Fascism: Oppressive, dictatorial control. This precisely describes the system of governance desired by the likes of al Qaeda. Hitchens’ use of the term is exactly proper in this context.

I read Hitchens’ disappointing and rather shallow about-face. It was hardly an embrace of Obama, but rather a rejection of the fact that faith drove at least part of Sarah Palin’s populist appeal. He joined in their demonization of her past, her person and her candidacy with the same abandon (that is, abandoning the facts) exhibited by the entrenched media. The few notes in support of Obama/Biden were curiously unprocessed by Hitch’s typically ruthless cognitive dissonance filters (re: “…the Obama-Biden ticket is not a capitulationist one, even if it does accept the support of the surrender faction…”? Huh???).

Too bad. Hitchens makes a tight case in his distracting rants against religiosity. Perhaps wound a bit too tight. He refuses to acknowledge the reality that an overwhelming majority of Americans – over 80% of his new countrymen and women – profess some form of religious faith. And that ain’t gonna change appreciably in his lifetime. More Americans are thanking God for Obama’s victory than not, I’m sure.

Anyway, he’s spot-on about Obama. To boot, he has the bona fides to criticize him (after endorsing him). Perhaps, once the media had declared Obama’s inevitable victory – demoralizing and chiding conservatives not to bother, and to stay home on Nov. 4, which they apparently did in droves – perhaps this was his game all along.

On Obama as a socialist, his past alliances and Senate voting record leave no doubt whatsoever on this issue. And if his as-yet-poorly-articulated and constantly shifting plan for “a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded” as the our present military is in fact to be a facet of our future, then he’s already answered which form of socialism he’s pushing for. It’s not the “mild” version.