Video: Ingraham versus Hitchens on endorsing Obama
posted at 1:43 pm on October 19, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
In which Hitch follows Buckley’s and MacDonald’s lead and gambles the war on terror on the premise that Obama won’t be as left-wing in office as his background suggests. The exchange is more interesting as banter than debate, but it’s fun watching Ingraham yell at him and surreal to see one of the world’s foremost skeptics taking The One’s exquisitely timed tack towards the center over the past few months at face value. I never figured him for a cheap date. Here’s hoping she does have him on her radio show and asks why he supposes Obama will persevere in Afghanistan when his darling base has already soured on the cause. As Biden famously said at the VP debate, past is prologue. They would have left Fallujah, which is at long last finally secure, for dead if they’d had their way; why will Kabul be any different?
Since we’re on the subject, today’s must-read is the Times’s analysis of statements given by Iraqi detainees confirming something we’ve been writing about for a year and a half: Iran and Hezbollah are building a proxy army of Iraqi Shiite militiamen. Surprise.
The prisoners’ accounts cannot be independently verified. Yet the detainees gave strikingly similar details about training compounds in Iran, a clandestine network of safe houses in Iran and Iraq they used to reach the camps and intra-Shiite tensions at the camps between the Arab Iraqis and their Persian Iranian trainers…
The documents portray an Iranian strategy to use Iraqi Shiites as surrogates, in part to avoid the risk of Iranians being captured in Iraq. In one of the intelligence reports, a prisoner tells his captors that “Iran does not want to fight a direct war” with American forces in Iraq because Tehran worries that the United States would destroy Iran…
American officials say it is still murky just how much of a direct role senior Iranian officials take in the training, although they say they believe that it takes place with at least the tacit approval of elements of Iran’s government. The documents do not provide any direct evidence of senior Iranian government officials overseeing the training.
Not only is there training allegedly going on outside Tehran, it’s going on in Lebanon too — which also shouldn’t come as a bombshell. (In June, the AP claimed it was going on inside Iraq itself.) The Times of London hinted in May that the U.S. knows where the Iranian camp is and was weighing an attack, but it looks like Bush is leaving that loose end to his successor. Ingraham might want to run that by Hitch, too, to see how lucky he feels.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
It just struck me now that Hitchens strongly resembles the Louis Prothero character from the motion picture V for Vendetta.
ManlyRash on October 19, 2008 at 1:47 PM
There goes the Thurston Howell III vote.
CanadianGuy on October 19, 2008 at 1:51 PM
No offense AP, but it has been my experience that most atheists end up having religious like faith in something. For Hitchens maybe that’s his own intellect or powers of perception and prediction. Or maybe it’s the Obamessiah himself.
“When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything.”
– GK Chesterton
(Honestly, no offense meant AP. Just offering my opinion.)
D0WNT0WN on October 19, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Oh shit, she killed him. Nice.
He was literally dumbfounded when he had to resort to idiotic talking points.
Good point Hitch made with Obama on going into Pakistan though. I have to admit Obama did tack to the right of McCain on that one and had it been the reverse, you KNOW all of us would be defending and cheering McCain for saying it.
Dash on October 19, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Hitchens is almost comic character, and i’ve never felt insulted by his provocations.
Aristotle on October 19, 2008 at 1:54 PM
I’m a big fan of Christopher Hitchens, but I’m as frustrated by his endorsement of Obama as is Ingraham. It made me happy to hear her attack Hitchens on this.
thuja on October 19, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Let’s be truthful here, there is only one reason Hitchens is not supporting McCain, Sarah Palin. She is to religious for him, he hates anyone that he sees as a fundamentalist. I would hope that he would not be so shallow, but apparently he is. It’s horrible watching him tie himself in knots attempting to justify his support of Obama.
Complete7 on October 19, 2008 at 1:56 PM
McCain was right on Pakistan. Plausible deniability.
People don’t seem to grasp that concept.
lorien1973 on October 19, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Maybe, but McCain has a point. Obama says he wants to meet without preconditions with Ahmadinejad who, whether you want to believe it or not, wants to destroy America. Yet Obama talks publicly about bombing Pakistan, a country which is an ally. I agree the U.S. should strike targets in Pakistan if necessary, but, given the context, Obama’s handling of it is totally irresponsible.
