Andrew Sullivan, Fabulist

According to the Sully Standard of Journalism, if you fail to quote a source in full and thereby distort the speaker/writer's meaning, you're a "fabulist." Let's test Sully against his own standard.

Sully writes in the London Sunday Times (Warning: Freeper link; Rupert can sue those assholes instead of me):

What [Senator Hillary Clinton] cannot do is run for president as the partner in an open marriage designed entirely for political ends. Americans simply cannot accept that kind of arrangement in their head of state. Unless she disproves that impression, she is finished.

The trouble, of course, is that the impression is largely true. Even the left-liberal New York Times couldn't disguise this fact in a story this week about the Clintons' still-evolving relationship: "For much of the last two years," The Times reported, "the Clintons have been acting as independent operators. They have a home in Chappaqua, New York, and a home in Washington. Mrs. Clinton spends every weekend in New York, where Mr. Clinton spends most of his time when not traveling. They are much more apt to be seen traveling individually, rather than as a couple. Sylvia Woods, owner of Sylvia's Restaurant, near Mr. Clinton's office in Harlem, said the former president rarely came to her restaurant, though Mrs. Clinton regularly turned up. 'I need to talk to them about that,' Ms. Woods said. 'They need to come in together sometime.' Similarly, in Chappaqua, solo appearances by the two Clintons appear to be the norm. Residents said they often saw Mr. Clinton walking around town with his dog, chatting with neighbors or dining in delis and restaurants. 'I see him quite a bit,' said Kirk Sprenger, who owns a wine shop in Chappaqua. 'He walks through downtown with his dog, stops in at Starbucks for coffee.' Asked if he ever saw the Clintons together, Mr. Sprenger quickly said: 'Never. Oh no, I have never seen them together.'" Of course there's nothing wrong as such with that kind of distant, open marriage. If that's the way the Clintons want to set up their relationship, it's their business. The problem is that America is in many ways a publicly conservative - or at least quietly hypocritical - culture. Americans - especially in the heartland between the two coasts - don't particularly want their president as an exemplar of a transparently post-modern marriage.

The entire column is a half-assed clip job, devoid of any original thoughts. But more significantly, Sully manages to distort the meaning of the New York Times article, which reads in relevant part:

For much of the last two years the Clintons have been acting as independent operators. They have a home in Chappaqua, N.Y., and a home in Washington. Mrs. Clinton spends every weekend in New York, where Mr. Clinton spends most of his time when not traveling.

They are much more apt to be seen traveling individually, rather than as a couple. Sylvia Woods, owner of Sylvia's Restaurant, near Mr. Clinton's office in Harlem, said the former president rarely came to her restaurant, though Mrs. Clinton regularly turned up. "I need to talk to them about that," Ms. Woods said. "They need to come in together sometime."

Similarly, in Chappaqua, solo appearances by the two Clintons appear to be the norm. Residents said they often saw Mr. Clinton walking around town with his dog, chatting with neighbors or dining in delis and restaurants.

"I see him quite a bit," said Kirk Sprenger, who owns a wine shop in Chappaqua. "He walks through downtown with his dog, stops in at Starbucks for coffee." Asked if he ever saw the Clintons together, Mr. Sprenger quickly said: "Never. Oh no, I have never seen them together."

But John Crabtree, owner of Crabtree's Kittle House, said that the couple came in together frequently, often with distinguished guests.

Associates of the Clintons said today that Mrs. Clinton had spent much of the Congressional recess in Westchester writing the book, and that Mr. Clinton was there much of that time. Two friends of the former president said that Mr. Clinton had raved about what he had read as she was preparing it. (Emphasis added.)

Sully's doctoring is every bit as substantial -- and deliberate -- of a distortion of the original source as is the infamous MoDo quote Sully won't shut up about. The subject of Sully's screed may not be as significant as the subject of MoDo's, but Sully's selective quoting is every bit as misleading. Sully's clip-job is designed to convince his mainly British audience of his "Clinton open marriage" thesis by eliminating the portions of the source that don't support Sully.

Even more misleadingly, the Times article nowhere suggests that the Clinton marriage is or ever was an "open marriage." That is the fantasy of thigh-rubbers (as Bob Somerby would say) such as Sully and his pal Dick Morris. (Perhaps Sully thinks he read that Bill and wine merchant Kirk Sprenger are getting it on at the Starbucks.)

Verdict: Sully is a cut-and-paste fabulist. And a talentless hack too.