The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Hitchens on Obama: Vapid, Gutless,

Re: Hitchens on Obama: Vapid, Gutless,

Libertarian — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:00:54 -0000

What does that have to do with what Hitchens wrote? Oh nothing, its a straw man argument.

Acknowledging that waterboarding is not the same as having your fingernails torn out or being beaten to death has NOTHING to do with approval or disapproval of "harsh interrogation" tactics, but you are too much of a partisan to understand that.

You see someone contradict your view: Hitchens thinks waterboarding is no big deal. When your view is pointed out as completely incorrect: Hitchens said no such thing...you jump all the way to saying that I'm not bothered by detainees being murdered by U.S. troops and that I'm making excuses for my "heroes".

Correcting eroneous statements made about Hitchens doesn't make him my hero.

But, for the record, stooge, I was against the Iraq War from the beginning, I was also against the first Iraq War, I don't support the legalization of torture, don't support the military tribunals, don't support keeping people in prison for years without charging them.

But, none of that makes waterboarding the equivalent of being beaten to death or having your fingernails pulled out. It is one of the milder forms of torture, as are all the torture techniques the U.S. now "legally" uses...it doesn't mean they are NOT TORTURE, they are.

Unfortunately, I suspect any of these logical distinctions are over your head.

Re: Hitchens on Obama: Vapid, Gutless,

MoeLarryAndJesus — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 22:56:51 -0000

Libertarian makes more excuses for his heroes: "It is also true that, waterboard, which is torture, when compared to something like having your fingernails torn off, is 'foreplay'...."

It is also true that detainees have been beaten to death by US personnel, which when compared to anything else is 'endplay.'

Not that any of it bothers you in the least.

Re: Hitchens on Obama: Vapid, Gutless,

JonF — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:58:08 -0000

Re: I also think that the country is overall a lot more conservative than Democrats believe it is, which is why they're always shocked when they don't win the presidential election. I don't see a

The evidence suggests otherwise. In poll after poll Americans show themselves as being fairly and solidly centrist with a slight lean to the right on some issues and a slight lean to the left on others. The GOP has become adept at exploiting those slight rightward leans (see: gay marriage issue etc.) but the chickens have started to come home to roost. If Americans were not turned off by the result of 100% GOP control of government how else to explain the fact of the 2006 election, and the near certainty that this year will yield even larger Dem gains in Congress and in state offices. Electoral defeats for the Right is anything but evidence for a rightwing America.

Re: My opinion is that Democrats are by and large in denial mode about the fact that a lot of people have serious reservations about Obama and his experience.

Neither Abraham Lincoln nor FDR has significantly more experuence than Obama-- Lincoln in fact had a lot less. Experience isn't what matters-- preparedness is. Both Jimmy Carter and George W Bush had "experience". Both were flubs as presidents.

Re: Hitchens on Obama: Vapid, Gutless,

toby — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:35:15 -0000

Hitchens fills me with disgust and pity. Here is the "next George Orwell" pimping himself to his new right-wing buddies. He has to over-compensate for his atheism to please the new crowd. Yuck!

Re: Hitchens on Obama: Vapid, Gutless,

Terri — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:33:41 -0000

Hitchens' talent as a writer doesn't equal the ability to provide relevant commentary. Also, the respect of other writers for his skills doesn't equal widespread influence for his ideas. Bottomline: Hitchens is talking to himself. Feel better, T?

Re: Hitchens on Obama: Vapid, Gutless,

Libertarian — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:30:13 -0000

I don't get why if you disagree with someone on one thing, you have to try to destroy their character and/or mischaracterize the rest of their views.

Hitchens in no uncertain terms said that waterboarding was torture and he admits that it was done to him under the most controlled and gentle circumstances possible.

It is also true that, waterboard, which is torture, when compared to something like having your fingernails torn off, is 'foreplay'....