CanadianGuy on October 19, 2008 at 1:59 PM
She nailed him to the floor. Hitch: Obama’s position = Evolving. McCain’s position = inconsistent.
There is nothing more frightening to an elitist than a populist.
I am no longer gay for Hitch.
ronsfi on October 19, 2008 at 1:59 PM
He’s not alone. I suspect this is at the heart of much of the right of center elite’s distaste for her.
D0WNT0WN on October 19, 2008 at 1:59 PM
First of all, that movie was pure anti-Bush tripe that even Alan Moore disowned because it was turned into a liberal porno. Secondly, I would say he would much more resemble Gordon Deitrich in terms of more probably being a dissenter.
Honestly, I thought this interview sucked. I like Ingraham, but she continues to have O’Reilly’s habit of asking for an answer to a question, and then cutting people off after about 10 words to shout at them. I’m not pleased with Hitchens’ decision, but I would like to hear him explain it.
MadisonConservative on October 19, 2008 at 2:00 PM
I’ve reconciled myself to the fact that if Obama should be elected, his support is going to begin eroding almost immediately. The only problem is that he and Nan and Harry can do irreversible damage in 2 years.
DrSteve on October 19, 2008 at 2:02 PM
How can an intelligent person put their faith on something so unapt? If elected, I’m sure Obama will throw some rhetorical and symbolic bones to the middle ground, but he and the congress will not change their stripes.
toliver on October 19, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Foremost? Hitchens is like Obama: a celebrity with no substance. You just like him because he tickles your ears well.
Darth Executor on October 19, 2008 at 2:02 PM
+1
Glynn on October 19, 2008 at 2:03 PM
So true.
And perhaps now we can see that his fervant support of the War on Terror is based more on religious bigotry than rational national security concerns.
CanadianGuy on October 19, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Iraq? I thought it was now all Imam and falafel pie. United Shites of Emir Al Ka and new ally in the War on WTF?
BL@KBIRD on October 19, 2008 at 2:05 PM
That aside, it was still very well done. The cinematography and the editing were superb and the musical score was sublime.
I was referring to physical resemblance, nothing more.
Agreed. She is a bit strident and I, too, wished I could have heard more from him. I admire both his intellect and his ability to compose words.
ManlyRash on October 19, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Hitchens is a first rate intellect and a superb writer who happens to enjoy celebrity status among the informati.
You are none of these.
ManlyRash on October 19, 2008 at 2:09 PM
That’s not out of the question.
This is a poor interview, in my view.
Spirit of 1776 on October 19, 2008 at 2:09 PM
I believe that when people whose opinions I respect are in opposition to my own, I have an intellectual responsibility to weigh their argument and see if I’m the one that’s going off course.
Peggy Noonan has long been one of my favorite writers.
Kathleen Parker is a columnist that I often read on Townhall.
I strongly disagree with Hitchen’s on religion, but have found myself agreeing with him most wholeheartedly regarding the war on terror.
With that in mind, I’ve read what Noonan and KP have said against McCain/Palin and what Hitchens has said for Obama and I’ve found it mostly lacking in substance – if anyone has found any arguments they have with substance, please let me know.
As far as I can tell, they don’t like Palin because she doesn’t rock interviews, she didn’t go to an ivy league school and she hasn’t been in Washington D.C. for 30 years. Add that fact that she’s religious as a point against her in Hitchen’s opinion.
They like Obama because he’s (in their opinion) well spoken and they (along with Kristin Powers, apparently) believe that his past associations are not an indication of his ideals and plans for the country and that the fact that he has moved right-ish during the campaign is an indication that he’ll be moderate.
Am I missing something?
JadeNYU on October 19, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Hitchens is a first rate imbecile and a mediocre writer who happens to enjoy celebrity status because of the mindless verbal and intellectual fellatio from insignificant, insecure individuals like the above gentleman.
Darth Executor on October 19, 2008 at 2:14 PM
You know I don’t know why they don’t just keep Laura on permanently and give Bill the flick. She does a much better job than him and manages to be tough when interviewing people without having to resort to shouting and over emotional theatrics.
