Christopher Hitchens' Obama Endorsement

Slate:

I used to nod wisely when people said: "Let's discuss issues rather than personalities." It seemed so obvious that in politics an issue was an issue and a personality was a personality, and that the more one could separate the two, the more serious one was. After all, in a debate on serious issues, any mention of the opponent's personality would be ad hominem at best and at worst would stoop as low as ad feminam.

At my old English boarding school, we had a sporting saying that one should "tackle the ball and not the man." I carried on echoing this sort of unexamined nonsense for quite some time--in fact, until the New Hampshire primary of 1992, when it hit me very forcibly that the "personality" of one of the candidates was itself an "issue." In later years, I had little cause to revise my view that Bill Clinton's abysmal character was such as to be a "game changer" in itself, at least as important as his claim to be a "new Democrat." To summarize what little I learned from all this: A candidate may well change his or her position on, say, universal health care or Bosnia. But he or she cannot change the fact--if it happens to be a fact--that he or she is a pathological liar, or a dimwit, or a proud ignoramus. And even in the short run, this must and will tell.

Read the whole story: Slate

Comments

[Carolab]

Hitch! Does this mean you are on the road to recovery? You've been showing some encouraging signs of late. God is Not Great, for one. Now this. Welcome to reality!

[MIldlyMisanthropic]

Hitchens "endorsement" of Barack Obama is yet another example of rats deserting a sinking ship. I was at a conference almost exactly a year ago when Hitchens ridiculed the majority of the crowd who supported Barack Obama. He proudly exclaimed that he supported Rudy "9/11" Giuliani, most likely because, at least verbally, Rudy was the most hawkish. Where's Rudy now? So somehow Hitchens has twisted himself about 180 degrees to endorse the candidate he was so obviously against not so long ago...sad man. Go and have a drink with Bill Kristol and sing your choruses of "Bomb, Bomb, Iran."

[youknowwhat]

Hitchens for Obama? I don't get it. The man clearly was lit up when he wrote this article.

[stella801]

He "saw the light"!

I know this is out of character, but he is on spot with this one. Good to know intellectuals on both sides are agreeing.

[racetoinfinity]

I knew Hitchens hadn't COMPLETELY gone off the rails in the last 10 years (as it appeared until now.)

[wdw101]

so who is he? and why do we care?

[robXdion]

That's your problem in a nutshell. You don't even know the main figures in this game. . . . smdh

[wdw101]

main figure, he is a want a be writer at best........now he is a main figure.......wow......just another lefty

nice try

[drgrph]

I think the point wdw101 was trying to make is of what significance is it that Hitchens endorses Obama. Did Obama specifically seek his support? If Obama did not seek Hitchens endorsement then this is of the same significance that the top Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef said the terrorist group supports Obama’s foreign policy vision.

Shall we make a big deal of the later endorsement? I'll go out on a ledge and say that I highly doubt you or Obama seeks the support of Hamas. Unless, of course, you're an anti-Semite.

[chi]

We do know who he is,and he is certainly no main figure in any game other than one in his own mind,that fact he backed into a correct conclusion is just that,he backed in,because based on the bs that comes out as his opinions,he clearly can't see properly unless something is shoved under his nose and if sober,he might get it.
To support the current GOP ticket would be willfully ignorant and he is not willfully so,just naturally so,besides, the Obama administration will bring the intelligencia back to DC and Hitchens would not be able to pass up those cocktail parties,or free drinks in hopes of rehabilitating his character.

[tedpikul]

So what? Have a nice war (hic), Chris.

[Forest]

goody.

[Exit]

Hitchens is at that fine line between genius and crazy. Today he is on the genius side.

[Carolab]

I always like Hitch even when he was on the wrong side on Maher. One has to admire the man's skills, after all. Seems he just has a battle with the bottle, like many in his profession. It sometimes ignites the meaner side of him.

[LAcarlito]

Hitchens is a smug "has been" and "never was." I am not sure why anyone would actually listen to this jerk.

As a long time Obama supporter, I wish he would have supported McCain or even Barr. I never care to be on the same side of an argument with this pompous @ss.

[Steeevyo]

Good for you for being one of the first but that wont win you an election campaign.
So please do us a favour and stop whining.

[LastLiberalRepublican]

Who is Hitchens? Personally, I've never heard of him, but apparently he thinks this essay is important.

[naijaman]

So was Hitchens sober when he endorsed Obama? I remember him bashing Obama incessantly on Bill Maher's show, as well as in a debate with Andrew Sullivan.

[NTO08]

Not to mention insulting Bill's audience with senseless, booze-induced taunts...
late to the party, and not sure how many people would really give a d--n what Hitchens thinks.

[dginki]

@major teddy,
Hitchens' is a a@@hole, but I'm glad his little ugly smug self knows who is the better candidate.

[sphinxy]

Welcome to the light Chris. Flying pigs and snowball fights in hell, here we come.

[gdaerin]

Chris, you are truly my favorite atheist, stay well man!

[Brian Ross - Huffpost Blogger]

Hitch for Obama? Kristol a Dem stooge? Maybe it is the end of days... at least for the Reaganites.

[robXdion]

Fo shizzle! And George Will is next after McCain blows up at the debate. If it gets real ugly Wednesday night Georgia, WV, ND, Montana, Arkansas and even Mississippi will turn bright blue.

[Carter1981]

Hitchens is a Reaganite? Christopher Hitchens? You clearly haven't read the man.