The fact that Hitchens brings up his beef with MLK in this article about Obama tells us more about Hitchens than it does about Obama. Essentially he thinks that MLK was lionized because he was religious and Obama is lionized because he's black. These are only partially true statements in my view. Even accepting Hitchens' premise that MLK was not as influential as we are led to believe, he was, at the least, the figurehead and martyr for the cause of civil rights. Anyone who fights, and dies for that cause is deserving of acclaim. These facts make him more culturally and symbolically important than the other thinkers that Hitchens mentions. How the importance of culture and symbolism escapes Hitchens is beyond me.

In a slightly similar way, Obama is, at the least, the figurehead for everything that GW Bush, the anti-hero of our generation, is not. Obama is an intellectual while Bush is intellectually disengaged; Obama speaks eloquently without sound-bytes while Bush has trouble with English and grins giddily when he delivers a talking point. Yes, it is significant that Obama's black because GW Bush is a White, priviledged, pseudo-cowboy. It's significant that he has a Kenyan father and was raised in Indonesia because Bush seemed completely unconcerned about world affairs.

Bush represents White, privileged, cocky, conservative America. Everything that makes us less-than-popular around the world. Obama represents the opposite (maybe he's a little cocky sometimes). So, yes, some of the enthusiasm for Obama is for what he represents; what he symbolizes. But I'm OK with that, just like I'm OK that MLK is important more for what he represented and symbolized than for his individual feats.