Mr. Hitchens has used his Slate bully-pulpit to go after Obama.
This article comes mere days after Hitchens proudly pronounced that he maintained his position that he was never "wrong" about Iraq. Hitchens is - of late - known for two things. First, he relentlessly pursues his argument that Iraq was not a "mistake" in the face of any argument. Second, he champions the secular but does so by attacking faith.
Obama is clearly on the wrong end of these two pet issues of Hitchens. Obama's stance on Iraq is antithetical to that of Hitchens. Further, Obama has publicly identified himself as a person of faith.
The inevitable result is a Hitchens' hatchet job on Obama wherein Hitchens' selectively and unfairly parses both Obama's recent speech on race (and religion) and Obama's autobiography to portray Obama as a self-centered hypocrite willing to say or do anything to obtain electoral advantage.
At this stage, perhaps it would be more fair to say that Hitchens will say or do anything to undermine anyone who does not share his views on Iraq or religion. Why does anyone take this guy seriously anymore? Does anyone take him seriously anymore? Does Hitchens' have enough self-perception remaining to realize that he mirrors and mimics those persons of faith he claims to criticize? For example, the man closes his article with an accusation that Obama is untrustworthy and unscrupulous, accuses his supporters of "blind faith" and then prophesizes their disappointment like some fire and brimstone pastor.
Hitchens dines out on his willingness and ability to make any fact fit his theories. In that sense he remains the Marxist he once was - he will only advance a theory incapable of falsification where all facts fit his thesis.