I would never expect Christopher Hitchens to pull punches, and he certainly doesn't with this one. Yet I get the sense that he is doing exactly what he accused other reporters of doing when the Iraq War broke out. Meaning, he is guarding himself against being the sucker.
I have no quote or videotape to back myself up in this charge as this is quite an unread blog, but I do remember Hitchens saying years ago, to the effect, that no one--most certainly a reporter--wants to be caught being optimistic about something that may possibly fail and, therefore, being skeptical about the war was (in a fashion) being conservative, or at least safe. Being anti-war in reporting was only marginally more courageous in that any cost/benefit argument could be levied against reports of Good News(TM). ("Freedom at what cost?" type arguments which can be made by even transparently insincere Sophomoric minds). Fine. I get that. But how is Hitch's latest screed any different in approach?
Obama is not anything close to a godsend--as Obama has repeatedly said himself. Will this/is this association with Wright be one of many potential dissappointments? OF COURSE it is and undoubtably will be. Obama does have feet of clay for anyone out there who might think him statue-worthy. I don't think Obama should have associated himself with Wright in the first place, but he did. I'm glad Obama is taking hits for it. He should take hits for it. But he isn't running away from it either.
My grandfather, whom I adored, said things that I've beaten other people for. Some of my friends have said things that have shocked me. I have said things that have shocked me--things which I still haven't forgiven myself for. But I am unashamed of my adoration for my late grandfather, unashamed to call my friends friends, and only partly ashamed of myself. Obama has reacted much the same in that he said Wright is like family to him and cannot be disowned (though that would be politically expedient). And he did not make any moral equivalence between Wright and his grandmother--as Hitchens asserts--except to say that they are both family. Flawed, mortal people in his family.
Were Obama to not denounce the idiotic and incendiary remarks of Wright, he would have lost my vote immediately. But were Obama to have completely disowned Wright as a matter of political expedience, he would have not only lost my vote, but would have broken faith with himself and truly shown himself as a fraud. As it turns out, he managed to keep both my vote and his manhood. Hitchens should at least see, and respect, the latter.
I have no quote or videotape to back myself up in this charge as this is quite an unread blog, but I do remember Hitchens saying years ago, to the effect, that no one--most certainly a reporter--wants to be caught being optimistic about something that may possibly fail and, therefore, being skeptical about the war was (in a fashion) being conservative, or at least safe. Being anti-war in reporting was only marginally more courageous in that any cost/benefit argument could be levied against reports of Good News(TM). ("Freedom at what cost?" type arguments which can be made by even transparently insincere Sophomoric minds). Fine. I get that. But how is Hitch's latest screed any different in approach?
Obama is not anything close to a godsend--as Obama has repeatedly said himself. Will this/is this association with Wright be one of many potential dissappointments? OF COURSE it is and undoubtably will be. Obama does have feet of clay for anyone out there who might think him statue-worthy. I don't think Obama should have associated himself with Wright in the first place, but he did. I'm glad Obama is taking hits for it. He should take hits for it. But he isn't running away from it either.
My grandfather, whom I adored, said things that I've beaten other people for. Some of my friends have said things that have shocked me. I have said things that have shocked me--things which I still haven't forgiven myself for. But I am unashamed of my adoration for my late grandfather, unashamed to call my friends friends, and only partly ashamed of myself. Obama has reacted much the same in that he said Wright is like family to him and cannot be disowned (though that would be politically expedient). And he did not make any moral equivalence between Wright and his grandmother--as Hitchens asserts--except to say that they are both family. Flawed, mortal people in his family.
Were Obama to not denounce the idiotic and incendiary remarks of Wright, he would have lost my vote immediately. But were Obama to have completely disowned Wright as a matter of political expedience, he would have not only lost my vote, but would have broken faith with himself and truly shown himself as a fraud. As it turns out, he managed to keep both my vote and his manhood. Hitchens should at least see, and respect, the latter.