As for Hitchens I think he is one of these guys who thinks that Sarah Palin can’t be an effective President because she is not some hardcore feminist bitch like Hillary. Also I think he has a problem with her rather open religious beliefs
Dreadnought223 on October 19, 2008 at 2:14 PM
You got that right, little buddy. I wonder if Lovey will be speaking to him anytime soon. After all, she likes Palin.
So, with Thurston and, more than likely, the professor and Ginger going with Obama and the Skipper, Mary Ann, and Lovey going with McCain, the election will boil down to Gilligan. Which is about where it stands. Which way will the wishy-washy middle go?
Gilligan may be tempted by the aura of cool and the prospect of cotton-candy refundable tax credits, but in the end he realizes that he’ll go with the Skipper, Mary Ann, and Lovey.
BuckeyeSam on October 19, 2008 at 2:15 PM
No, you’re not. I think you said it quite well. I’ve liked Peggy Noonan for a long time, and I have enjoyed Hitchens on the war; I also love Heather McDonald. But all of them, while they have been so eloquent on so many subjects I’m interested in, are absolutely embarassing themselves on Palin.
They come off sounding like elitist snobs. They’re willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, despite what appear to any reasonable person, to be gigantic lapses in judgment with the quality of people in his life, but they can’t wait to close the door in Palin’s face. Pathetic, is about the most charitable term I can come up with to describe their disdain for Palin. Pure classist snobbery.
austinnelly on October 19, 2008 at 2:15 PM
I’m convinced more than ever he’s just a clever religion hater.
CanadianGuy on October 19, 2008 at 2:17 PM
These two should just shag and get it over with.
BTW
British accent = smart and articulate
Nasel drone = effet and sophisticated
RobCon on October 19, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Hitchens suffers from Kissinger Derangement Syndrome. When Kissinger was linked to the McCain-Palin campaign, I knew that would be a game changer for Hitchens and warned of it around these parts.
These Obama endorsements from former Bush supporters or so-called conservatives — Hitchens, Powell, Buckley, Kmiec, ad nauseam — reveal that many of the high profile endorsers are single issue voters willing to betray the very principles that earned their high profiles, despite their glib explanations otherwise. They are the useful idiots who will make American socialism possible.
Terrie on October 19, 2008 at 2:18 PM
One of – if not the – cardinal tenet that Hitchen’s promotes is that one must believe in “principles, not people.”
Apparently, he forgot that rule.
Obama is a thoroughgoing liberal internationalist who would have abandoned Iraq years ago and will similarly abandon Afghanistan (or Pakistan) if the “world community” tells him to.
SteveMG on October 19, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Am I missing something?
JadeNYU on October 19, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Nope; nicely put.
Shivas Irons on October 19, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Hitch is the premier secular socialist, so I am sure he sleeps well in spite of his endorsement of Obama. But he knows in his heart that Obama, especially with large Dem. majorities in Congress, will not lift a finger to defend Western Civilization. Pretzel time; the inchorence of the talking points reflects his inner conflict.
FalseProfit on October 19, 2008 at 2:21 PM
The thing he goes exceedingly well is to get people to debate on his terms. That requires both intellect and being clever. But first rate? That’s pretty high praise. Too much I think.
Spirit of 1776 on October 19, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Hitchen’s to me is very intelligent. A brilliant writer also. I don’t know what to make of him supporting Obama though. Guess one has a right to his or her own opinion. I am sadden, but I still believe in McCain/Palin. Laura did chew him up though. Now Powell. I think I need to take a nap.
sheebe on October 19, 2008 at 2:22 PM
If
, Newt will.
Newt: Pres. Obama would be just like Rev. Wright.
CanadianGuy on October 19, 2008 at 2:24 PM
The Moonies for Obama bandwagon burgeons with another boob.
profitsbeard on October 19, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Religious people seem to be overwhelmingly the people that hold this view.
Some objectivity would be nice.
MadisonConservative on October 19, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Probably would have been a more productive interview if she didn’t interrupt him every 10 seconds.
So Hitchens changes his mind. He says why he changed his mind. And then she refuses to accept it as valid. Who cares.
Hitchens sees the election as a choice between the lesser of two evils. So woopdee doo.
Dave Rywall on October 19, 2008 at 2:26 PM
I’m a non-practising Catholic, who respects people of faith.
CanadianGuy on October 19, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Having had the unpleasant experience of ambling through the profanity-laden muck that passes for prose on your little blog, I can see whence your response originates. Yikes.
