Joan Walsh smacks down Christopher Hitchens' Clinton hatred
By SilentPatriot Tuesday Dec 02, 2008 3:00pmWhen Christopher Hitchens practically starts foaming at the mouth with Clinton Derangement Syndrome while on the topic of President-elect Obama's national security team, a very calm Joan Walsh takes him to woodshed and appears to get him pretty flustered. Fireworks start around 9:25 in.
Hitchens: "[Choosing Hillary Clinton] still divides us between those who think a job must be found for Hillary Clinton, that the country would somewhat be disgraced if she wasn't in an important position and those of us who could do without her."
Walsh: "But that second group is a very small group. It's a group of eccentric Clinton haters who have made a living out of trashing the Clinton. It's a small group. It's not an important group in American foreign or domestic policy."
Hitchens: "Which group are you talking about?"
Walsh: "The group of people who would rather see Hillary Slinton off the world stage. I don't think Barack Obama was thinking about that at all because that group of people are eccentric, they are devoted to looking at everything the Clintons do in the worst possible light, and hes trying to solve problems."
Awesome.
As Media Matters notes: Why does MSNBC continue to invite on Christopher Hitchens to bash Hillary Clinton?
Login or Register to post comments.
If he wasn't drunk he should claim he was so he would have something to blame his stupidity on.
I am not crazy about Hitchens.
But you make a slur against someone with a disease...The Journal of the American Medical Association defines alcoholism as "a primary, chronic disease".
If he was in a wheelchair would you call him a gimp?
Hmmm?
Watch this.
During the campaign Obama and his aides stressed her inadequacies in foreign affairs.
Clinton has blood on her hands. Iraqi, Serbian, Sudanese, Rwandan, Timorese, Afghani, and soon Iranian blood on her hands.
It is not Clinton hating. It is seeing through the liberal folklore with progressive eyes. Clinton is a REPUBLICAN hawk who thinks sitting down with our "enemies" is naive. "I like the idea of coercive diplomacy" is a quote from her. That is an oxymoron..you know like jumbo shrimp, genuine imitation, compassionate conservative, instant classic.
She liked NAFTA, she sat on Walmarts board, she was all about the Telecom Bill of 1996.
If you read and researched 1% of what Hitchens has about the Clintons you would agree with him.
My father was an alcoholic and died of that disease. I did not call Hitchens an alcoholic. Not everyone who drinks alcohol is an alcoholic.
As for the rest, I respect your opinion and I would only ask the same of you
I respect you PoP, I am just reacting to the constant high school like mentality that is taking over the commenting on C&L.
Hitchens is wrong on some subjects, but that man is Gore Vidal like in his mental and literary capacities.
If you think Clinton is right for the job, ok, your wrong but ok. Calling Hitchens stupid and a drunk is unworthy of you.
And exactly who are you to judge me? I shall refer to Hitchens in any manner I desire.
Your mind is nailed shut!
Okay! So what's your point? If my mind is "nailed shut" why the continued comments? I cannot believe you have nothing better to do than to hound me. Have a pleasant evening.
Read it again
But of course they won't -there goes their crutch.
Being psychologically attached to a chemically addictive substance is NOT a fucking disease. It is not the same as having a cold, having a physical disability or even having Cancer.
The AMA began listing Alcoholism as a disease in 1957. As a frame of reference, the AMA also thought, until 1973, that Homosexuality was a disease too.
The AMA attributes alcoholism to genetics, social environment and emotional health factors. If alcoholism was a disease, why couldn't Cocaine abuse or Crystal Meth use be a disease too? If genetics predisposition was really an excuse for alcoholism, then why aren't children born from rape victims listed as potential sex offenders the minute they're born from the womb?
Lets look at the four factors that the AMA uses to define Alcoholism. The JAMA defines alcoholism as "a primary, chronic disease characterized by impaired control over drinking, preoccupation with the drug alcohol, use of alcohol despite adverse consequences, and distortions in thinking."
Impaired Control over Drinking: Basically, a chemical dependence initiated by personal choice, not a physical need. There is no primary physical urge that requires the consumption of alcohol for basic body functions.
Preoccupation with the Drug Alcohol: Really. Does this mean that anyone that preoccupies themselves with work, family or socially progressive movements is also potentially diseased?
Use of Alcohol Despite Adverse Consequences: Sorry, but these adverse consequences only occur in the long run. Using Alcohol on a weekly or monthly basis (ie a beer on friday night with the coworkers) is not a symptom of a disease. You aren't going to get cirrhosis of the liver after a single beer unless something is seriously wrong with the liver to begin with.
"Using alcohol DURING adverse consequences brought on by long term abuse" is more reasonable, but in defining it as such, one must concede that this is more habitual and chemical and not brought on by a biological disorder.
Finally, "Distortions in Thinking": Chemically induced stupidity is not what I would call a rational symptom of an actual disease. If it were biological then is would be natural stupidity and since when is being stupid a disease? There are plenty of stupid people in the world without a disease to blame their actions on (like religious people who think spiritual and social dependency is a reasonable substitute for chemical dependency). Or if, you think I'm stupid for arguing that Alcoholism is not a disease, then you have to at least concede that "distortions in thinking" is not a definitive symptom for a disease.
