Earlier this afternoon at 12.50 p.m.:
"Palin And Warren. Christianism may be the common thread between their shared and bizarre views of the First Amendment. Warren somehow believes that the existence of my civil marriage violates his freedom of speech. And Palin, remember, had a similar view . . . These people have the strangest understanding of the constitution of the United States - and that strange understanding is rooted in their theocratic view of the world."
Notice how Sullivan can't attack Warren without bringing a woman into it (usually Palin or Hillary).
Little did Sullivan know that Obama would shortly announce the inauguration day schedule - - with Warren giving the invocation. Well, that must be a woman's fault, too. By 3.20 p.m.:
"Ugh. Rick Warren will give the invocation at Obama's inauguration. Warren is a man who believes my marriage removes his freedom of speech and cannot say that authorizing torture is a moral failing. Shrewd politics, but . . . He won't be as bad as the Clintons (who, among leading Democrats, could?), but pandering to Christianists at his inauguration is a depressing omen."
Sullivan just can't go after or express disappointment with a man without somehow blaming a woman. What does Hillary have to do with either Warren or Sullivan's disappointment with Obama? It's not Hillary's inauguration. Don't blame her for the guest list, or use her to deflect attention.