ManlyRash on October 19, 2008 at 2:28 PM
You forgot to add that they all have their heads up their a**es. KP is the most gullible talking-head Fox airs. I can’t take her seriously.
BuckeyeSam on October 19, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Well, hello Dave! Good to see you back!
ManlyRash on October 19, 2008 at 2:29 PM
No sir – you are entitled not to agree with Hitchen’s, but to label him a mediocre writer – is way way off base.
Hitchen’s is a magnificent writer – have you read his work on the Bill or Rights, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson?
We can disagree with many of his thoughts (and I do) – He is however a gifted author – and I feel fortunate to read each and every thing he authors.
jake-the-goose on October 19, 2008 at 2:30 PM
I also disagree with him often, but damn…that man can write. I envy him that gift.
ManlyRash on October 19, 2008 at 2:32 PM
<strikejake-the-goose on October 19, 2008 at 2:30 PM
ronsfi on October 19, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Chrome really screws up these tags.
ronsfi on October 19, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Well, hello Dave! Good to see you back!
ManlyRash on October 19, 2008 at 2:29 PM
——–
I went to debate camp for 2 weeks. You’re really screwed now.
Dave Rywall on October 19, 2008 at 2:34 PM
They wouldn’t have been in Iraq at all if they’d had their way. I love how arguments like yours love to prop up a straw man at some obligatory time and act like it makes sense.
Nonfactor on October 19, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Yes but the problem is do you honestly believe that Obama would actually have the stones to go into Pakistan? My bet is that if he is elected Obama will pull all the troops out of a Iraq by the end of 2009 and do the same in Afghanistan as soon as it was politically expedient.
The reason I say this is that Obama has long and well documented history of saying one thing and then doing something completely different when it comes to the crunch. So for Hitchens to believe that Obama is the best person to continue to prosecute the war on terror shows a serious lack of judgment on his behalf but then again that seems to be what happens when you start drinking the Kool Aid.
So the moral of this story children is DONT DRINK THE KOOL AID !!! to much of it will turn even the most ardent conservative into a drooling ObaZombie.
Dreadnought223 on October 19, 2008 at 2:34 PM
He, Chris Buckley, and Scott McClellan can all get a room and watch youtubes of Teh One.
Let’s roll.
ex-Democrat on October 19, 2008 at 2:34 PM
How Presidential.
Nonfactor on October 19, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Obama is a “great writer” too. Yet he can’t formulate a compex thought without a d@mn teleprompter.
I guess this Hitchens clown is in good company.
Aristotle on October 19, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Worth remembering that the War on Terror is the ONLY issue on which Hitch is remotely conservative.
On social and economic issues, Hitch will tell you proudly that he’s an open admirer of Trotsky. Yes, Trotsky.
So, it’s not too surprising that he’s willing to twist his foreign policy logic into knots for the chance to put a likely socialist in the White House.
ClintACK on October 19, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Hitch doesn’t see Jeremiah Wright as more of a religious threat than Sarah Palin?
Speakup on October 19, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Let’s roll.
ex-Democrat on October 19, 2008 at 2:37 PM
No it isn’t. A large part of it is purely subjective. What one man sees as “gifted” is seen as mediocre by another.
I read whatever AP links of him. I’m usually less than impressed.
I feel underwhelmed, and it has nothing to do with “disagreement”. I just think he’s very, very overrated (especially on intelligence).
Darth Executor on October 19, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Ah, so Palin sours another one. I’m afraid to say it, but I feel much the same way. The biggest hurdle I have to voting for McCain now, after Obama has worked hard the last few months to lose my vote, is Sarah Palin.
I like Sarah Palin, I think she’s a breath of fresh air in stale Washington DC. She’s a genuine person who says what she means and does what she says. However, she is, as Hitchens says, incurious about foreign affairs.
The only thing I can say to defend a likely vote for McCain is that I don’t believe he will die in office. I really don’t believe he will, but there are plenty who believe otherwise, including smart people such as Hitchens.
Why couldn’t McCain have listened to me and chosen Romney?
Seixon on October 19, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Hitchens, cracking, late at night (as Howard Hughes fell apart at the end of “The Aviator”):
“Must not speak about Obama… Must not speak about Obama….Must NOT speak about Obama…”
Restraining, strangling, deathgripping his critical intelligence on the subject of Barry… for what?