Seriously, where does personal choice end and disease begin with these people? If reading a magazine ad is an attributing factor to the existence of the disease, then its time to rethink what defines a disease.
The World Health Organization claims Alcoholism is a serious medical problem. This sounds slightly less dramatic when you realize that automobile accidents are also serious medical problems.
It is also interesting to note that the term Alcoholism was coined by Alcoholics Anonymous, a religious organization, which preached total abstinence and psychological manipulation - kinda like the current trend towards Sex Education.
"Alcoholism is a disease", my ass. This is just an excuse for bad behavior brought on by permissive social experiences. This is why the only potential "cure" is a long term unlearning of psychologically ingrained behaviors.
I might concede that Alcoholism is a psychological disorder, but it is not a disease and those that parrot that nonsense only add to the environmental permissiveness and social excusability that these medical associations claim cause the addiction in the first place.
Are you speaking from experience? I thought not. AA is NOT a religious organization in the least. It has relgious overtones, but is not religious. Many alcoholics do turn to god becasue it saves them (and they're willing to try anything), not because they must.
It's obvious you have no real grasp of of the situation, just a pastiche of gibberish that is convenient to your argument.
Wouldn't be the first time he went on camera drunk. But I noticed he made sniffing sounds a couple of times, made me think that he was probably tweeked out.
I've seen no evidence that he's moved on to harder substances, but he could just have had a bit of a cold too.
But let's face it. When was the last time this man has been able hold his head up above his shoulders while on camera? Not since the Penn & Teller Bullshit interview has this guy been able to hold himself up, physically. This guy needs some serious help but I doubt he'll ever own up to wanting to help himself.
Alcohol is one of the hardest out there.
Count me in with the eccentrics.
I would love to see both Bill and Hill Clinton disappear from any and every stage.
I wish they would just retire and play golf with Poppy Bush or something.
What else is Hitchens going to pull out of his bag of tricks? A Clenis?
One of the main reasons I didn't want a Clinton in an Obama Administration is because of this tripe. The Clintons bring along a good amount of political garbage which allows the talking heads to discuss the Lewinsky fiasco or Bill "giving" Hillary her political position instead of discussing important policy.
i've got to agree... lots of baggage...
but, it is what it is, and i hope for the best...
No more than what the Kennedys bring with them and look how much respect that clan still wields.
Hitchens: "Which group are you talking about?"
oh - he knew... he just dared her to say "YOU"...
too bad she didn't... but she did all right...
so wait, we all love Hillary now?
C&L and John Amato have always been for Clinton.
I think they like Hillary Clinton, but hate most things she stands for (or votes for at least).
We'll see this with Obama soon enough.
"I love the guy. I just wish he didn't have so many crappy policies!"
Knock it the fuck off. You play it just like my kid who's a freshman in college. "Oh, that is soooo high school." YOU need to grow up and find another cliche.
BTW: This site was accused, during the primaries, by Obama supporters as being pro-Clinton, and by Clinton supporters of being pro-Obama. This site did it's damnedest to play it straight down the middle- it always said that it would support the candidate who won the Democratic nomination, and that's what it did.
As readers of Mrs. Walsh's Salon.com will know, she's just as rabid/irrational Hillary supporter as Hitchens is a basher.
At this point, the shape the country is in I don't care who Obama names to a post as long as its a competent professional (what a change that would be) but on a personal note, I thought Obama's primary attraction was no more Bush/Clinton. So without taking a stance on the job she'd do, I'd have been happier if both Clintons could have faded with the end of the election.
I don't hate the Clintons. I'm just tired of them. I hope that doesn't make me eccentric because many other progressives feel the same way. Walsh is usually pretty smart but that was a dumb remark.
That was no smack down. The closest Hitchens has ever come to a smack down was in a debate with George Galloway.
There are certainly better targets for our disdain than Clinton but much of what Hitchens said is true; not many of us would have argued with him in the heat of the primaries.
Yes Galloway punked Hitchens hard. Bravo!!!
I just dont think she can follow Obamas agenda with Bill talking in her other ear. I hope I'm wrong.
Obama may regret filling his cabinet with so many opposing opinions, he'll have a lot of people to babysit.
Maybe Obama plans to mentor Hillary for the presidency in 8 years. Now, if he could just teach her about positive campaigning alone, THAT would be a miracle. She could have learned that from Bill, but didn't.
Of course Bill will be whispering in her ear -- he'll be too close to the seat of power to resist putting his hand in the pot. But it's hard to anticipate who will influence her more -- Bill or Barack.
In addition to Obama's having to deal with a lot of opposing opinions himself, I think Obama's staff will be in pretty intense conflict with each other, and he'll have his hands full keeping the waters calm so they can accomplish his goals. He'll have to firmly draw the lines of responsibility from the get-go so there are not any political territorial squabbles. His campaign, from all reports, managed to function smoothly as far as those kinds of conflicts are concerned; hers was a disaster in this area, and she's planning to bring many of her allies on board with her.