Re: Hitchens on Obama: Vapid, Gutless,

Joel — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:53:20 -0000

Hitchens is in love with himself. The devil's advocacy is his way of garnering attention. If you want amusement, go and watch Hitchens volunteer to be waterboarded for Vanity Fair. Then read his article dismissing waterboarding as "foreplay" compared to more traditional forms of torture.

Re: Hitchens on Obama: Vapid, Gutless,

frankie d — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:43:34 -0000

i hate to agree with hitchens because i think his public performance over the last 7 or 8 years has been despicable, and i wouldn't doubt that he's gained financially in many ways for performing his little leopard changing his spots act.

but i do agree that obama has been too hesitant and he should be exploiting mccain's weaknesses more. he should have buried mccain last week, and though he gained, no doubt, he still has not gained the advantage that is there for him to take.

what more could he do?

for one thing, stop running as a defensive politician. his defensive posture may leave him vulnerable to a last-second bit of manipulation and it is guaranteed to keep the race close. it is the way that defensive entities work through any competition.

hunker down, take few risks, deal with a close competition and hope you prevail ultimately.

he should stop calling mccain an honorable man. calling him an honorable man only gives mccain's attacks weight and authority. pretty simple stuff.

he should start calling mccain a "republican". he pointedly avoids calling mccain a republican, instead he runs against mccain and "washington". this seems to be a big tactical mistake, as i believe that voters, even independants and obamacons would not penalize him for using that partisan weapon. they've watched the last 7 years and know full well that republicans are responsible for the problems. framing the race as being against republicans will also help down-ticket dems running for office.

he can also start to mention things like the keating 5 and mccain's age. both of those issues are very powerful weapons and if used correctly could tap into real concerns that people have about mccain. if mccain can argue that he is too young and inexperienced to be president, why is it not appropriate for obama to discuss the fact that mccain is too old and doddering to serve as president?

why isn't there a commercial quoting thad cochran, the republican senator who said that he essentially feared having john mccain serve as president because of his temperament? again, this is a legitimate issue that obama has not touched on.

if i played obama's campaign mangager, every public statement would be very simple. it would repeat, over and over again: phil gramm, deregulation, carly fiorina's golden parachute, bad temper, phil gramm, whiners, mental recession, keating five....

i'd just keep repeating that stuff over and over again and never be afraid to deal with any issue from mccain's past.

Re: Hitchens on Obama: Vapid, Gutless,

contrarian — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:40:28 -0000

I too used to like Hitchens. He's a literary snob, which I appreciate. But he's become cartoonishly contrarian. If you were talking to Christopher Hitchens, and you told him about your faith in the law of gravity, he would either tell you that a) gravity is a silly myth, or, b) gravity killed his grandmother.

Here's what I think is happening:

1. Let's assume Hitchens hangs out with highly educated folks (overwhelmingly Obama supporters.)

2. Hitchens is a contrarian.

Therefore, Hitchens must argue against Obama.

If Hitchens lived in Wasilla, Alaska, he would be going door to door for Obama by now.

His writing sounds like the way the McCain campaign, and the Clinton campaign before it, became frustrated with columnists writing more positive words about Obama than their candidate. What they can't admit, I suppose, is that he may just be objectively a better candidate, and be attracting kind words on that basis. Nope. can't be that. He must have a "tank" somewhere for naive journalists to fall into.

Re: Hitchens on Obama: Vapid, Gutless,

Dickard — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:30:14 -0000

The fact that you aren't "dominating" in a Country that thinks Sarah Palin is a "breath of fresh air" doesn't speak poorly of him, it speaks poorly of the country.

Re: Hitchens on Obama: Vapid, Gutless,

JimS — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:16:33 -0000

I think there are a couple reasons for people not instantly going for Obama due to this.

One is the actions of congressional democrats. Barney Frank overturning the FHA's decision to end the use for bridge loans for down payments is a good example. Obama doesn't have any record of disagreeing with his party on anything.

Second, in many parts of the country democrats work hard to prevent the kind of development that used to provide good blue collar jobs. Here in Alaska they oppose every mine, logging project, new drilling project. The men and women who used to have these jobs don't want to sell t-shirts to tourists. They aren't going to instantly vote democrat especially if the democrats don't have clear answers.

