There are constantly bitter posters on here who insist on characterizing Hitchens as a Bush lover, a Cheney lover, and all of the fun and ridiculous and paranoid labels too, like, oh, let's say, the perennially unimaginative "neo-con warmonger". Ignoring the fact that this is completely off-topic more than half the time, it's also verifiably inaccurate.

Just because the man believed that replacing Hussein with a representative government was a decent idea, it doesn't mean he thinks George Bush is the dog's balls. There are countless people who supported the invasion on humanitarian grounds who also happened to hate Bush and the way he went about everything. Hitchens has criticized Bush et al. at length, vehemently so. And he's not a conservative.

It's hard to tell whether people keep mis-characterizing Hitchens this way because their hatred for Bush (or for Hitchens) has blinded them, or whether they just aren't very familiar with Hitchens' writings, or whether they refuse to see the obvious, or whether they're just plain stupid.

I'm not asking for anyone to be perfect, but for chrissakes, can we try a little harder on this point? If you don't want to do it for the sake of fairness, then so it for the sake of staying on topic... or, hey, do it for the kids!

Here's for the children.

No, Hitchens is not an enemy of the right, he is quite comfortable making political room for a John McCain presidency.

Hitchens does not elevate the discourse, he diminishes it with his petulant 'analysis' of the situation. He doesn't have to admire Barak Obama, but he doesn't need to tar him either. Phillipe Sands writes that Cheney and company claim that the reason they torture is to 'save' the Geneva convention. By this same f****k up logic, Hitchens and the Clintonistas say they are vetting Obama. They are not, they are racists and can't deal with the fact Hilary will never be President.

Hitchens makes his money by publishing books and getting paid by Vanity Fair. To keep this gig, he needs to remain 'relevant'. His association with Slate has nothing to do with anything--certainly not journalism--except keeping his visibility.

"It's hard to tell whether people keep mis-characterizing Hitchens this way because their hatred for Bush (or for Hitchens) has blinded them, or whether they just aren't very familiar with Hitchens' writings, or whether they refuse to see the obvious, or whether they're just plain stupid."

You forgot the last choice: whether "they" are all too familiar with Hitchens and his writings and think he's nothing more than an arrogant blob of hot air!

Be "fair" - do it "for the kids"??? What are you on?

This isn't even a new topic - just more garbage from Hitchens - and he has a truckload of it.

fantomas: "...Hitchens and the Clintonistas say they are vetting Obama. They are not, they are racists and can't deal with the fact Hilary will never be President."

Hitchens is a racist now? That's convenient. I'll add it to my previous list. (It's not clear whether you consider Hitchens a Clintonista, but if you do, check out a book called No One Left To Lie To.)

bonkb: I think your point is that you don't like Hitchens. All right. My point is that whatever your feelings are on him, it doesn't help to mis-characterize him, unless, as I said, you're blinded by your hatred to the point where fairness and accuracy don't matter to you.

lol@"it's not fair to mischaracterize him"

...but didn't he just waste an entire buttload of keystrokes doing the same to a candidate's wife?

No, he didn't. He posed relevant questions about her that pertain to why Obama --- who seems to want nothing to do with Wright anymore and who isn't of the same hateful and ludicrous mindset --- has been tied to Wright for so long.

There's a categorical difference between that and a blatant mischaracterization that doesn't even have to do with the topic at hand.