We'll just have to see how it goes.
but I am troubled that Rush Limpballs thinks she was a good choice. He's never right.
To plant doubts in the minds of progressives.
Personally, I could give a rat's ass about what Limbaugh says about anything.
Without the Clinton's Obama wouldn't even have qualified people for his cabinet. He would have had to hire everyone from the Bush years. He sure played you guys for suckers! Sad that your agent of change has turned out to be more of the same. I'm glad Hillary is there to make sure he can handle the job.
Really, what, to you, is change? Because it seems to me that the sort of change Obama was thinking about wasn't the type of change you were thinking about.
plez.
Not right, but not a troll.
And the "Change" meme has been widely misinterpreted. It's time to set the record straight.
:D
But there are real differences between the candidates. We are looking for more than just a change of party in the White House. We're looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington.
It's a status quo that extends beyond any particular party and right now that status quo is fighting back with everything it's got, with the same old tactics that divide and distract us from solving the problems people face, whether those problems are health care that folks can't afford or a mortgage they cannot pay.
So this will not be easy. Make no mistake about what we're up against. We're up against the belief that it's all right for lobbyists to dominate our government, that they are just part of the system in Washington.
But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem and this election is our chance to say that we are not going to let them stand in our way anymore.
We're up against the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as president comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor and judgment and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose, a higher purpose.
We're up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make college affordable or energy cleaner. It's the kind of partisanship where you're not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea, even if it's one you never agreed with.
That's the kind of politics that is bad for our party, it is bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all.
(complete transcript here)
The change Obama was talking about all along was a change of the politics dating back to 1980. No more eye-for-an-eye politics. An end to the bitterness. Searching for concensus.
Like it or not, our Constitution was designed to force concession. It is a very conservatively written document, damned hard to amend. This is a good thing. Rights can't be ripped away by fiat, by a simple majority.
And if the people of the nation feel it is indeed time to change the Constitution, they do so by the concensus of a super-majority.
I wish that Hitchens could chill out and properly explain himself without getting all agro.Hes definitely on the right side of this argument but he gets all angry and screws himself over. This Joan Walsh lady is terrible and should have easily dealt with him, but she just doesn't seem to be able too. Also, there are reasons why people hate the Clinton's it has nothing to do with her being a woman, it has to do with her being an egotistical liar. You don't have to be eccentric to see through Hillary Clinton.
I guess I'm eccentric (first time I have ever been called that) but I'm with Hitchens on this one, Hillary pisses off as many people as she inspires. Personally I don't think she adds much to the political arena. She does not know how to soften her words, too often she comes across like a cat who got sprayed with water.
and much less of Christopher Hitchins. They can all go pound sand in Iraq.
That annoying rash that just won't go away. Just when you think you finally got rid of it, it flames up again.
I don't always agree with 'Ms Walsh,' but I'm a long-time premium Salon subscriber and I read her regularly. Her calm, extended bitch-slap of 'Ms' Hitchens was fantastic.
I can read his literary criticism and merely grind my teeth a bit, he's so fucking precious, but his political opinions are, at best, difficult to unpalatable. With the Clintons he becomes a predictable, fatuous prick. Look at his role in the impeachment, the fact that he was willing to trash what I gather was a close friendship with Sid Blumenthal (may we always be grateful that he sired Max B.). All this, for a blowjob.
When Joan Walsh said, "You can call me Joan, I've had drinks with you," I nearly sprayed my own drink on one of the dogs. God bless her.
An R SoS?
Or a D Sos?
Either way, the corporations are in good shape.
... that the insufferable Hitchens was an avid war supporter, too? He was seeing swarthy terrorists under every bed and behind every lamppost.
Of course, it was never a "war" ...
Funny how many people have such amnesia about how good the Clinton years were. At least in comparison to this hellish interregnum we're about to leave behind ...
Why don't we wait at least until he's been in office a few months before we start unloading on Obama?
I hate the lockstep mentality of the filthy Republicans, but at least they don't convene daily circular firing squads ...
This is actually an appropriate time for the repugs to form that firing squad! Myself? Well, I'm trying mightily to refrain from taking up arms against the constant drone of the cabinet bashers.
The rude pundit had a great take on cabinet bashers yesterday.
Chill the hell out, folks.
It's still only Dec. 2. The inauguration is more than a month away.
I think he was wrong for supporting the invasion of Iraq, but I'm convinced that his reasons for doing so were much more altruistic than Bushco's reasons.
I certainly have no love for Hitchens, but I also have no love for the Clintons -- not because of any so-called "derangement syndrome" but because they are horrible, horrible politicians, the worst kind of Republican Lite-style politicians, in fact. So, Hitchens can't say what many of us think??? The many of us that have rational reasons for disliking the Clintons and their corporate obedience. I guess we won't be able to criticize Obama either. Maybe this site should be renamed "Our Crooks and Liars"... because if you're only going to be "progressive" when Repubs are in power and not so when Dems are, what good are you really???
I think you're being rash, but that's your right.
I'd like to see how this works out before I start criticizing. It's more than a month before the inauguration....