I think also that independents rightly discern that both parties helped make the current mess.If you don't think the democrats were involved in creating this mess read the Village Voice article on Andrew Cuomo.

Re: Hitchens on Obama: Vapid, Gutless,

Steel7 — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:57:39 -0000

I’m not convinced that the comparison to Dukakis was the central thesis of the “essay”. I think he wanted to string together “vapid, hesitant, and gutless” and apply them to Obama. Dukakis was as far back as his knowledge of history (however rudimentary) would take him. The rest is just fluff- he can’t just post “Obama is V, H, and G.” so he needed some filler. While we’re at it, “let’s break this word down a minute”- Vapid: insipid, lifeless, uninspiring. Not even close. Hesitant: this is the only charge Obama leaves himself open to, by virtue of his habit of thinking about what he is going to say before he says it. If you like pat answers with no forethought involved, McCain’s your man. Gutless: the mere fact that he is running at all should put this to rest, but I assume he is faulting Obama for not jumping all over the bailout as a political football. This tracks right back to the charge of hesitancy, and again: Obama thinks before he speaks.

Re: Hitchens on Obama: Vapid, Gutless,

Libertarian — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:51:03 -0000

Deleted for that last part. Come on man.

Re: Hitchens on Obama: Vapid, Gutless,

MoeLarryAndJesus — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:47:44 -0000

Libertarian writes: "But, my opinion is they don't come any more vapid and content free than Barack Obama."

I think a solid rule for life would be to find out what Libertarian's take on an issue is and then to assume that the opposite is true.

"I actually "like" a lot of things about Obama, there is a lot to admire there, I just don't think he is ready to be president and I don't agree that the top priority for the country is me paying for more "ladders" for the poor."

Yeah, all you care about is lower taxes. That's why you voted for Bush twice.

Good job, chuckles.

Re: Hitchens on Obama: Vapid, Gutless,

Libertarian — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:31:28 -0000

Dannity,

As far as I know McCain has bucked his party many, many more times than Obama.

From a content perspective, I don't see how saying you're going to pay for your programs by "taxing the rich" is anything but vapid, certainly its on par with paying for everything based on "eliminating earmarsk". I actually think "tax the rich" relies on a lot more magical thinking than "eliminate earmarks" does...I also don't believe that Obama is going to be able to follow through on his tax cuts for 95% of Americans, of which at least 30% already barely pay any taxes.

When I listen to Obama he reminds me of one of my old bosses who was a genius at winning business...but once won, many of his out of the box ideas turned out to cost a lot more than we said they would, or they were simply unworkable outside a conference room. Everything he says sounds good, but when you get down to how's he going to do it, or how he is going to pay for it, everything evaporates.

I actually "like" a lot of things about Obama, there is a lot to admire there, I just don't think he is ready to be president and I don't agree that the top priority for the country is me paying for more "ladders" for the poor. Just like I "like" a lot of things about John McCain, but not enough to vote for him.

Re: Hitchens on Obama: Vapid, Gutless,

Curtis — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:28:21 -0000

I would just like to point out that it is September and we haven't even had the first debate yet. To say the McCain campaign should have been ended is stupid on its face. Obama from the beginning has been focused on winning the election, doing the ground work, softening the body in boxing terms. McCain from the beginning has understood that he had to stay close in the polls or risk being completely abandoned by his own base, and so he has run an increasingly hysterical and deranged campaign designed to keep attention for a day or two at a time.

You can't win an election in September.

Re: Hitchens on Obama: Vapid, Gutless,

Pesto — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:02:20 -0000

Class: Aristocrat/Contrarian (Alcoholic is a feat, not a class)

Yeah, well I roll old school. No feats.

Also, we didn't discuss race. I'd say he's a Half-Sour.

Re: Hitchens on Obama: Vapid, Gutless,

S.G.E.W. — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:52:00 -0000

He's the commentariat's version of Gwar, but not awesome.