Race brownie points [sic] in socialist Nirvana?
Wake the f^ck back up, Chris!
It’s not too late to put a pitchfork in the pod!
Them bubbles ain’t champagne, pal!
profitsbeard on October 19, 2008 at 2:38 PM
OOOOOO, you really got me there chief. I can see why you like Hitchens so much. Plain, boring mediocrity attracts plain, boring mediocrity.
Darth Executor on October 19, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Barry is still trying to figure out who fathered Michelle’s kids.
Let’s roll.
ex-Democrat on October 19, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Time to pile on.
Next up, all the repubican house members in tight races support The One.
It is very interesting that
everyonethe sellouts that have stepped up recently to support The One have all mentioned McCain’s poor judgement in choosing Palin as VP candidate.Just a thought here. I’m guessing that the GOP has determined it is over. And at this point, unless they start poking holes in what conservatives view as the future of the party, they will not only not gain power within the GOP, but will lose power to actual conservatives in the future. Maybe forever. The problem with this theory is that they chose a non-conservative as the leader of their party – all the while shushing the conservative wing. So hey fellas, how’s that working out for you?
There are two sides to the GOP. The conservatives – and the sellouts.
JeffinOrlando on October 19, 2008 at 2:39 PM
…except he’s never written a book that’s been particularly lauded, whereas Hitchens has written many insightful books.
Oh, and Hitchens regularly debates and is a spectacular debator (when his opponents aren’t allowed to cut him off after 10 words). Obama doesn’t and isn’t.
I’m sorry, what parallel were you drawing?
MadisonConservative on October 19, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Heh!
James OK on October 19, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Well, if that were true, what of Obama’s debate talking point that Kissinger supported his stance on relations with Iran? Obama pretty much wrapped Kissinger around himself like a cape.
Seixon on October 19, 2008 at 2:40 PM
I absolutely agree. If Sarah Palin were not a serious Christian, I don’t beleive Hitchens would be supporting Obama. If true this man is willing to sacrifice national security in order to nurse his petty prejudices. I think Laura Ingraham knew it too, that’s why she kept pressing him to give a reason why he disliked Palin.
Renae on October 19, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Yes, they are. Mostly because the overwhelming majority of outspoken atheists are just as deranged as he is. With all due respect, Hitchens has expressed pleasure at the thought of fighting a civil war and killing Christians in it over prayer in school, or more strict abortin laws. The man is an atheist Taliban without the money or intellect to turn his psychopathic fantasies to reality. Thank God.
Darth Executor on October 19, 2008 at 2:42 PM
oops “believe” not beleive
Renae on October 19, 2008 at 2:42 PM
I remain amazed at how much mileage Obama gets out of mere words. He has not yet taken any action to prove that his views have evolved. I suspect Hitchens was just looking for passable rationalization for the endorsement. Usually when Hitch deeply believes something he becomes downright nasty to nonbelievers. He certainly lacks that nastiness here unless LS disarms him. But part of me thinks he’s just been dying to return to the socialist mother ship.
snaggletoothie on October 19, 2008 at 2:42 PM
I agree that it’s not really that big of a deal whom Hitchens endorses and that it would have been nice had she allowed him to finish at least one compelte sentence.
However, I believe the real issue that people are having with Hitchens endorsing Obama isn’t that he’s endorsing Obama it’s that he doesn’t seem to have a sound reason for doing it. If my coworker that is proud of the fact that she never watches the news and picks a candidate based off of which one gives her the better vibe were to endorse Obama, I’d understand. However, Hitchens is famous for “principles, not people” and is suppose to make decisions based on reason. In this case, Hitchen’s reason seems paper thin and even contradictory.
He doesn’t like McCain because McCain strikes him as erratic in being hawkish on some foreign policy issues, but not on the issue of bombing Pakistan. He does like Obama because Obama’s view has been ‘evolving’ and, although Obama has been wrong (from Hitchens’ point of view) on Iraq and Iran, he is hawkish on Pakistan.
This is the kind of faulty thinking I expect from unschooled children and not intellectuals that pride themselves on their logic.