No fan of the Clinton's myself, either, but I know a lot of people who are. They don't necessarily post comments on blogs, but they're out there in force. And I know even more people who voted for McCain. Here's the thing, though: the best way to turn them into rabid haters is to marginalize them, McCain and Clinton supporters alike. But if you give them a seat at the table and actually listen to their views, you might win them over even without giving them everything they want.
Joan really gave him a slap in the face with the "You can call me Joan, we had drinks together" line. Hitchens is a one trick pony when it comes to politics and his time is up. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand has lots to offer and I look forward to seeing what she can accomplish.
The disgruntled Clintonite fan base seems to think they've been redeemed. Now they're all Obama supporters no doubt.
I speak as a detached Canadian observer. If Clinton and Obama are big enough to overcome their differences and work together to make America a good country again, then they are demonstrating diplomacy in action. The British Hitchens has no interest in trying to make America great - he just keeps nitpicking. He stirs up trouble and gossips like an old lady.
Obama may be attempting to practice diplomacy, Clinton has illustrated that she'd sell her soul to gain more power... and the Clinton's and their campaign gossiped like old ladies throughout the campaign. No doubt Obama would not be getting tapped if the situation was reversed.
Bottom line... more of the same.
Hitchens became an American and he lives in DC. So now you now eh
... and Walsh sidestepped the Q's about where he overemphasized things about Clinton.
I'm not as outraged by the Clinton appointment as he is, but would not have been bothered either if she had remained Senator of NY.
I actually think the one good thing about her being SoS is that maybe we can get an actual progressive in that NY Senate seat now.
I find it staggering no one on this board or John Amato recalls just a few months ago when Joan Walsh was telling Obama he had to apoogize, apologize, apologize:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/06/...
Personally, I don't think it's too late for him to find a way to apologize for (Michael) Pfleger. Obama's statement denouncing him came quickly last week, but it focused on the political damage the priest was doing to his candidacy, not what he'd said personally about Clinton.
MORE CONDESCENDING BULL SHIT FROM JOAN TO OBAMA:
Mainly I think he has to reach out to women the old-fashioned way: individually, warmly and respectfully. He needs to schedule meetings with Clinton's top female supporters. (It's probably too much to ask, but I'd love to see a lunch with Geraldine Ferraro.
JOAN WALSH LECTURES OBAMA SOME MORE:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/06/...
The self-described "hope-monger" now needs to be a grace-monger, in a word, to win back Clinton supporters proud of what she's accomplished in this race and angry over her mistreatment.
"America is ready for change."... I present to you... The Clintons.
Was this not the forum that was appalled by Clinton's dirty tricks during the campaign and her odorous self-importance?
If it baas like a sheep...
...that just because she and Obama have made up, Hillary is not a sacred cow that's above criticism. Neither should Obama be a sacred cow. We all have to come to grips with the fact that we may have elected another president who has to be criticized and taken to task from time to time.
Sacred Chao, if you know what I mean.
BTW, Chao means chaos in latin.
I was not a Clinton supporter. There were over 19 million Dems who agreed with me that she was not the right one for the job.
Hitchens, who I rarely agree with, was reflecting the same substantive views I and millions of other Democrats have about why Clinton is terrible then and now for SOS
Joan was, is and always has been rabidly anti-Obama. I know because I read her columns at Salon for several years. Every last column also called those who disagreed with her and Clinton - "haters". Yet not once did that righteous smart-mouth bi*** every address the substantive critiques we had of her. Hitchens facts are all deadly accurate.
Back then, Joan pushed the favored talking point of her hard-line anti-Obama colleagues and today -she's still at it, with a new word for those of us who still disagree with Clinton -"eccentric".
Got news for you blubbering Clintonettes - ain't nothing "eccentric" about her voting with Joe Lieberman and all of the Republicans to continue the barbaric practice of cluster bombing innocent civilians populations.
Or how about that BK bill she helped write for her New York Wall Street buddies, but then refused to vote for -to cover her ass?
Do any of you panderers know the details of that bill? Of course you don't. She and her pals actually stripped out a judges right to stay the evictions of people who had to file Bankruptcy- whether from medical or job related issues.
How cold is that??
Your queen just is another Donald Rumsfeld - in drag.
Hillary's only getting the job as a consolation prize, so she wouldn't pull some Lieberman/Miller crap on Obama for the rest of the election. But it's probably for the best, anyway, since we need to do away with Republicrats in Congress.
Stay in a crouched and ready position and always try to keep her in front of you!
Chase lost the 1860 GOP nomination to Lincoln, and Lincoln tapped Chase for Secretary of Treasury.
Yet Chase continued politicking for the nomination in 1864. Lincoln dumped Chase from the cabinet, and as a sap to Chase's supporters appointed the former Secretary the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
The outlandish claims based on innuendo and supposed "look it up" proof made by Hitchens begs the question. If Hitchen is so obviously convienced about his claims; then, as a REAL reporter, prove it?
What the heck is this man going on about like some prozac challenged mid life crisis jaded spurned secretly in love with Hiliary stalker.
