Christopher Hitchens becomes more trivial and irrelevant with each passing day.
Since when is being "devoted to no interest other than their own" an accusation against a politician? It is only a pleasant accident of history when a leader’s self-interest happens to correspond to a greater general interest.
What planet has Hitchens been living on that he can write, "whose personal ambition is without limit"?
I truly would like Hitchens to name one national politician - especially an American one since hubris, like greed, in America has been raised to a position of high national merit -
whose personal ambition is not without limit.
What can you say of Abraham Lincoln, raised in shacks and with less than two years formal education, offering himself for the highest office?
George Bush, who insisted on reaching the highest office despite being an obviously incompetent man, something I believe even he knows in his quiet moments?
Franklin Roosevelt, a man bound to a wheelchair, seeking the highest office?
Some degree of narcissism, or even mild psychopathy, comes with the territory of powerful national leadership. I should think any decent student of history would understand that fundamental truth.
"...sordid backstairs dealing"? That's Political Anti-Speak for the normal operations of governments and senior politicians.
Hillary has two qualities which, despite her intelligence and energy,
are widely disliked. Indeed, I very much dislike them.
First, is her public inconsistency. One day, she's a follower of Eleanor Roosevelt, the next a cheap politician appealing to grubbiest trailer-park values.
One day - early in her seeking her Senate seat for example, speaking from Palestine - she's showing unusual sympathy, for an American politician, at the plight of Palestinians. The next she's making hard-line statements that could have been scripted by the most ruthless defender of Israel's ugly excesses.
Second, there is her sticking with that great hunk of charismatic sleaze, Bill Clinton.
While most people admire loyalty through tough times, there is something more about this particular relationship than loyalty which strikes many as being distasteful and even repulsive.
But so long as sleazy Bill is kept at arm's length from Washington, I think Hillary could prove a very effective Secretary of State.
As for her views not being the same as Obama's, I don't know when this is ever the case. George Marshall, a great Secretary, certainly disagreed with Truman at times. Kissinger and Nixon?
Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson actually hired scurrilous writers, shamelessly on the government payroll, to cast shadows on President George Washington’s administration.
Obama is a remarkably calm and self-confident person. There is something of the Buddha there. He is also very "results-oriented." I think he will be able to use Hillary's strengths without much damage from her weaknesses.
If he is not able to do that, he simply isn't the extraordinary person I believe he is.
Recently, the oleaginous Thomas Friedman - professional salesman for the Pentagon who frequently moonlights for Israel - said similar things about the appointment.
That was enough to tip me into believing Obama is right. Hitchens only nudges me further in the same direction. One really must consider the source.