Perhaps if Hitchens is given more time to respond and explain his decision, it will become more clear. However, from what his written and said of it so far, it seems more of an emotional response than a well thought out endoresement and therefore is of no value at all.
JadeNYU on October 19, 2008 at 2:43 PM
You forgot to open with “as a concerned longtime conservative”. Never mind, you’ll get the hand of this when Axelrod briefs you again.
Really, dear concern trolls, why do you think anybody would be convinced that any sane conservative individual would better vote for someone you know will suck in foreign policy, than vote for someone who’s running mate’s foreign policy isn’t clear enough? Do your employers really think we are that stupud?
yeah, right.
Aristotle on October 19, 2008 at 2:44 PM
They (we? I?) fear having to defend her from constant attacks and fear her being fertile grounds for said attacks.
It’s certainly not the religious issue for me, in the sense that I really thought one of her best moments was her recalling Lincoln when she was asked about the “God’s plan is for us to be in Iraq” thing. That was awesome and so was her introduction speech.
It would be an minor issue if she was a strict creationist but I dont know that she is. I’m sure for Hitchens she mentions God too much and I’m sure he ignores Barack saying God a lot when he speaks to a black religious crowd.
The elephant in the room for us no good NY elitist republicans is she’s really not ready yet and yeah I’ll say it Obama knows his shit cold. He may be WRONG! So very very very wrong like on taxes and healthcare and so many things… but he knows his reasoning inside out and can calmly rationally explain to you why. I value that.
Palin is very vague and you do not get the Reagan sense that he tuned his beliefs and principles for years (decades?) before coming to prominence. Her talent is her appeal and ability to connect, but she hasnt had the 18 months of being a political wonk Obama has.
Flame away =p
Dash on October 19, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Oh. Flat-head or phillips-head?
ManlyRash on October 19, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Again, Hitchens support of the WOT appears to be apparently based mainly on the pleasure he gets from seeing the smacking down of religious fundamentalists.
People like Palin confuse his worldview. She’s too churchy for him. She lives her life by what she believes. He’s not troubled by the Wright connection to Obama because he knows he’s not a real churchy, he just went to church to keep up appearances in his community, which is probably true.
CanadianGuy on October 19, 2008 at 2:46 PM
I say this (in effect) to my Democrat friends all the time: “I’m more impressed with you than I am with Obama.” Sorry, Senator Obama, I’m just not feelin’ it.
DrSteve on October 19, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Bingo.
Darth Executor on October 19, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Now, that’s funny.
Weight of Glory on October 19, 2008 at 2:51 PM
…what’s the problem with enjoying the smacking down of religious fundamentalists?
Unless you yourself are one…
MadisonConservative on October 19, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Hitchens couldn’t carry Steyn’s jock.
cryptojunkie on October 19, 2008 at 2:54 PM
There’s no point dude.
D0WNT0WN on October 19, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Hitchens has finally started making big money by being the left’s favorite religion-basher. It’s Palin’s religiosity that it the true reason for his nonsensical “backing” of an “evolving” Obama.
How in the world are we ever to take Hitchen’s seriously again?
Sugar Land on October 19, 2008 at 2:55 PM
LOL
I spend more time in strip bars than church, so I’m not some religious person. However, I don’t have religious derangement syndrome that people like Hitchens and my friends have. To give credit where credit is due, at least Hitchens is an equal opportunity religious bigot, while most lefites just seem to be afraid of Christians and not Islamists.
CanadianGuy on October 19, 2008 at 2:56 PM
She was too busy screaming at him. I want to hear what he has to say…
And Allah, “I never figured him for a cheap date,”… ditto and lol.
AlexB on October 19, 2008 at 2:57 PM
He certainly has a pretty spotty record smacking down the oppression and slaughter done by the secular fundamentalists over the decades.
That’s for sure.
SteveMG on October 19, 2008 at 2:57 PM
If the Dali Lama endorses Obambi, will Hitch’s head explode?
(Or implode?)
profitsbeard on October 19, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Hitchens is a liberal, the only reason why some conservatives have built up an affinity for him in the past years is because of his views on terrorism and religion.
Nonfactor on October 19, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Personally I have always found Hitchens to be more self-important than Bill Mahar and only slightly less abraisive.