He's a complete idiot. The proof is in the conclusion of hard work and evidence which to date regardless of the Bush years is not replaced by irresponsible rhetoric. What a clown, what a disrespectful fat hypertensive right wing radio talk show host sounding fool. That a major magazine still lends their name to this prolific windbag is incredible; comparable to the idiocy of MSNBC making Gregory lead of "Meet the Press". Where do these wind storms come from and why are they given so much legitimacy.
It is beyond most observers that no one questions the lack of evidence, the lack of careful and methodical justification and proof of the claims that continue to have air play in our news waves. The newspapers have practically gone the way of the dinosaur and so will these news shows as Americans tired already from all the vitriolic drama queens spewing their own unsubstantiated spin and hate move to the internet where we can find opposing and balanced opinions.
Hitchen's asked Joan that same question. She couldn't name one. Neither did you.
has Korsikoff's syndrome.
Hitchens makes some very valid points, not the least of which is that there were far better choices for SOS than Clinton.
Walsh really made no great case for her in this segment and did not answer his questions.
I quote another post above: "America is ready for change."... I present to you... The Clintons. Quite.
so he doesn't get to choose the next Secretary of State. He presumes to criticize the choice of the guy who WAS elected. He's a right wing concern troll. He keeps dragging the Clinton name through the mud, along with all the other right wing suck-ups.
You must be a very detached observer in Canada... no, there are millions of 'lefties' that know that Hillary is the true Republican suckup... remember her saying her and McCain were the only ones qualified.
Read hazmaq's post 7 posts up... he stated it well.
Call homeland security! Better yet -call Joe Lieberman. HA!
did you have a point?
because your comment was basically a non-sequitur.
Mike, I hear you bro.
But thanks to Hitchens, I'm actually warming a bit to Hillary.
Hitch is blessed with a good brain and cursed with a small heart.
Hitchens, that is.
What are you talking about? Joan Walsh got her *** handed to her!!!
I don't mind her being SOS; I don't think it was her vast knowledge of World Affairs that got her the spot though.
I have never been an inveterate Clinton supporter, and during the past 8 years, I have become highly disappointed by their disgracefully hawkish, Republican-lite political actions.
However, to think that Christopher Hitchens (CH) could actually break bread with, and be revoltingly palsy-walsy with an unvarnished, hatefulp moron such as the WH Chimpanzee, and his murderous gang of mafioso thugs- all the while spouting inexplicable hatred towards Bill Clinton (who, with all his faults, is light years ahead of the genocidal murderer that CH has been backing with shameless glee)- this makes me think what many have stated here: this pseudo, self-obsessed intellectual is utterly irrelevant, and truly a pathetic caricature of a human being.
I am reasonably convinced that much of CH's political stance stems from a deep-rooted xenophobia, including intense hatred of Muslims. Notice how this shameless hack uses the words "secular democracy in Iraq"- even as, like Ahmed Chalabi and such repulsive human specimens, his cheerleading has led to the death of 1 million entirely innocent human beings.
CH suffers from a serious mental affliction- intense hatred, and Euro-centric race-superiority complex that makes any ridiculous position completely justifiable in his mind. I believe George Galloway is the best antidote for this would-be Vidal or Chomsky.
Wow, to say Hitchens is xenophobic and rascist is totally moronic when one actually takes the time to examine his work. His support for Kurdish liberation was one of his main arguments for intervention in Iraq. Not to mention, he's staunchly pro-Palestinian. These are not exactly positions you hold if you have a passionate hatred for all Muslims.
The fact remains that there is a civil war going on among Muslims right now, between those who want to establish a secular state with human rights (ie. the Kurds) and those who want to establish a barbaric, theocratic state hellbent on the establishment of a global Islamic Caliphate. Hitchens holds the belief that we should do all possible to aid the former in their fight against the latter.
He does not have the mindless "AMERICA FUCK YEAH, KILL ALL THE ARABS" mentality that you portray him to have. His position is much more nuanced, and if you took the time to actually read about it instead of hurling baseless insults, you might realize that, agree with him or not, he supported the war for the right reasons.
And I really don't get your problem with his intense hatred for Islamic fundamentalism is. Are we not supposed to hate the 9/11 hijackers and the suicide bombers who target civilians?
Oh, by the way it's your government, not Hitchens' that hates Muslims. In particular it's your government and Hillary Clinton, and not Hitchens personally, that has a taste for cluster bombs and caused the death of millions.
While many of us can't stand them, there are lots of people who love them...both here in the US and more importantly overseas. I am sure that Obama has made it clear to Hillary that he is the boss and she will not be making policy, but carrying out his policy. and if she screws up, he fires her ...she wouldn't be the first to be fired nor the last ....
I was thrilled when Obama clinched the nomination ... HRC really pissed me off during the campaign and I thought her behavior was totally inexcuseable .. bad manners galore! and downright nastiness...
However, I have to admit that she gave a great speech at the convention and that she worked like a dog to get Obama elected ...
I don't think Obama is giving her this job ... I think he sees that, for all her faults, Hillary Clinton has a lot of political capital and that she will be a real asset to the State Department. I have heard several commentators mention that she is well known overseas and that many foreign leaders will be so happy to have their pictures taken with Hillary .. and that counts for something
I wish not only MSNBC would quit inviting Hitchens, I wish everyone would quit inviting him ... I have never seen him be anything except disagreeable and arrogant ...
