So Hitchens had dinner at the Edwards's house last night.

[AP]

I just read that over at the Edwards blog. It turned my stomach a little bit. I thought I'd do some of my own research on this and I came accross this crazy Q&A with Chris Hitchens: http://www.americasfuture.org/viewBrainwash.cfm?pubid=210

Is there anybody out there now with the right character to be President?

Well, maybe John Edwards. He probably wouldn’t want my endorsement, but—I wrote a piece about him—

This was in Vanity Fair?

Yes, and it was a decidedly lenient piece. He and his wife impressed me. I’m glad that people like them still want to get into politics. Right now, politics drives out everyone of any integrity. So we’re left with people who want to do politics as a career.


...

Well, since you believe in Edwards, what is it-

I don’t believe in him. I mean, I told him I wouldn’t vote for him.

Well, why not?

Because I’d vote for Bush. The important thing is this: Is a candidate completely serious about prosecuting the war on theocratic terrorism to the fullest extent? Only Bush is.

[pistoff democrat]

1. I take it you don't like Edwards.

Well, I doubt he has a chance in a mil of becoming Pres anyway.

[Jerseycoa]

2. Error

This is an old interview, pre-war. But I would be interested in knowing if his opinion of Bush has advanced any since.

[Jerseycoa]

5. Not an Edwards Supporter

But putting up an interview that's almost three years old hooked to a statement that Hitchens had dinner with Edwards last night, is, well, not the best way to make your point.

[DemDogs]

3. Hitchens is English, right?

Can't vote.

The blog also says the Edwards had Senate and campaign staff over for dinner. How many of the candidates did that, I wonder?

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. He may be a naturalized citizen

Anyone have any info?

[SeveneightyWhoa]

4. Hitchens has solidified his neo-conism.

"Because I’d vote for Bush. The important thing is this: Is a candidate completely serious about prosecuting the war on theocratic terrorism to the fullest extent? Only Bush is."

So I guess that makes it OFFICIAL--Hitchens is now a full-fledged neo-con.

[ajacobson]

6. Hitchens

:puke:

[Doomsayer13]

8. Good thing his opinion doesn't matter

He was a promising commentator for a while just to turn around and become a bushite. That's too bad. Orwell would be turning in his grave.

[DemDogs]

9. Staff to dinner

The blog says the Edwards had the staff to dinner too, so I doubt that there was much praise for Bush from anyone.

Nice to have the staff there.

[eissa]

10. Hitchens is an ass

I saw him on one of those talking heads shows and when asked what he thought of the democratic presidential candidates, he just chuckled and waved them off. I wish I could remember what name he called all of them, but it slips my mind. He added that none of them was a serious challenge for shrub. His head is so far up shrub's ass, he can taste what he had for breakfast.

[dvddrone]

11. It's a pity - because Hitch was once a great man

He was always rabidly against theocratic despots and I was right there with him. I had the same contempt for Clinton's funding of the Taliban that I had for Bush* when he got selected and started in sending more millions to those vile lunatics. Appalling policy is appalling policy. I liked Hitch's steadfastness in the face of bad political craziness, regardless of Party or personality.

His work on America, England, Cyprus, Palestinians, Israelis, Orwell, the wasteland of modern political writing and thought, culture and the lack of it, Kissinger, Princess Di (Diolatry was pure genius), Religion, Marx, Mother Theresa, history itself and so much more, were all brilliantly done. They remain recommended - even required - reading in my house. I admired his consistency, his sheer ballsiness and the fact that he was never mawkish or sentimental - no fucking violins for Hitch and pass the scotch, quickly. I could always rely on him to be well-researched, factually accurate, brutally sarcastic, razor-sharp and very, very funny. He was unrepentant in his enjoyment of smoking and drinking and sex (oh my!). For that alone he earned major props from me; I like grown-ups and vices and those who stay up late defending them. To this day, I admire the way his mind works and his undeniable, unstoppable talent with words. I'll never forget or disavow the influence his writing had on the development of my thinking on politics. I owe him a debt of gratitude for it today, and I'll still owe him tomorrow.

All that being said, I have no fucking idea what's happened to Hitch and it bothers me quite a bit. It began with Bill and Hillary. There's no question that he had it in for the Clintons. He was outraged by them with an intensity that I didn't share, but I could see where he was coming from. The vitriolic umbrage of the purist, the true idealist, the diehard political romantic in the very best interpretations of those terms. He'd deny that, viciously I'm sure, but I understood it and found it charming. He wasn't exactly wrong about the Clintons, though I'd give almost anything to have them back in power right now. Since 9/11 - Hitch seems to have lost his way, or found some new way that I cannot fathom and will not follow.

I have a pet theory that some friends of his must have died in the twin towers and that Hitch's reaction, or method of coping, is what has driven him to his current extreme position. I could be wrong. It could be an extension of his perfectly reasonable loathing of theocratic totalitarianism and thusly logical to him. His hatred of that obscene form of government is understandable to me, I join him in it. But his support of the Bush* junta and their actions is mystifying. I really don't get it and I'm saddened to see a good man go down because of it.

On the whole, it's nothing but awful to see him like this. Banished from the Nation, vilified by old friends, ostracized by the Left he spent his entire life serving so well and so brilliantly. Still, I can't help but be amused when neo-clowns point to Hitch with approval and admiration. They sing his praises to the rooftops, but it's a terribly shallow song. I have yet to find a single neo-clown Hitch admirer who has ever read his work. Oh, they've read the new stuff - the Clinton hating stuff, the post-9/11 stuff, the Bush* loving stuff, but not the rest of it. I especially like to recommend the Mother Theresa book. "The Missionary Position" (which I believe he wanted to call "Sacred Cow" but his publisher chickened out), would be such a good place for them to start. Then, just for kicks, they might try Hitch's writings on American religiosity or any of his older work, really. I can't imagine they'd enjoy it, but I did and still do. Actually, I'd like to see their pointy heads explode when they realize just who it is they've jumped into bed with, but I'm kinda mean that way.

I'm waiting for Hitch to come to his senses, but this may be in vain.

Elizabeth

[peaceandjustice]

12. "what's happened to Hitch "

Here are a couple different ideas.

Dennis Perrin, who insinuates he's the basis of Hitchens' Letters to a Young Contrarian, suggests it's that Hitchens is infected with the D.C. culture. here's a link. http://www.citypages.com/databank/24/1179/article11370.asp

I think Hitchens' support for the Bush administration is rooted in his steadfast opposition to theocracy and religious fundamentalism. I think it's clear that Islamic fundamentalism is a particular thorn in his side due to the Rushdie fatwa. The Perrin piece I linked above has an eyebrow-raising anecdote about Hitchens becoming enraged when he hears a Cat Stevens song played in a bar.

here's another link, http://slate.msn.com/id/2086844/ that shows more of Hitchens' obsession with the Rushdie fatwa while engaging a different topic. It also shows he can still be counted on to openly criticize Bush when he does disagree with him.

[eissa]

13. I understand your frustration

I really enjoyed many of Hitchens' works pre-Clinton days. Although I did not entirely agree with some of his positions, I respected his analysis and writing style. However, his indignation at the Clintons was as rabid as those of Barr, Hyde and Gingrich. I could never understand how he could be in that company. I thought witnessing the nightmare that is the bush regime (given his loathing for theocracies, I thought bush's policies would rile him) would bring him back, but he's gotten much worse. He is firmly in the neo-cons' camp, and therefore not worth listening to.