The London Version of Hitchens-Leaves-The Nation


Stephen Pollard washes his hands of The New Statesman. (Link via Tim Blair.)

NEXT: I Have No Comment...

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Right made these same comments about Clinton in the 90s, whole books were written about Clinton having the same pysch profile as a serial killer, etc. — its common enough tactic — the only surprise about this is that it comes from a Labour publication — the American equevalent to The Weekly Standard saying W. lost his marbles — Blairs days are numbered perhaps?

  2. The Right made these same comments about Clinton in the 90s, whole books were written about Clinton having the same pysch profile as a serial killer, etc.

    Particularly pertinent, given Matt’s headline, is that Hitchens made these same comments about Clinton. I’m agnostic on the whole Clinton thing-if such a stance is possible-but during this last bout of towel-snapping with Blumenthal, I noticed that Hitchens was really on autopilot with his ever-expanding bombast about the “depravity” of the “psychopathic” Clinton. It was particularly stark when offset by the total absence of any new information (not that we wanted any) about the Lewinsky affair. It’s like if you just keep elevating the mad-dog rhetoric, it will suddenly all become true. (I am more persuaded by his description of Blumenthal as “fanatical,” because Blumenthal’s writings in the New Yorker struck me as fanatically pro-Clinton long before he went to work for the administration; so maybe it’s just an eye of the beholder thing on my part.)

  3. It strikes me that all parties on all sides of these controversies are correct. Clinton is scum, Blumenthal is a shill, Hitchens is a creep, Blair is bonkers, and Pollard is whatever he is. Tiresome, mostly.

  4. I recall Hitchens oging on and on about the “depravity” of the “psychopathic” Clinton – I don’t remember reading anything in which Hitchens claimed that genuine MD head-doctors had slapped a diagnosis on the president and were urging the powers that be to haul him off to a rubber room.

    There’s a difference, a difference of quantity and kind, between describing someone “stark, staring mad” and publishing a public opinion that the someone is rabid and must be quarantined before others are infected.

  5. there’s also the difference in actions:

    tony is disliked for being slick and spinny, and not hewing to the left’s antiwar line

    bill is… well, bill

    even his defenders (especially his defenders) have resorted to medical descriptions that question his sanity (addiction, ocd, etc have all been mooted) since the verifiable undisputed behaviour does not match with his obviously vast intellect, charisma, and political skills

    personally, i was just disappointed in bill’s taste… i mean, yeah no one lives up to their standards all the time, but he’s rarely even come close, and he has the ability to “meet” anyone he wants to…

  6. EMAIL:
    DATE: 01/25/2004 08:31:21
    Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what’s right.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.