Well it seems my love/hate relationship with Maher is back on the upswing. This cycle actually seems to alternate so regularly from week to week that we could have a biweekly poll on what statement Maher will make next to set me off. I’ve noticed that he only seems to be a douche when there isn’t someone already occupying that niche. Lucky for him, Wesley Clark and Andrew Sullivan met the quota of idiotic remarks quite early on this time. I also expected Bill to say something about the incident with the Truthers from last show, but he wisely avoided mentioning it. You win this round Maher.

Sullivan readily exaggerates or makes up lies completely to support his position. In a video I made long ago, I pointed this out in a line-by-line analysis where Sullivan hurled insults and untruths towards Noam Chomsky simply because he didn’t agree with his politics (that video has since been deleted by YouTube). Sullivan’s standard method of argument is to feign outrage at an opponent’s legitimate position, then to say whatever he can to attack their character. Wesley Clark also uses lies to boost his position, but he’s a bit more mature in his approach. In fact, his kind trouble me a great deal more than Sullivan. As a Cintonian Democrat, Clark is your typical hawkish warmonger who wants America to regain the greatness it had just before George W. Bush came into office. In actuality, that great utopia never existed.

Clintonian values are capitalist right-wing values (which is why only one person with a superhuman amount of charisma has ever been able to sell them successfully to the American people). Clintonian Democrats don’t want to end warfare, they simply want to wage it more competently. Though Sullivan was exaggerating in standard fashion when he said Hillary was “Cheney in a pantsuit”, Clintonians like Clark are not above presenting false information to justify sanctions or military action. This pro-war mentality is evident in Hillary Clinton’s support for the Kyl/Lieberman amendment, and Clark’s disgraceful defense of her vote. A former general ought to know the difference between a terrorist organization and a branch of the Iranian military, yet he came off as ignorant as Traitor Joe as he shoveled through talking point after talking point. His position can not be attributed to a lack of information. Clintonians actually happen to be very well informed on all issues, as Clark demonstrates when he cuts through the Western assumptions and fears of Muslim dress. The problem is that despite their obvious intelligence, these Democrats have extreme moral failings. I’m more concerned with the evil geniuses than the evil idiots.

h/t Tullycast