The only evidence submitted to back up the contention that Michelle Obama is some kind of eminence grise of her husband's is her thesis, which quotes some of the thoughts of Stokely Carmichael. Carmichael, like a lot of frustrated civil rights leaders as they aged, ended up saying a lot of very stupid things.

But not in 1967, which is when the paper in question which Michelle Obama referenced was written. I suppose it was simply too hard for Hitchens to say what, if anything at all, was incorrect about Carmichael's paper. In fact, he ducked the matter by declaring that he couldn't read Obama's paper and so we have to take his word for it, even as he admits that he really has no idea what he's talking about. What he's saying amounts to: Carmichael ended up on the wrong side of a lot of issues in his later years, so anybody who quotes what he had to say at any time in his life is clearly a menace to society.

In 1967, Carmichael was fresh from seven years of organizing under conditions which today's Americans can only imagine. His life was in constant danger, not least because he chose one of the worst places in the South -- Lowndes County, Alabama -- to organize voter registration. He did a lot of organizing while attending (and graduating from) Howard University. He would finish his classes, head south and organize over the weekend, and be back for classes during the week. He was heavily involved with EVERYBODY who was active on the civil rights scene during it's hottest days. If I were a young black woman, as Michelle Obama was when she wrote her paper, I'd think this guy had a lot to teach me. At the very least, I'd give his words careful attention, because few have ever walked the walk as Carmichael did.

But no, says Hitchens. Carmichael ended up being nice to Rev. Farrakhan, so obviously he was always a Nazi and we can impute anything we like to him, proof not required.

Like most Americans, I kind of wonder what Obama (Barack this time) was doing going to church on Sunday with a minister who said some of the things Wright has said, but since I haven't been in a house of worship since 1955 (nor, I suspect, has Hitchens), and since I'm not a Christian and don't really comprehend the minister-parishoner relationship among Christians (which I'm sure Hitchens doesn't, either), I look at the record. The record says Obama is the polar opposite of Wright on the things that matter to me, so I give him a pass.

Hitchens must have been hard up for something to write about this week to dredge this far down river.

Many of Chris Hitchens' laziest statements in the piece would have been avoided if an editor at Slate had bothered to do their job.

The phrase about there not being a verb in the undergraduate thesis would have been proven false if someone had bothered to mention it to the avuncular Brit.

From experience, it's a safe bet that dealing with a egomaniac drunk is hard enough without having to add to the burden by requiring a modest level of journalistic integrity.

The real revelation is Slate's declining standards. Get Hitchens to sober up or throw him out.

"In 1967, Carmichael was fresh from seven years of organizing under conditions which today's Americans can only imagine."

Many people today live in worse circumstances and under a greater threat of immediate violence. Grow the hell up!

Gatewood:

Perhaps I have expressed myself badly, or else you would not have made such a supercilious and hostile response.

That many people live in worse conditions than those in which Carmichael grew up is, of course, quite true. He grew up in New York City under middle class circumstances. I wasn't talking about that, but since you obviously don't understand what I WAS talking about, let me try to explain myself.

I was talking about the fact that in the 1960s, Carmichael CHOSE to organize black voters in the South at a time when civil rights workers were frequently murdered and where savage beatings were commonplace. The legal system that you and I take for granted to protect us from violence was as involved in that violence as any private citizens. Essentially Carmichael chose to operate as an outlaw for a period of years for no reward other than to win for his people rights that you take for granted. I would venture to say that NOBODY in the United States today finds it necessary to risk life and limb in the ways in which Carmichael did, in order to secure rights that everyone takes for granted.

For a period of years, Carmichael lived the same kind of life that our soldiers in Iraq live today. Every moment could bring the roar of an exploding bomb snuffing him out (as it did for four of the girls Condoleeza Rice grew up with). The difference was that our soldiers in Iraq are well-armed and have backup -- Carmichael did not. Our soldiers in Iraq are paid and receive many benefits for their service (although not enough IMO); Carmichael got room and board in farmer's shacks. I knew some of the people who worked with him. They often expressed amazement that they survived it.

My point was that Carmichael wrote the paper which Hitchens says is so awful (without having read it) in 1967, which was shortly after he left Alabama. Later on in life, embittered for reasons which only he knew, he said a lot of stupid things, for which we may condemn him if we choose. But to condemn him for what he said when he was fresh from a struggle which anyone but a bigot must honor for its bravery requires AT LEAST an explanation of what he said that was wrong, which Hitchens doesn't deign to provide.

I hope you understand me now.