The Clinton Legacy
Telecommunications Act (results in Clearchannel owning 1100 radio stations...media consolidation)
Nafta (millions of jobs lost...mexican farmers run out of business by American subsidized farmers head north looking for work.)
Deregualted Banking Industry (the results of this have come home to roost)
Dot.com bubble burst (401's IRA's shrink)
Allowed GM Foods to remain unidentified (monsanto says thank you)
Enron flourishes (Billions lost (stolen) again...)
Waco...Oklahoma City.
Constant bombing of Iraq...economic sanctions, death and destruction.
Hillary...votes for invasion...international crime committed.
This is Clinton's legacy despite his words. This record of grave errors and crimes is there for all to see. The Bush family is worse but thats not saying much.
Let's give Obama a chance to get started, shall we?
It is because he is intellectually honest and they feel inferior with their lack of proof and facts. Its a natural inclination for a person to feel uncomfortable when they are incorrect, though its mostly seen in an immature mindset. A child afraid to raise their hand in class to answer the teacher's question fearing belittlement from peers. They will kill and die for their beliefs, be them right or wrong. They will fly airplanes into buildings, blow themselves up or blow up a doctor's office. You can not tell them they are wrong. They are mentally challenged and fear the truth. They cherry pick their passages and ignore the rest. I would respect them if they honestly follow the good book. The book in Luke 19:27 says > But as for these enemies of mine who didn't want me to be their king-bring them here and slaughter them in my presence!'" < [Deleted. Flamebait. Site Monitor]
[Deleted. Off Topic. Site Monitor]
I don't understand all the Hillary bashing here. Olmert likes her and thinks she's a good choice. So, if Tel-Aviv does the vetting, you know it's a good pick and that's all that matters.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=12...
I have no love for Hitchens, I think he's in love with his own estimation of his intelligence, and I haven't ever heard of Walsh before. She doesn't factually meet any of his points, nor does she do much more than talk over him. I would like to propose that people be more intellectually rigorous than this.
I agree. If Hitchens is railing against Hillary then he has a blind spot, something a person who claims to be a brilliant philosopher should never have. Makes you wonder if he is brilliant or if he is a philosopher. A brilliant philosopher is someone who can stand back and be objective.
Hillary will do fine as long as she keeps in mind that Obama is President, and I think she can do that. She has pretty strong opinions. It's hard to know how much of the campaign rhetoric was just that - rhetoric, or if she truly believed everything she said. I think Hillary and Obama are closer in philosophy than the campaign implied.
Leave Hillary alone.
I saw the clip and I don't think it's anywhere close to accurate to say that Walsh "smacked down" Hitchens. I'm afraid she was bested in this particular encounter. He grabbed about three times more air-time than Walsh and he made his points decisively, if (characteristically) belligerently. Walsh was on the defensive the whole time and ended up losing on points.
Hitchens' support of the US War on Iraq and Afghanistan is tragic and wrongheaded, I believe, and his recent anti-religion atheist books are irritating pandering, but would anyone accuse him of "Hank-Hating" in his book The Trial of Henry Kissinger?
The Trials of Henry Kissinger is one of my all-time favorite documentaries.
I have rea dthis blog for more than two years now, checkin in almost daily. I'm really surprised at how low the level of discourse has dropped on C&L.
The slurs against Hitchens being an 'alcoholic' or 'hate filled' are way out of line and similar to what I like to criticize right wing bloggers for. I don't agree with Hitchen's on some points, but I do respect him as a highly educated and informed commentator who does not mince words. I disagree with him on the invasion of Iraq - but I understand his reasoning behind why he's in favour of it and support that reasoning to a degree.
Christopher Hitchens is right on this issue. I'm very concerned with Barack Obama's cabinet choices and especially with that of Hillary Clinton. Just because she's a Democrat we shouldn't all be fawning at her feet. I happen to agree with Hitchen's assessment that she is interested in power and influence and little more. In the primaries she came across as a war hawk and more Republican than some of the GOP candidates.
I think she's the worst possible selection as Secretary of State and I' quite dissappointed with these and other early decisions made by Obama.
But even if you disagree with this and with Hitchen's POV, it is way out of line to call him an 'alcoholic' and 'hate filled' just to drive an agenda as opposed to making a valid point.
I totally agree. Great post. Whenever a Hitchens clip appears on a left-leaning blog, posters always try and right him off as a drunk and warmonger, without actually refuting his facts or arguments. Nevermind the fact that Hitchens can usually make a more coherent argument sauced than most people can when they're sober, this kind of rhetoric is pointless, cowardly and juvenile.
Name-calling is something I have come to expect from the right-wing blogs, but not from the so-called "enlightened" progressives at C&L and Huffpo. These kinds of ad hominem attacks just make you look bad and should be avoided when trying to make a coherent point. Attack the argument, not the person (unless it's Sarah Palin, :P). Most of you are pretty good at doing this most of the time, but whenever Hitchens makes an appearance many of you suddenly fall into "insult" mode.
