obama's campaign is the manifestation of that axiom.

by Anonymousreply 6510/09/2012

stfu. you AND andy.

by Anonymousreply 6610/09/2012

Well Anderson Cooper said Obama was not taking responsibilty for his poor performance during his KEEPING THEM HONEST segment the night after the debates. He showed clips of Biden and one of Obama's advisor's talking about the debates and Anderson said they were intentionally trying to mask Obama's poor peformance.

by Anonymousreply 6710/09/2012

[quote] Well, i certainly feel so very sorry for our president. How terribly difficult and monotonous it must be to have to actually work to get reelected.

Fuck off, freeper troll. You're hardly one to talk about hard work. While Obama is leading the fucking country, you're sitting in your underwear, posting from your mother's basement.

by Anonymousreply 6810/09/2012

R68, get over yourself.

Because I have donated money to Democratic campaigns (including Obama) and because I have voted for a number of Democratic candidates (including Obama), I have the right to criticize the party and its candidates

I feel sorry for those of you who insist on falling in line and attack anyone who fails to do so, whether it is Cory Booker, former President Clinton, Senator Feinstein....and the list goes on. It is a bullshit way to run a party or a country

And your comment on me is so off-base that I laughed out loud.

If you only knew....

by Anonymousreply 6910/09/2012

[quote]I feel sorry for those of you who insist on falling in line and attack anyone who fails to do so

If you're going to attack the President, the least you can do is base your attack on something approaching reality. Your attack was so badly off base, so out of touch with reality, that it was laughable in its silliness. You deserve the reaction you're getting.

by Anonymousreply 7010/09/2012

Fuck off, freeper troll. You're hardly one to talk about hard work. While Obama is leading the fucking country, you're sitting in your underwear, posting from your mother's basement."

Once again R68, don't be such an ass. Obama is hardly the first US President running for re-election who had to "lower himself" to debate a less-worthy candidate.

For once Andy Sullivan is spot-on and Obama has no one but himself to blame.

by Anonymousreply 7110/09/2012

What R70 said.

by Anonymousreply 7210/09/2012

[quote]You deserve the reaction you're getting.

And you deserve President Romney

by Anonymousreply 7310/09/2012

What r68 said.

by Anonymousreply 7410/09/2012

[quote] Because I have donated money to Democratic campaigns (including Obama) and because I have voted for a number of Democratic candidates (including Obama), I have the right to criticize the party and its candidates

I'm getting tired of the trolls with their "I donated to Democrats" "I voted for Democrats" bullshit, followed by outrageous lies and over-the-top attacks on Obama and the Democrats that come straight from the GOP playbook. You're not fooling anyone. Your bullshit may work on some other sites, but it doesn't work here.

by Anonymousreply 7510/09/2012

there are random pumas here, STILL harboring a grudge that hillary didn't get the nom.

by Anonymousreply 7610/09/2012

Milky Loads belongs in a hospice at this point. His fatalistic mentality isn't exactly a secret.

by Anonymousreply 7710/09/2012


The PUMAs would have delivered Hillary both Arkansas and West Virginia but not Indiana. Obama won Ind. without Ark. and/or W.Va.

Doesn't matter much.

The PUMAs don't matter. What can be discussed is whether Hillary would have been a better Democratic Party president than Obama. I have questioned that. But it doesn't do any good.

by Anonymousreply 7810/09/2012

I was referring to the three states' electoral votes.

Arkansas: 6

West Virginia: 5

Indiana: 11

by Anonymousreply 7910/09/2012

[quote]And you deserve President Romney

Because you're an idiot with a grudge who's making shit up about "arrogance," I "deserve President Romney?" Okay.... So tell me, what color is the sky in your world? Out here, it's blue.

by Anonymousreply 8010/09/2012

Sullivan has never really pissed me off as much as he has some other DLers but he has always been a drama queen. This is no different, he's just running around shrieking about this when he should probably STFU.

by Anonymousreply 8110/09/2012

I wonder if he think he helps Obama's case when he runs around like this.

by Anonymousreply 8210/09/2012

Sully does not say Obama lost the election. He says Obama is in trouble, and here's how he recover. I don't think things are as bad as Sully presents them, but he's not unreasonable,

by Anonymousreply 8310/09/2012

So who wrote the headline?

by Anonymousreply 8410/09/2012

R84 - Sully's headline is "Did Obama throw the whole thing away". The OP wrote a different and misleading headline.

by Anonymousreply 8510/09/2012

Sully really is a hysterical queen. I seriously doubt it is helpful for Democratic voters to read such a negative, the sky is falling freak-out. It doesn't help the situation. It cause panic in some supporters and they will tune out.

