> Christopher Hitchens, Nouveau Historian
This is what to me was really funny about Hitchen's attack on Moore -- he was basically attacking Moore for being him. I mean, does he seriously think his book on Mother Teresa was in any way less polemical or selective than the more approach? It's exactly the same style of argument. And for most of his career, it's not only the same argument but from the same perspective. Moore is making the same arguments in the same style as Hitchens made about the first Gulf war.
The same thing goes for Hitchens' obsession with Clinton. Clinton's one real brilliance is his ability to debate on his feet. It comes from 30 years of daily honing his answers to any possible question. That, in essence, is the slipperiness that drove rightwingers nuts -- that in a spontaneous, one on one stand up debate, they couldn't possibly beat him. And that's always been Hitchen's main talent as well. His arguments are easy to pick apart in print. But facing off in front of a crowd or on a radio he can still wipe the floor with almost anyone just because he's so fast, smooth and prepared.
It seems like the two guys who make him apoplectic are both just more successful versions of him. I guess that's what does it.
Michael