Nothing is as awesome as Gwar. This is an unfounded smear on Gwar's good name.

Re: Hitchens on Obama: Vapid, Gutless,

Luke Dogg — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:48:31 -0000

I was going to say Hitchens was a hack but I was already beaten to it. He's the commentariat's version of Gwar, but not awesome.

Re: Hitchens on Obama: Vapid, Gutless,

Doctor Jay — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:41:48 -0000

Christopher Hitchens once said women aren't funny

No, he wrote a whole essay about it. In elegant prose. Never mind Gracie Allen, Lucille Ball, Mary Tyler Moore, Goldie Hawn, Whoopi Goldberg, Cameron Diaz, Tina Fey, yada yada yada.

What goes on in his head is clearly more important to him than, you know, the real world.

Re: Hitchens on Obama: Vapid, Gutless,

S.G.E.W. — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:38:21 -0000

If Hitchens were a D&D character (class: Alcoholic, 20th level, or maybe a Bard if you want to get technical)

Class: Aristocrat/Contrarian (Alcoholic is a feat, not a class), Lvl 5/10 (to be generous), INT: 17+ (I quite like some of his writing, actually), Align: CN. [Ah. My daily nerdity has been achieved. Early, too.]

More seriously (but in the same vein): Hitchens wouldn't recognize Charisma if it pissed in his whiskey. That's the god damned difference between Obama and Dukakis.

Also: The guy had to literally torture himself to recognize that it is a bad thing. I mean, yeesh.

Re: Hitchens on Obama: Vapid, Gutless,

DougEFresh — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:34:14 -0000

The parallels to Dukakis just don't seem there, either personally or in an historical perspective. Dukakis's message, from what I remember, was that he was the competence candidate and his Massachusetts Miracle. He had to run against the Reagan legacy. Obama isn't running as a boring technocrat like Dukakis and had the advantage of running against the Bush legacy.

I agree with Deborah that McCain was far and away, the best Republican to put up against Obama. I know those on some of the rabid lefty blogs think he was the weakest, but that might have been them just being hacks. I am not so sure the country is center left at this point, though that is hard to tell because people in polls tend to contradict themselves.

Re: Hitchens on Obama: Vapid, Gutless,

Sefrankel — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:33:41 -0000

Y'know, as someone who has been heavily influenced by Hitchens' writing (i.e. "Letters to a Young Contrarian) I've been continually disappointed by his lack of quality analysis on this election. I mean, I'm dying for some incisive, dare-I-say Hitchens-esque coverage of this campaign to cut through the bullshit, but all he seems interested in doing is personally attacking candidates (although I say with some double-standard guilt that I thought this article on Huckabee was hilarious). I mean, I'm cool with criticisms of Obama, and I'm really trying to step outside my own bias and see things from the perspective of this writer I really admire, but I just don't get it. It's the Clinton thing all over again, and I end up separating Hitchens' writing into "the good stuff" and "the character attacks on politicians."

Re: Hitchens on Obama: Vapid, Gutless,

dannity — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:27:38 -0000

Libertarian, just because McCain has had his entire party either question his temperament or his competence at some point does not make him a bi-partisan change agent.

Sorry Ta-Nehisi, that's as far as I'll so with that. I missed out of the chance to respond earlier. Damn work and productivity expectations...

As for whether Obama is "vapid", he has come forward with much more substantial and substantive policy positions than John McCain has. He's explained how he's planning to pay for his proposals in much more detail than McCain, and without using magic numbers like "billions from evil earmarks". And he's gone on at length about the benefits of his policy positions.

Now, I know that you might disagree with Barack Obama on policy, but it's dishonest to claim that this he is "vapid". You don't like him, fine. But at least be intellectually honest about who he is. And I will try to do the same for McCain.

Re: Hitchens on Obama: Vapid, Gutless,

Laurie A. — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:24:05 -0000

You refer to the title of the piece as a cliche. It seems that no-one has noticed that title replaces an earlier one. The original one was: "The Dusky Dukakis." Apparently that was a little too incendiary, hmmm?