It's also worth mentioning that it's factually inaccurate, as he has quit smoking and has cut back considerably on his alcohol intake.
He also, as you pointed out, had much more altruistic reasoning behind his support for the Iraq war than the average war supporter, which should be commended, even if disagreed with.
And Hitchens is dead-on on this issue. I could go into all of the other reasoning behind why it's a bad nomination, but suffice it to say, Kissinger endorsed her nomination. That really should be all any progressive needs.
Also, I really don't see how Walsh "smacked down" Hitchens. He challenged her to name one factually inaccurate claim he has made about the Clinton's, and she couldn't. She talked over him, called him "eccentric," and said "call me Joan, I've had dinner at your house." That`s about the extent of it.
But Hitchens is a drunk. A notorious drunk, who frequently appears on these shows in his cups. I'm never been a big supporter of Hillary, but I thought Hitchens' behavior on this particular show was quite rabid and he seemed to pull out every negative news bite we've ever heard about Clinton, without really adding anything new or enlightening. He says that she thinks of herself first, then her husband, and that her job would come in third or fourth. How, exactly, would he know that? More importantly, why does he give Obama zero credit for having the brains to study the pros and cons of Hillary's appointment? There is no way that Obama made this choice in a vacuum. No doubt, he has spoken to many other people, including foreign leaders and members of our own state department to get their impressions of Clinton. Obama is a realistic, pragmatic guy who is smart as hell. I doubt that any of the appointments he's made so far were done without comprehensive research and careful consideration. In that regard, Hitchens is a lightweight. The only information he's interested in is the political mud that really has nothing to do with what kind of Secretary of State Clinton would make. I thought Walsh's "smack down" of Hitchens was quite good. He is a very "eccentric" fellow-- or, at least, that's how he acts when he gets on these programs.
The truth is pretty much right in the middle. HRC will not, as Hitchens contends, base every decision on what's good for her without regard for the rest of the country. Puleeze, does anyone think that her boss will let her do that? Or that he didn't make that clear implicitly or explicitly to her?
On the other hand, she got that job through other means than being the most qualified. Who knows what kind of backroom dealing went on, but while I respect her in ways, I don't think she's a high-minded person, and that opinion derives from reading a lot about her dealings over the years while working for Rose. As for WJC, well, if getting blown in the WH were the sleaziest thing he'd ever done we'd be lucky.
I agree, especially with the scorched-earth primary she ran against Obama, that she should have been offered something just better enough than her current job to get her on board. Making her SoS was a decision that Obama may come to regret.
And as to alcoholism, whether a disease or not, it's been the root cause of countless deaths, rapes, and other horrors over the centuries, yet alcohol is socially acceptable and its abosers are coddled, while over 700,000 people (90% of 800,000) were arrested last year for possessing small amounts of marijuana, which is only mildly addictive and has yet to be proven cause a fraction of the mayhem alcohol does. And no, I don't smoke it, I just recognize extreme irrationality when it's as obvious as....pick your favorite simile.
I would hardly consider it a smackdown. Joan is a sellout just like Clinton blinded by her femenism, she may have good intentions but she has misguided loyalty. The group of people who see Clinton for the power hungry, manipulative player that she is can laughingly not be called small. The list of Clinton fraud and deception foisted on Americans is too vast to list here. bury your head in the sand if you like ...the facts are the facts, and it is apparently not the end of the story.
This is my problem with C&L and why I prefer to go to HuffPo, Jed Report and other sources: It's pretty obvious there's a pro-Hillary twist to this article.
"Christopher Hitchens practically starts foaming at the mouth with Clinton Derangement Syndrome"
Where's the foaming, seriously? I agree with a lot of what this guy just said. And the fact that Obama was pretty much singing a similar tune to Hitchens a few months ago and is now appointing her to SOS is a little troubling for me. I saw this coming though, this IS politics after all and Obama IS a politician. The Hillary pick is smart in a number of ways, but of course brings the extra baggage and the incessant inquiring of the media.
Now, belittling Hitchens as a drunk that can't stand straight versus actually having to take into consideration what he's saying is not only cheap and distasteful, but cowardly and ignorant. If you voted for Obama over Hillary in the primaries then some of the things Hitchens is saying must ring true to you.
And as for C&L, while you are a blog and really don't respond to the same kind of journalistic values that other news outlets do, I would really enjoy fair coverage across the board. If this were Hitchens talking ill about McCain/Palin as he did during the campaign, it would be displayed in a much better approval light and I'm sure he wouldn't be called a drunk by so many in the comments.
Hitchens is a misogynist and his opinion about Hillary is mainly based on that. Ever since I read his article in Vanity Fair "Why Women Don't have a Sense of Humour" it's been clear that he hasn't got a clue about women. He's got his strengths but objective discussion about women is not one of them.
What? That article merely pointed out the fact that men are much more likely to have evolved behavioural mechanisms that make them funnier than women.
Women, being the more discriminating of the sexes, care much more about their mates genetic quality than vice versa, and humour acts a signal of genetic quality for men. Therefore, sexual selection would favour men who can think in such a way that can make women laugh.
