actually, i'd suggest that diiulio had a second commentary: the lack of respect for substance.

Since sullivan doesn't believe in substance either, he certainly didn't notice.

More broadly, sullivan has started to fill out the right-wing attack template against diiulio: too much of an academic, other-worldly type.

Of course, they had to take this line after the first thrust - those dirty liberals at Esquire! - turned out to be unsustainable.

I do have to admire the ingenuity and flexibility of the right wing attack squad to change tactics on the fly.

I still can't believe you bother reading Sullivan's website. While his musings on popular culture are somewhat interesting and thoughtful, he's a dud on anything of substance. I wonder what his response will be when the Gang of Five (them what installed Bush fil) rule that state sodomy laws are constitutional?

Hmmm... DiLulio retracts his "point" whatever it was. Blackmailed by Rove and his evil henchmen, no doubt.
see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A692-2002Dec2.html

Tim,

The problem with not reading Sullivan (I admit I don't) is that lots of other people do. For instance, the Confessore piece on Krugman in the Washington Monthly identifies right-wing pundits as being far less restrained by the facts, much less manners, than those on the left, then goes on to cite Sullivan's one-man war on Krugman without comment. Sullivan's history in journalism and the reverence he has earned from the wannabe-intellectual right means he is all over the place, even though he has given up on objectivity and meaningful contribution to debate. Not reading Sullivan is, in a very small way, like not listening when Kissinger speaks on foreign policy. You know his pronouncements are now mostly meant to justify earlier actions, but his profile is just to high to ignore.