ANDREW SULLIVAN continued

The goods news is: last I checked, I've had almost 4000 page views. That was before Andrew linked to me.

The bad news is: if I had to pick an article to hit it big, it wouldn't have been this one. But so be it.

Here's Andrew's answer:

NOW, I'M JUDAS: Here's an over-wrought attack on yours truly as the Judas of Bush-supporters. Please. Oh, and I'm also "Zarqawi's microphone." Actually, I'm even more important that that: "I suspect Andrew Sullivan has done more damage to the president, and more help to Kerry, than George Soros and MoveOn with all their billions." My power, it frightens me. A simpler explanation is that I'm a blogger who tries to call things as I see them. When facts change, I try and adjust. I never believed the Iraq liberation would be this botched; and it behooves those of us who supported it to be accountable. (God knows, the Bush administration won't take responsibility.) I've learned in life that error is not something to be afraid of. But fear of admitting error is. And so my mounting misgivings about this administration are simply a function of watching and thinking. I could be wrong again - especially about Iraq. (I've enthused about progress in Afghanistan and wherever I can find it) All I can say is: I hope to God I am wrong. And if I am, and my worries turn out to be baseless and Bush pulls this off somehow, I will not stint in giving myself multiple retroactive Von Hoffmann awards. Promise. Nothing would give me more pleasure. And if Bush wins the election, I will draw a line below all of this and do all I can to support a war I believe in. But first: accountability. And the truth, as far as I can see it.

Okay, first, I'm amazed at the efficiency of the blogosphere! When I wrote this article a week ago, I would never have imagined that it would get four pageviews, let alone 4,000.

Second, this was a quick lesson in how "soundbites" get picked out and spun through the web in a manner that might be somewhat unfair. My first reaction to this commenter who wrote

After reading articles from your blog and your 'Judas' article on Andrew Sullivan, I've come to the conclusion that I will vote for Sen. Kerry. Even though I'm a Republican, I don't consider myself an evangelical, or right wing, however supporting Pres. Bush is something I cannot do. The virulence of the most of the Blogs on both the right and the left do more trashing than discussion; all say anyone who disagrees with them are traiters or a Judas (your money quote). Your 'Judas' article (no matter how you may view yourself, right, left,or centrist)does much to undermine any balanced approach that is referenced on the blog. Your caustic rebuke of Mr. Sullivan has made my choice easier. I'm sure you will label me a Judas, and if so, I will wear it with pride

was to think that he hadn't understood the subtlety of the piece. No, I won't call this commenter a Judas, and I'm not calling Andrew Sullivan a Judas either, in the sense of "a traitor, like history's most famous traitor." After all, there's another side to the piece: I was trying to use a contemporary figure (Andrew Sullivan) to cast light on a historical figure who has been too much maligned, Judas Iscariot. I claim, for example, that Judas did not realize he was betraying Jesus to his death. I emphasize that Judas made the admirable step of following Jesus in the first place.

Let me add that the greatest tragedy in Judas's life (in my opinion) was not that he betrayed Jesus. It was that he killed himself in despair afterwards. If he had only waited three days, he could have been embraced by Jesus and forgiven. Years later, after Judas had joined the apostles in preaching the Gospel, after Judas was martyred by Nero after many years of successful missions, Jesus would greet Judas at the Pearly Gates, and the memory that Judas had betrayed Jesus would have been something they'd laugh about together, in joy. That was my point, too. Isn't that something worth writing?

But to this defense, my commenter might answer, "Yeah, you can claim it was subtle and so on, but you knew 'Judas' would be the 'money quote.' All that subtlety, including your first line, 'I want to begin with a few words in defense of Judas Iscariot,' was just for plausible deniability when you got labelled an extremist."

To which I would answer, I'm new at this. And anyway, I would never have believed that Andrew would be linking to me a week later.

I was impressed by Andrew's response. One commenter says:

Your "Judas" article is magnificent. It didn't change my vote, but provided a much needed justification for why I should continue to read AS.

Yeah, me too. I haven't read Sullivan much lately, but I will now. Honestly, I still do admire the guy. And honestly, I really do have nothing against Judas Iscariot, other than the deepest pity. I think Andrew was complimented by my piece. And he should be: it's full of praise for him, after all. Consider it a longer version of Mickey's criticism, that Andrew's "too excitable." And I sure am complimented by the link!

Comment freely. E-mail is also welcome.

By the way, some more initiatives. I was thinking of inviting other people to join the LancelotFinn blog (not the web page). I'll be the boss for now, but if you think you have some good writing skills and you want to get on board a blog that may be picking up a fair number of links, send me an e-mail, a description of yourself, and a writing sample. This might be a bad idea, but it's worth a try. I would love to make this a collaborative effort.