"Shallow and flaky"

This is exquisite. I've taken the video from an irate site that condemns Christopher Hitchens for "echoing conservative smears". (I noticed it from Martin Peretz's blog at The New Republic.) In my much smaller way, I'm quite often accused of smears and uncouthness - especially concerning people who, by virtue of old age or recent death, are supposed to be immune from criticism - and I've come to the conclusion that these are charges made when the facts are not seriously in dispute but are considered to be not a genteel topic for discussion.

Here Christopher refers to Barack Obama as "a very shallow and flaky candidate" who is a member of a "dumb, nasty, ethnic rock 'n' roll racist church". He also observes that Hillary Clinton "wouldn't mind running as George Wallace if it would get her the nomination". There's no doubt about it. I'm concerned about Barack Obama's foreign policy stance so far as one can be discerned; but the Clintons' campaign has had consistently ugly undertones.

Comments

[Jonas Meyer]

I think he said "...as George Wallace...", not "with".

[Oliver Kamm]

Thanks for the correction; I've listened to it again, and you're right, so I'll alter the quotation in the post. I was going on the transcript, and assuming it was a figure of speech. (I'm aware Wallace is deceased.)

[antrastan]

Perhaps-partisan response to Rezko namedrops.

[Jameson F]

You seem to favour Clinton over Obama and McCain on grounds of foreign policy. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't understand why this is so. The differences -- of stated policy -- between Clinton and Obama are small. Off the top of my head I can think of the 'meeting dictators without preconditions' issue. Neither has substantive, provable achievements in the field to their name, so the question of experience hangs on whether you take Clinton's work as First Lady to have provided her with more than a knowledge of eighty nations' dining customs. They both promise to withdraw from Iraq.

McCain, however, is a hawk, like you. He's uncompromising on Iran, like you. He supports the Surge and believes it has succeeded, like you. If you've explained why you don't support him, please show me where.

[Mikeovswinton]

I commented on Hitchen's lack of understanding of some african-american issues when he held Obama's "Yes we can" slogan up to ridicule. Can I just note here that as Obama's church is an african american church Hitchens is either being unbelievably rude or just plain ignorant in calling it a "rock and roll" church. I'll go for the latter - I just think he's ignorant. He obviously means that they are a church that uses "Black" Gospel music in their services and he must think that this makes them "rock and roll".

[Chris]

Regarding 'ugly undertones', John Dickerson had a good column on how the best offence is taking offence. If the Clinton campaign really did leak it to Drudge (?!) as an attack then shame (the original email had a slight point, however - we know from the differing stories of Peolsi and Laura Bush wearing hijabs as well as a weird one about McCain's daughter wearing a keffiyeh, for goodness sake, that what women wear is sometimes treated as a political news story). But I would have thought that even if that's the case it's also a good idea to be wary of the way that the Obama campaign plays its own victim cards.

[Quentin George]

Jameson F - Oliver has previously stated he prefers an election where Clinton faces off against McCain. As far as I know, he hasn't stated a preference between those two.