Hitch's Second to Last Article

I called Christopher Hitchens' article from last week "kinda lame" and felt it necessary to explain why.

First, "kinda lame" isn't exactly a phrase thought to be carved out by the finely-milled edge of a critic's surgical toolery, but this is a blog. More on topic, Hitchens seems to be talking about "our" obsession with Obama's skin color and the undue solipsism we practice on ourselves for seeing beyond it. He goes on to talk about Obama's crackpot church with a "decidedly ethnic character." Whatever.

If you want to ask about Obama's church, fine--ask away--it's not out of bounds. But I think Hitchens misses the larger point: Obama, himself, has made race a non-issue. He, more or less, told Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to phuXX0r off--or, at least to the effect of, "I don't need you to validate me." That is why his politics are different. When Hitchens asks the rhetorical question of why we didn't support Angela Davis or Jesse Jackson and then answers it with his own rhetorical question/answer of: "Was it the politics?", the immediate answer of "Why yes!" comes to mind. Obama is proving that he is bigger than his pigmentation.

And Hitchens sees that himself, but gives a very qualified, and dismissive, nod of agreement to it. In the end, I'm not sure what he is saying, quite frankly. Is he saying Obama is still playing the race card...kind-of? Maybe that "we" are obsessing about his race? Or maybe we're giving him a pass on his religion because he's black...? I don't know. But Hitchens is normally a much better writer and, perhaps, he is having trouble swallowing his terrifically wrong assessment of three months ago:

"Sen. Obama cannot possibly believe, and doesn't even act as if he believes, that he can be elected president of the United States next year."

Really....? And you said that why, dear Christopher? Why exactly did you say that? And why are you now, how does one put it..., wrong as W at a Toastmasters convention?