I like Hitchens arguments more then Dawkins and Harris, but Hitchens arguements are also weak. The New Atheist thing is that religion itself is bad and opposed to "progress", which was a philosophical position taken by some atheist during the 1800's.
Hitchens argument is weak how?
You can't say religion itself is bad and opposed to progress. That is complete non sense and it is not the same as saying it poisons everything. Clearly, Judaism and Christianity have progressed and enormously so and Hitch would make that point, often, by stating the obvious of how there are some religions you can not make public argument against today ANYWHERE for fear of your life and others that you can EVERYWHERE without fear BECAUSE they've evolved. To be clear, he made no exceptions in terms of any exemption from religion, inclusive, poisoning everything but he absolutely made distinctions.
That said, I am with you. Hitch is a man of philosophy and history and literature and Harris is far too clinical for my tastes and Dawkins is, properly and humorously understood, a fire and brimstone preacher of atheism.