Andrew Sullivan's latest whine about Clark, under the heading "Worse than Clinton?

"Relentlessness is Clark's greatest virtue, also his greatest flaw. Speaking to a NEWSWEEK reporter on the night he announced his candidacy, Clark did not want to let go until he was sure the reporter understood him — not just understood him, but respected him, believed him, appreciated him, liked him. Clark quivered with a desire to please. He tapped his feet, jiggled his knee, leaned forward, his bright eyes searching imploringly. "Am I being too theoretical?" he asked. "I want to make sure I answer all your questions," he insisted, two hours into an interview into which he had touched on Plato, the higher calling of the soldier-statesman, the art of persistent diplomacy and, in Clark's view, the many failings of the Bush presidency."

Wow, a candidate that can engage a reporter for two hours, citing philosophy, history, and sociology? A feat that betrays an inquisitive nature and a thoughtful intellect? Goddammit, didn't we get rid of that crap when Clinton left office? What a miserable candidate! Bring me your dense, your incurious, your rhetorically challenged! (If you missed the editorial in today's NYT on Bush's insulated mind, you have to read it.)

Does this seem like a strange criticism coming from an Oxford man?