Renae on October 19, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Agreed on the Obama/Wright point. Hitch’s point about Obama being quicker up the curve than Palin is one that is probably shared by many of the moderate Republicans who are turning away from the ticket. The McCain team isn’t helping by keeping Palin away from challenging forums.
dedalus on October 19, 2008 at 2:58 PM
We have to remember that Hitchens here hates the Pope and can not even find a kind world for Mother Teresa. He is really hung up on religion.
His main reason for supporting the overthrow of Saddam with such ferocity was his support for Kurdish socialists who had been slaughtered and oppressed by the Butcher of Baghdad.
He hated Nixon, he hated Kissinger, I don’t think I ever heard him say anything good about Reagan {or bad either, he just sort of ignored him} and he was not a conservative at anytime.
He just hated Saddam and wanted him gone.
As for Obama and Pakistan, what nonsense. What is he going to do invade? I heard him talking about how Mushareff was our dictator, and it kind of came to me that Clinton was president when Mushareff took over in Pakistan and I don’t remember anyone calling for regime change in Pakistan, Iraq yes, Pakistan..no.
I think Obama will do whatever polls well, screw the long term results. Just like Clinton did. When it worked for Clinton to bomb Iraq, he did. When it worked for him to ignore Afghanistan, he did. Whatever. Guys like Obama and Clinton are all about public approval.
And Hitchens should know that.
Terrye on October 19, 2008 at 3:01 PM
I don’t know if anyone will remember this but Hitchens and his brother used to spar on C-Span. His brother is a conservative and I believe a man of faith while we all know where Christopher stands. The other funny thing is that his brother decided to stay in England and he is against the war. What a world! As to “elites” did anyone read the story in the head lines about the hedge fund guy who scored big betting against the sub prime? (Throw away the Blackberry) He has some interesting stuff to say about people putting their faith in the Ivy League brand.
Cindy Munford on October 19, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Dash:
I think Palin is more ready than most of her detractors. They base their belief on her not being ready to the fact that she does not hale from some urban background.
Neither did Lincoln.
I think it social snobbery myself.
But hey, they can go ahead and vote for a Jr. Senator who started the paperwork to run for office 143 days after he entered the US Senate. But I am supposed to take the whole Palin is not ready thing seriously?
Terrye on October 19, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Renae on October 19, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Which is why you can listen to him. Obviously he isn’t going to change anyone’s mind about their vote, probably doesn’t care to. He and Andrew Sullivan debating on faith is a hoot.
Cindy Munford on October 19, 2008 at 3:05 PM
I am looking forward to what Hitchens has to say, if anything, in four years.
d1carter on October 19, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Well, his brother (Peter) detests Bush and most of America.
His is the British gentry conservative view of this country as not being worthy of our dominance.
SteveMG on October 19, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Hitchens the Trotskyist endorses Obama the Marxist.
eigafan on October 19, 2008 at 3:08 PM
They should be worried, in fact they’re fortunate it hasn’t happened yet, but if they keep with their ways their worries and fears will come home to roost!
Liberty or Death on October 19, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Ahem … does this change anybody’s view about Hitchen’s sanity, btw.
Keep in mind, this guy also doesn’t like Palin for probably similar reasons.
CanadianGuy on October 19, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Well, he did write a fairly nuanced article about not patronising Palin a few weeks ago. Basically said that nutty preachers weren’t a strong suit for someone with Obama’s associations, and that Biden was a hypocrite. I guess the snobbishness of his “intellectual” friends like Salman Rushdie vis-a-vis Palin have taken their toll.
Fortunata on October 19, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Canadisn Guy:
I said I did not hear him say anything about Reagan, I never said he did not. But it does not surprise me that Hitchens would feel that way about Reagan. It sort of fits with his other views.
In truth, the fact that he supported any Republican ever at all, is the anomaly.
Terrye on October 19, 2008 at 3:13 PM
SteveMG on October 19, 2008 at 3:07 PM
I know and it is really weird to think back on those debates. I have no concept of time but I think it might have been during Pres. Reagan. I guess it just depends on who you fear, for Peter it was communists and for Christopher it appears to be radical Muslims. Who would have thought?
Cindy Munford on October 19, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Yes, the snotty Brits are convinced that they ran the world ever so much better. It just burns them up that they are only the organ-grinder’s monkey now.
Fortunata on October 19, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »