Actually, Joan, the best reason for Obama not picking Hillary for Secretary of State is the two steamer trunks of baggage that come with her husband -- particularly when it comes to the list of donors to The William Jefferson Clinton Foundation.

Remember when Joan called McCain an ass? Well, what goes around comes around. Because on last night Hardball, Christopher Hitchens spent ten minutes making Joan look like the mother of all asses.

It was fun to watch Hitchens make it so incredibly obvious that Joan has never flown in his intellectual stratum. As he laid out his arguments clearly and concisely, Joan would sort of scrunch up her face and squint like a child trying to figure out what the adults were talking about. Time and time again, she had to depend on what seemed like her only comeback, which was, “That’s ridiculous.” She said it so often, it quickly became as painful as it was pitiful.

When it was obvious that Joan was in over her head, she actually accused Hitchens of being condescending because he had the audacity to call her Miss Walsh! To which Hitchens just rolled his eyes and drolly replied, “If I had said Joan, you'd have said I was being condescending.” But it didn’t end there. Joan actually doubled down on her asininity by insisting Hitchens was being condescending to her because she had dinner at his house once!

But it gets worse! How about this exchange:

WALSH: That's your opinion, Christopher.

HITCHENS: Well, guess what? Guess who's saying it? That's a very clever thing to say. Should I ask would you prefer I uttered your opinion? What a fatuous remark.

Or how about Joan’s great comeback during this exchange:

WALSH: I'm not going to say that they (the Clintons) are perfect, but I believe you cherry-pick the worst possible interpretation, as well as facts that aren't necessarily facts, and come up with this analysis.

HITCHENS: Name one.

WALSH: I think this is a terrific...

HITCHENS: Name one.

WALSH: I think this is a terrific...

HITCHENS: Name one.

WALSH: I'm going to step around the rubble today, Christopher.

HITCHENS: One. One.

Rubble? What rubble? The only rubble I could see on my TV screen was Joan looking like a well-slapped ass.

It was pathetic.

Unfortunately, Joan, a debate is over when it’s over. And your debate with Christopher Hitchens on Hardball was over early last evening. After watching him mop the floor with you, however, I can certainly understand your desire to catch “many outright falsehoods that I missed” if indeed there were any. But your attempt to extend and therefore revise last night’s debate in your column here today is really rather pitiful. And please, if you will, note the obvious: Mr. Hitchen’s isn’t here to respond, is he?

Sadly, Joan, I don’t think Mr. Hitchens will be revisiting his exchange with you in HIS next column. Or his next one. Or his next one. In fact, I doubt he’s given Joan Walsh or his decisive trouncing of you a second thought.

...detailing how Hitchens made a complete ass of Joan on Hardball. Lots of this is from the actual transcript:

It was fun to watch Hitchens make it so incredibly obvious that Joan has never flown in his intellectual stratum. As he laid out his arguments clearly and concisely, Joan would sort of scrunch up her face and squint like a child trying to figure out what the adults were talking about. Time and time again, she had to depend on what seemed like her only comeback, which was, “That’s ridiculous.” She said it so often, it quickly became as painful as it was pitiful.

When it was obvious that Joan was in over her head, she actually accused Hitchens of being condescending because he had the audacity to call her Miss Walsh! To which Hitchens just rolled his eyes and drolly replied, “If I had said Joan, you'd have said I was being condescending.” But it didn’t end there. Joan actually doubled down on her asininity by insisting Hitchens was being condescending to her because she had dinner at his house once!

But it gets worse! How about this exchange:

WALSH: That's your opinion, Christopher.

HITCHENS: Well, guess what? Guess who's saying it? That's a very clever thing to say. Should I ask would you prefer I uttered your opinion? What a fatuous remark.

Or how about Joan’s great comeback during this exchange:

WALSH: I'm not going to say that they (the Clintons) are perfect, but I believe you cherry-pick the worst possible interpretation, as well as facts that aren't necessarily facts, and come up with this analysis.

HITCHENS: Name one.

WALSH: I think this is a terrific...

HITCHENS: Name one.

WALSH: I think this is a terrific...

HITCHENS: Name one.

WALSH: I'm going to step around the rubble today, Christopher.

HITCHENS: One. One.

Rubble? What rubble? The only rubble I could see on my TV screen was Joan looking like a well-slapped ass.

It was pathetic.

Obviously, you can't separate your hatred for Mr. Hitchens and his hatred for the Clintons from the fact that he mopped the floor with Joan Walsh. This fact was painfully evident to any clear-thinking, objective observer. Hitchen's arguments were fact-based and communicated with a command of the subject matter. Joan responses -- when she wasn't babbling some of the unbelievably stupid things I've already quoted from the transcipt -- were flighty generalities at best. However, if you'd rather live in an alternate universe, as it appears you do, well... good luck with that.

Oh, really?

Well, then I invite you to go to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28015085/ and read the entire transcript.

Then tell me specifically which "premises of all Hitchen's arguments are idiotic, shallow, and pathetic" -- and why. And please back each instance up with fact, as Hitchens always does, rather than opinion, as Joan always does.

Lots of luck.