A Thief in the Night

So comes word that Christopher Hitchens has struck yet again - but this time in a rather unexpected fashion. In his latest Slate column, the notorious intellectual and agitator shocked many by openly endorsing Barack Obama for President. And, as a consequence, "Hitch" resoundingly emasculated John McCain, to my great amusement, of course. As I've said, this was quite out of the blue, considering Hitchens' distaste for Obama and, moreover, his rather odd neo-con sympathies.

But, like some shadowy rogue, Hitchens swiftly - and brutally - pillaged McCain with no fair warning, flaunted his trademark gaudiness, and, in a crescendo of feverish banditry, left friend and foe alike in awe of his sharp tongue and lethal wit.

This was vintage Hitchens. Carnage and controversy are, after all, ends in themselves to this salient scoundrel. While I applaud his scathing assessment of the McCain campaign - and, more importantly, his endorsement of Barack Obama - I must confess that the article, when examined in context, reflects rather poorly on our beloved atheist. Still, I'm not complaining - yet.

Before daring to criticize Hitch, I'll first highlight some of his more venomous - and thus entertaining - passages. Needless to say the piece is as captivating as it is vicious. He begins, unsurprisingly, with a dig at Bill Clinton, a man the author considers to be a vile opportunist. Fair enough, I thought, but what say you about Mac Daddy and the Wicked Witch from Wasilla, Mr. Hitchens? In an interesting tidbit, he reveals that last week's debate seems to have cemented this decision:

Last week's so-called town-hall event showed Sen. John McCain to be someone suffering from an increasingly obvious and embarrassing deficit, both cognitive and physical. And the only public events that have so far featured his absurd choice of running mate have shown her to be a deceiving and unscrupulous woman utterly unversed in any of the needful political discourses but easily trained to utter preposterous lies and to appeal to the basest element of her audience. McCain occasionally remembers to stress matters like honor and to disown innuendoes and slanders, but this only makes him look both more senile and more cynical, since it cannot (can it?) be other than his wish and design that he has engaged a deputy who does the innuendoes and slanders for him.

This does not shock me in the slightest. No person with a right-mind could, after weeks of cringe-inducing interviews, unflattering exposés and shameless pandering *wink*, think Sarah Palin a respectable human being. Yet, as Hitch properly notes, the real problem lies not with the puppet, but the puppeteer (I would never dream of calling McCain a "puppet master." That would be a fraudulently stupid claim. He's simply a feeble-minded puppeteer with the precision of a drunkard). McCain's spiteful tactics and jingoistic fury have truly ruined his chances and tarnished his once-admired character, writes Hitchens:

The most insulting thing that a politician can do is to compel you to ask yourself: "What does he take me for?" Precisely this question is provoked by the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin. I wrote not long ago that it was not right to condescend to her just because of her provincial roots or her piety, let alone her slight flirtatiousness, but really her conduct since then has been a national disgrace. It turns out that none of her early claims to political courage was founded in fact, and it further turns out that some of the untested rumors about her—her vindictiveness in local quarrels, her bizarre religious and political affiliations—were very well-founded, indeed. Moreover, given the nasty and lowly task of stirring up the whack-job fringe of the party's right wing and of recycling patent falsehoods about Obama's position on Afghanistan, she has drawn upon the only talent that she apparently possesses.

Hitchens, like so many conservatives and skeptics before him, has rightly condemned McCain for his mendacious campaign. However, this article is less an endorsement for Obama than a vehement thrashing of the Republican candidate and his dimwitted, rapture-loving, moose-shootin' sidekick. So in the end, in spite of his brilliant mind and fierce prose, Hitch remains a pompous ass. This is due, of course, to his tawdry sense of self worth and an overwhelming faith in his ideological dispositions. Such blatant egotism prevents Hitchens from giving credit where credit is due; in this case, with Barack Obama.

In fact, his "endorsement" consists of two, unflattering sentences near the end of the article:

Obama is greatly overrated in my opinion, but the Obama-Biden ticket is not a capitulationist one, even if it does accept the support of the surrender faction, and it does show some signs of being able and willing to profit from experience. With McCain, the "experience" is subject to sharply diminishing returns, as is the rest of him, and with Palin the very word itself is a sick joke.

Wow, riveting stuff. Why not acknowledge Obama's strengths? His ability to inspire? His undeniably assertive handling of the economic crisis? It's all quite simple: such an admission would make Hitchens - who revels in his controversial persona - look like a damned fool. Not only has he joyously rebelled against the Obama phenomenon, but he's even trumpeted some nonesense against the man. Hell, at one low-point he even began blaming Michelle Obama for the Reverend Wright fiasco.

I could care less whether Hitchens loves or hates Obama. But I expect a gentleman - especially of the caliber of a Christopher Hitchens - to acknowledge their faults or missteps rather than cower from them.

Not that I'm asking him to, you know, repent.