Since I will not link to either his drivel or Tina Brown’s little rag, you’ll have to find it on your own.

That would be the latest example of Andrew Sullivan’s, Why Are Obama’s Critics So Dumb? in the latest issue – if it can be called that – of Newsweek.

But that’s not really what this post is about. It’s about Andrew Sullivan as a public intellectual, who some feel should be evaluated in the same breath as the late Christopher Hitchens. This is the view of folly.

Sullivan isn’t fit to slurp up Hitchens’ post binge vomit. His writing is predictable and his best years as a public intellectual were way back before he blessed us with his presence on these shores.

He is a dull-witted, unimaginative twit who can’t write a word without consulting his wandering penis and firing up a fat one, and not necessarily in that order.

Sullivan wallows in boredom disguised as self-righteousness culminating in a damp thud of attempted British catholic schoolboy enlightenment.

He shelters himself in the cloak of Orwell invocation, never realizing he’s naked underneath, with his balls shriveling in the chill wind of reality.

He finds himself beholden, like the whore he is, to the latest power that suffers his presence on the pretense that he represents conservatism in any form. He has become a favored plaything of Bill Maher and Tina Brown, wagging his tail with joy at the attention like one of his fabled beagles.

One expects this sort of behavior from a lapdog. A public intellectual, not so much.

Christopher Hitchens was many things, but never a lapdog.