I was talkin with E. from the Dave just the other day about all of these not-so-glowing endorsements for Kerry (E., by the way, has an endorsement of his own), and he noted Christopher Hitchens's apparent Kerry endorsement at Slate:

Christopher Hitchens, Contributor: Kerry

I am assuming for now that this is a single-issue election. There is one's subjective vote, one's objective vote, and one's ironic vote. Subjectively, Bush (and Blair) deserve to be re-elected because they called the enemy by its right name and were determined to confront it. Objectively, Bush deserves to be sacked for his flabbergasting failure to prepare for such an essential confrontation. Subjectively, Kerry should be put in the pillory for his inability to hold up on principle under any kind of pressure. Objectively, his election would compel mainstream and liberal Democrats to get real about Iraq.

The ironic votes are the endorsements for Kerry that appear in Buchanan's anti-war sheet The American Conservative, and the support for Kerry's pro-war candidacy manifested by those simple folks at MoveOn.org. I can't compete with this sort of thing, but I do think that Bush deserves praise for his implacability, and that Kerry should get his worst private nightmare and have to report for duty.

As E. pointed out, one wouldn't know from Hitch's statement whom he actually supported, and I suggested he was being ironic.

And that appears to be the case. Either that, or Slate got it wrong because Hitchens has actually written two (very similar) pieces endorsing the President: Oct. 21st for the Nation, and today, Oct. 31st, for the Guardian UK.

This is not ironic, but it is worth reading:

I can visualise a Kerry victory and can claim to have written one of the earliest essays calling attention to the merits of John Edwards. What slightly disturbs me is the liberal refusal to admit the consequences of 'Anybody But Bush', now the only glue binding the radical left to the Democratic Party right.

The amazing thing is the literalness with which the mantra is chanted. Anybody? Including Muqtada al-Sadr? The chilling answer is, quite often, yes. This is nihilism. Actually, it's nihilism at best. If it isn't treason to the country - let us not go there - it is certainly treason to the principles of the left.

I was asked if I would also say something here about my personal evolution. I took that to mean: How do you like your new right-wing friends? I can only return the question. I prefer them to Pat Buchanan and Vladimir Putin and the stupid British Conservative Party, to the mendacious populism of Michael Moore, who compares the psychopathic murderers of Iraqis to the Minutemen. I am glad to have seen the day when a Tory leader is repudiated by the White House. An irony of history is when Republicans are willing to risk a dangerous confrontation with an untenable status quo. I am proud of what little I have done to forward this revolutionary cause.

In Kabul recently I interviewed Masuda Jalal, a brave Afghan physician who was now able to run for the presidency. I asked her about her support for the intervention in Iraq. 'For us,' she said, 'the battle against terrorism and against dictatorship are the same thing.' I dare you to smirk at such simple-mindedness as that.

I could take refuge in saying that I was a Blair supporter rather than a Bush endorser, and I am a member of a small international regime-change left[-wing] that originates in solidarity with our embattled brothers and sisters in Afghanistan and Iraq, who have received zero support from the American 'anti-war' movement. I won't even consider any reconsideration, at least until Islamist websites start posting items that ask themselves, and not us: can we go on taking such casualties? Have our tactics been too hideous and stupid? Only then can anything like a negotiation begin.

The President, notwithstanding his shortcomings of intellect, has been able to say repeatedly the essential thing: that we are involved in this war without apology and without remorse.

He should go further and admit the possibility of defeat, which might concentrate a few minds, while abjuring any notion of capitulation. Kerry is also capable of saying this, but not without cheapening it or qualifying it, so that he is offering you the worst of both worlds.

I have made my own escape from self-imposed quandary. Once you have done it, there's no going back. I have met a few other former hostages, and they all agree that the relief is unbelievable.

How is it that Hitchens endorsed the President on the 21st, then Kerry on the 26th, and the President again on the 31st? Irony?