>Whatever Hitchens's skills at self-promotion, he can't
>compare with Michael Moore. I mean, sending in a
>sniper to shoot up DC just as his movie was being
>released was a brilliant move by Moore. He even got
>himself interviewed on CSNBC at exactly the same time
>as the Ashland shooting. What a marketing genius!
>
>I can't believe I just said this. Totally
>inappropriate.
If Hitchens had made Bowling for Columbine, people would have said - as if it were fact - that he timed it for the serial sniper, such is the animosity and maliciousness he inspires.
To answer Nathan, Hitchens would have published and promoted the Orwell book regardless of 9/11 and the left's misguided reaction to it.
He had been writing about Clinton for years and didn't force Blumenthal to tell him about the White House campaign to vilify "those women", the female victims of Clinton, and then go lie to a grand jury. Seemed to me like Blumenthal wasn't being a very good friend and forced Hitchens to make a tough choice. And people accuse Hitchens of selling out. "Sid Vicious," as the press referred to him, went from writing Dem. party puff pieces at the New Yorker to being a top flack for the man who accomplished many of goals the Republicans could only have dreamed of doing on their own, including legislation that in effect helped set up the telecommunications industry for such a glorious fall.
The accusations are just innuendo without any substance.
What I like about Hitchens is that he pretty much doesn't care what people think, not enough to lie anyway, and he especially doesn't care what those in the "fuckwit faction," as he terms it, think. Being liked and accepted are not his highest aspirations.
Peter