Those convicting may be the guiltiest of all

Some perspective on the whole Clark kerfuffle.

Andrew Sullivan has spent substantially more time unrepentantly condemning Wes Clark for making a factually true statement about John McCain (regardless of tone or perception), than the brief acknowledgement made of John McCain and his crony Joe Lieberman attacking Barack Obama for being "endorsed by Hamas" (which acknowledgement happened to come as an aside amidst Sullivan's gushing praise of McCain's character).

Sullivan's strongest condemnations of McCain: "Ugh" and "It's a lame and cheap shot. And beneath McCain." Compare those to Sullivan's screeds against Wes Clark yesterday. Or, if we must compare apples to apples (or surrogates to surrogates), compare Sullivan's reaction to Wes Clark to his minimal reactions to the almost daily offenses by Joe Lieberman against Barack Obama.

But, of course, there's the rub. Andrew Sullivan insists for some reason on believing that that type of commentary is "beneath McCain", whereas he has complete contempt for Wes Clark (and what is the basis for that? I'd really like to know), so Clark gets none of the benefit of the doubt. He refuses to doubt McCain's integrity, even when McCain's offense is unpardonable. As a result, when McCain makes a comment that is subject to no positive interpretation, such as the charges that Obama is the candidate of choice of a terrorist group, Sullivan still knows deep down in his heart that there is a "good McCain." (I guess it is similar to the way that George Bush was able to get a sense of Vladimir Putin's soul when he looked in his eyes.) To the contrary, when Wes Clark responds to Bob Schieffer with Schieffer's words (carelessly, I agree, but not inaccurately), Sullivan (and all of those "tone deaf" Democrats) are subject to Sullivan's condemnation and ridicule.

Very telling, indeed.