Do you get that the fact that his ideas are expressed in merely an entertaining manner is the problem? Even if I agreed that Hitchens was entertaining (and I don't) the problem is that, in all the articles I've ever read, he's never convincing (!!!). His "arguments" are nothing but lose rhetoric and bland attempts to score points that someone should have told him a long time ago is no real substitute for sound evidence and sound and valid reasoning. He's either merely providing some kind of neocon commentary on an issue (which would put him in league with Bill O' Riley) or he's trying to make a point. If it's the latter than (prose aside) he's actually a completely awful writer, because nothing he says should ever convince you of anything. He gets away with this sloppiness because he is, quite obviously, preaching to the choir and the choir doesn't care if the preacher knows his stuff, they just want to be able to say "Testify!" at the end of the sermon.

If you like political commentary then read something by Noam Chomsky. Say what you like about his conclusions, at least he attempts to offer reasoned arguments, ones where the premises support his conclusions, for the positions he holds. Hitchens could learn A LOT from him.