In this post about how Barack Obama’s disposition plays out on national security and economic issues, I quibbled with Chris Matthew’s interpretation of Obama’s declining a cup of coffee in a diner. Andrew Sullivan linked to the piece and trenchantly exposed beverage choice as a less-than-critical campaign issue.

I agree, of course. Which is why the declined coffee (and the preferred juice) were mentioned only as an introductory launching point and the overwhelming majority of the post focused on Obama’s judgment in vital areas such as foreign policy, taxes, and crisis management.

But does Andrew Sullivan think beverage-talk is off limits for all candidates or only for his candidate? A few weeks back, when Hillary Clinton accepted a shot of whiskey in a Pennsylvania bar, Andrew cited the “cross-eyed boozing on a Saturday night” as evidence that “[h]er campaign has become worse than even I expected”.

If Hillary’s whiskey is fair game and Obama’s juice isn’t, then surely it’s permissible to write about Andrew’s Kool-Aid.

del.icio.us

Google

Facebook

This entry was posted on Friday, May 2nd, 2008 at 1:40 PM and is filed under Contentions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.