Women wouldn't have nearly as much selective pressure to evolve "funny" behavioural mechanisms, because men, to put it bluntly, don't care about a woman's sense of humour. Their evolutionary goal (as you well know) is simply to have as much sex, with as many partners as possible, regardless of their ability to tell a good "knock-knock" joke.
Face it. There are behavioural differences between the sexes, as any evolutionary psychologists will tell you, and pointing them out doesn't necessarily mean you are a misogynist.
And his opinion of her has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman. He detests both Clintons for many reasons, and if anything has been harder on Bill over the years. If he is in fact a misogynist, why would he suggest Susan Rice (a woman, gasp!) to be SOS over Clinton?
Clinton just isn't a good pick in his view, regardless of her gender.
Here's Hitchens hit piece on women:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/20...
Many have noted that the photo of the grim woman illustrating the article looks a lot like Hitchens himself. He fears strong confident women - thank God Obama doesn't.
Okay, I had read that article before, but now I'm supposed to... uh... weep? Really? Weep? If that's your idea of a "hit piece on women" then I can't come to any other conclusion than that you are seriously LOOKING to be offended by the article. There's a few racy bits, but I can not see how anything he said is worthy of the title "hit piece." If anything, Hitchens denigrates men a lot more than women in the article, saying that most men will laugh at anything because many are "extremely stupid" and childish. He then goes on to say that men might be afraid of having women as comedic rivals.
You also completely ignored the fact that the thesis of the article, the idea that men are funnier than women is, to the best of our knowledge, a true statement. "Funny" behaviour is selected for through sexual selection (as I previously mentioned). This is a fact. Deal with it. Mentioning that science indicates that men and women behave differently does not mean you are a misogynist. To assert differently, makes you look petty, foolish and ignorant.
If it's the picture in the article that irks you (although I can't really see why it would), then you should probably take that up with the editors at VF, because the authors and journalists (usually) have very little say on the titles and images that accompany their articles.
And I also see that you couldn't pass up the chance to poke fun at his physical appearance. Way to take the high road. If I were to compare Hillary Clinton's appearance to an old man, I bet you wouldn't take to kindly to it, would you? Why, I might be a misogynist (GASP!)
The fact remains that your accusation of misogyny is baseless. He "fears strong confident women" because he does not like Hillary Clinton? What nonsense! Hitchens is friends with, and a great admirer of strong women like Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who is a truly inspirational figure, much more so than Clinton). He literally wrote a FUCKING BOOK about his criticisms of her and her husband, none of which were, "she's a woman," yet you keep repeating the misogyny line. It's old, give it a rest.
I poke fun for two very good reasons: First of all Hitchens is responsible for allowing himself to go to seed AND second of all I just had to prove that women do have a sense of humour!
Anyone that doesn't like Clinton is a misogynist. Right.
Reality is calling, and would like you to not be so ridiculous.
Misogynist? Really? What a ridiculous suggestion. It wouldn't have anything to do with HRC's many many flaws and questionable judgment of the past, would it? So easy to go the route of insulting someone rather than listening to their opinions and analyzing why it is they believe as they do.
I for one don't care much about what Hillary did during her time as first lady or as a senator that may be 'questionable'. My big problem is with her direct and dirty attacks toward Barack during the primaries. In my opinion she shouldn't be SOS, she should be treated as another Lieberman-esque, ruthless hell spawn.
Yeah, if Hitchens was foaming at the mouth they all were. Hitchens tends to be disagreeable but he isn't often facetious. That would make the biggest mark against him the lack of a particularly appealing persona. I do think he has got a strong bias against the Clintons as it seems to be pick and choosing your outrage. If he's so against the Clintons he should be harder on other politicians, especially George Bush, but he seems to go out of his way to single out the Clintons.
However I don't think he was being especially rabid in this interview, and this blog entry is misleading.
Boy, this guy Hitchens needs some therapy. I've never been a big fan of Bill and Hillary, but I can understand Obama's rationale for appointing her Secretary of State, as do most people. Hitchens' comments have an odor of vindictiveness. He goes on these anti-Hillary rants every time he appears as a guest on one of these shows. Clearly, Hitchens feels compelled to demonize Hillary and Bill Clinton whenever he's handed a microphone. Most people know that demonization doesn't really work, because they know it's largely driven by some kind of bias or past wrong. In this case, one has to wonder if the Clinton's did something to insult Hitchens years ago and now he's on a crusade against them. A bit stupid and unproductive.
And obviously his arguments against HRC are more emotional than rational - which doesn't help with the crazy.
I've long regarded Hitchens as something of an oddity among the punditocracy. I first took notice many years ago for his unapologetically outspoken athiesm - and absolutely relentless criticism of Mother Theresa & Henry Kissinger - both courageous & unpopular narratives that served a vital public service.
But then un the thick of the post 911 hysteria, he renounces allegiance to the Queen as a naturalized US citizen - and then proceeds to evangalize the entire Neoconservative package. Kill the towelheads, be ridiculously supportive of Israel's criminal behavior, and undermine civil liberties, checks & balances...separation of powers...the unitary executive will protect us...
I had a hard time looking past that stuff...
Login or Register to post comments.