He should have handled it the way Rachel Maddow has. No hysterics. Just continue reporting the facts and put things in perspective. On her Friday show, she did a very long segment taking us back to political history. The only candidate who has ever "won" a debate against an incumbent was Bill Clinton. Every other incumbent has lost his first debate.

I really wish some Obama supporters were more mature.

by Anonymousreply 8610/09/2012

I just hope they vote.

by Anonymousreply 8710/10/2012

Obama sunk himself with that Trayvon Martin quip. What head of state says something so stupid? He inserted himself into a case when all of the facts weren't in. I know lots of people he turned off with just that comment alone.

by Anonymousreply 8810/10/2012

No one knows what you're talking about, freeper/R88.

by Anonymousreply 8910/10/2012

Yes, they do know. When he made that statement about Martin looking like his son, if he had one, everybody was like "huh?" He also showed what a moron he is in the debate. We've got his ticket punched. Love that he's cool about gays but the American people are responsible for the betterment of the cause. There is no denying the charm of homosexuals. Only ugly people don't get gays b/c no gay would want nothing to do with them.

by Anonymousreply 9010/10/2012

r88 now you've shown your true colors.


by Anonymousreply 9110/10/2012

R88 makes a good point about how presidents shouldn't inject themselves into court cases -- remember when Nixon declared the Manson Family guilty, and Charlie waved the LA Times headline at the jury?

Well, maybe you don't, but the feeling then and now is that the President should keep out of those things.

by Anonymousreply 9210/10/2012

Yes, that statement was uncalled for. Now had Martin not been a good looking kid, would he say that? Also, Treyvon was better looking than anyone Obama could put out.

by Anonymousreply 9310/10/2012

omg, such a freeper invasion!! ^^

by Anonymousreply 9410/10/2012

You may laugh, but when he's worked up to that special pitch of hysteria his ass muscles will milk you so hard you'll shoot such loads as never before!

by Anonymousreply 9510/10/2012

Andrew, did you include those you polled under the dick dock?

by Anonymousreply 9610/10/2012

Asking if he lost the election is not saying he lost the election.

But you knew that, didn't you?

by Anonymousreply 9710/10/2012

[quote]Obama sunk himself with that Trayvon Martin quip.

LOL... Omigod... are you still obsessing about something that nobody even remembers, much less cares about now?

[quote]What head of state says something so stupid?

Since it wasn't even remotely "stupid," I'm not sure what point you think you're making.

[quote]He inserted himself into a case when all of the facts weren't in.

No, actually, he didn't, as even a cursory look at what he actually said would clearly show.

[quote]I know lots of people he turned off with just that comment alone.

So you know some more morons like yourself? And I'm supposed to be impressed? You really should stop posting before you make yourself look even dumber.

by Anonymousreply 9810/10/2012

[quote]And I'm supposed to be impressed?

How did you possibly get the impression that he was trying to impress you?

How self-centered of you.....

by Anonymousreply 9910/10/2012

R88 is a racist asshole.

by Anonymousreply 10010/10/2012

Piers Morgan called him out by name and mocked him and other pundits for their collective hysteria after the debate. He called Sully "the voice of doom" and said "grow a pair, the lot of you."

by Anonymousreply 10110/10/2012

I'm sick of Sully being portrayed in the media as a "big Obama supporter". Anyone who's read his column a few times or seen him on Maher knows he will be pulling the Republican lever in November (as usual).

by Anonymousreply 10210/10/2012


by Anonymousreply 10310/11/2012

Piers has been kissing Romney's ass for months, R101, so I'm not sure why he's calling anyone out.

by Anonymousreply 10410/11/2012


by Anonymousreply 10511/08/2012

AIDS dementia.

by Anonymousreply 10611/08/2012

Sully never said Obama lost the election.

by Anonymousreply 10711/08/2012

[r106] I should hope that instant karma provides you with something similar.

by Anonymousreply 10811/08/2012










by Anonymousreply 10911/14/2012

Obama has actually mentioned Andrew Sullivan, so that it is one of the blogs he monitors. I think it's good that Andrew went nutty on that. Maybe it helped dear leader's backbone gel a little.

by Anonymousreply 11011/14/2012

"dear leader"?

Fuck you, freeper.

by Anonymousreply 11111/14/2012

Why is it so few people on DL can read?

Sullivan was asking whether Obama had blown the election due to his poor performance at the first debate. He was not saying Obama had lost the election.

And he was asking a very pertinent question. A question that disturbed me as an Obama supporter similarly to the way it disturbed Sullivan And we were not alone. Exhibit A: Chris Matthews who almost suffered a stroke on the air he was so distraught by, in Bill Maher's words, Obama's failure to show up at the debate.

And, as was said above, people making clear to Obama that he blew the first debate made him a much stronger candidate for the balance of the election.

by Anonymousreply 11211/14/2012
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!