John Podhoretz does an excellent job of decimating Ed Klein’s Hillary hit book and makes me ashamed I even referred to its hideous rumor-mongering on here. (No, I never read it and, yes, I apologize fully.)
UPDATE, In case you missed it on Drudge, a real picture is worth a thousand words.
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
That’s cool of you, Roger–the plain truth. Yes, the Klein guy is I think in the Kitty Kelly realm. We can’t like this sort of thing just because the target may be a legit target. There has to be some nod toward, well, manners.
Yes, by all means, let’s stick to the stuff we know. Plenty of ammo there.
(I’m certainly glad the picture was cleared up. Because you know what happened last time a photographer recorded Clinton’s encounter with an affectionate young lady in a hat.)
Roger:
The quicker this type of innuendo form of biography is eliminated the better. The Dems will make it out as if Karl Rove wrote the book and it is of the same quality as Kitty Kelly slander rag. The only difference is I doubt the Today show will give Klein 3 days to pimp his lies. I am gald that they won’t, I just wish they had shown the same type of restaint with Kelly. Anyone who picks this book up in any fashion will regret it.
Kelly’s three days on the “Today Show” is best contexted as an arrangement with CBS and DNC to simultaneously bring out The ANG Memos, The Cocaine Book, and the Fortunate Son ad campaign, all in the same cycle–in the same week, or maybe with a one weekend ‘build’ between the Memos and the Cocaine. Something along that line.
How are you going to believe, Ed Klein or your own eyes?
/Groucho
Jamie Irons
The merits or lack of merits of Klein?s book aside, acts of restraint, decorum and gallantry towards Hillary or the Democratic leadership by conservatives, Congressional Republicans would be more palatable when legitimate grievances arise, ala Durbin, a political price extracted for such an egregious declaration. Instead, Durbin gets off the hook, with a -I?m sorry for having offended anyone- Republicans declare their defeat a victory and move on to their next fumble. Does anybody out there actually think that if Klein?s book was about a Republican political figure Democrats and their pundits would be up in arms about the propriety of the book?s content?
I read that some bookstores are balking at carrying the book because they don’t have any “faith” in it? It’s their right of course, but they had faith in Franken, Moore, Kitty Kelley, and other Bush bashers, why the sudden crisis in faith now? I guess we all know the answer to that.
I still think these well-timed revelations are distractions from the really bad stuff out there about the Clinton’s. It’s the same M.O. as during Clinton’s reign. The salacious sex stuff kept the media busy while they swept the traitorous stuff and the stuff about “donations” to their retirement fund under the rug.
erp, I urge you to read this, from Accuracy in Media. Explores your thesis–and warns that the book is a trojan horse.
Everything seriously bad about the Clintons–and the body of criminal evidence is astounding–is to be “more trash from those people who claimed Bill raped her and caused her to conceive Chelsea”.
The real reason for this book. Or did anyone think a Newsweek writer would ever want to take down a Democrat?
At least this book is out now. It will run its course and then fade from view. Sooner the better.
The trouble with Bill & Hill is their apparent belief that anything which can’t be proven in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt is by definition legal (ethical, acceptable, peachy-keen). That’s why they’re always careful to say things like ‘there’s no evidence that I did X,Y or Z’. I’ve never seen such letter of the law people in my life. Didn’t they teach anything about the spirit of the law at Yale?
Hillary Clinton is not fit to lead this country, most especially in these times, no way, no how. And I don’t like the water being muddied by this crap.
bUDDY, JUST honestly curious if I am naive, but how seriously do you take that Clinton body count?
Truepeers, what I take seriously is the fact that so many people honestly don’t know whether or not to take that sort of stuff seriously (that’s just one site). I do know that the so-called Dixie Mafia has been around for many decades and is very real to southern law enforcement. Google it and take a ride thru the Little Rock underworld. Type [clinton dixie mafia].
On the other hand, Kyda is probably right, we should fight these people on higher ground. But, if you took a look at the link above–what do YOU think?
What I think, Buddy, is that you’re a typical right-wing nut. And I find it utterly mystifying the obsession with the Clintons that you share with a lot of other conservatives. You would think for all your lather that these people were dyed-in-the-wool liberals, as opposed to the deal-making, vote-counting, death penalty-loving, welfare-hating triangulating, equivocating, opportunistic political moderates that they really are.
Thanks for making my point, Markus. Your party has the time to develop any number of clean candidates before 2008. Why dip back into the sordid 90s?
If you don’t think the Clintons have an unsavory record, you haven’t been paying attention to reality, and reality–history–is not going to disappear just because Clinton supporters are free to call it crazy, or nuts, or whatever.
Long before anyone should sweat out the labels to affix to the Clinton’s policy positions, one should step back and look at the biggest picture, that the American president is the quintessential American, “the” American, to Americans, and to the world at large.
Try reflecting a bit on the headline list of 90s ethical directions. Jeez, take a look at how well the Democratic party has done under Clinton leadership.
Do yourself a favor and start fresh. Liberalism is one of the Clinton’s biggest victims. The Clinton issue can have nothing to do with political philosophy until it deals with the issue of trust. If you can digest the 90s in their totality, and still trust the Clintons, then you have my sympathy. And because you presumably vote, I have my sympathy, too.
I think, Buddy, that the Clintons know more than their share of dead people. Beyond that I’m not prepared to go.
No one here is obsessed with the Clintons, markus. The concern for many is the very real possibility that Hillary will be the next Dem presidential candidate. She might even be elected. That in my opinion would be disasterous for this country. I for one will not allow the considerable baggage she lugs around to be dismissed out of hand. But I also believe that there’s enough along that high road to keep us quite busy for the next 4 years. And, markus, in their heart of hearts, both Clintons are the dyed-in-the-wool liberals you would love them to be. It’s just that political opportunism that keeps getting in the way.
Tina Brown certainly thinks we should all move on. Tina Brown thinks that you men in particular are just intimidated by Hillary’s Big Brain.
Tina’s discourse is limited to cartoon characterizations. Lot of that going around.
Harold Ford, though, doesn’t engage in it (other than his recent disappointing follow-the-herd on the “date-certain” Iraq withdrawal).
Joe Leiberman and Zell Miller and Evan Bayh have their ethics in order, too. And there’s 35 “Blue Dog” Democrats in the US Congress that understand economics, ethics, the difference between the nation and their political party, and are patriots before opportunists.
Why do we have to cast ourselves over the Hillary cliff?
By what right does she own the morale and atmosphere of the nation?
Kyda is spot on–the baggage will not–cannot–be ignored. It bears crucially on the welfare of the nation, not to mention the world. An agreement to not mention the leopard’s spots has no chance of altering the leopard’s instincts.
Kyda — “The concern for many is the very real possibility that Hillary will be the next Dem presidential candidate. She might even be elected. That in my opinion would be disasterous for this country.”
I’m just trying to understand, why? If she runs, she’ll disappoint liberals and run as a moderate. If she wins, she’ll disappoint liberals and govern as a moderate.
Buddy — appreciate your civilized response given my over-the-top characterization of you.
I have a real problem getting worked up over the idea that Bill Clinton is some sort of ethical cesspool. Is he a saint? Hell no. And in fact his transgressions cost not just him but the Democratic Party dearly. I agree with you on that. But the main reason they cost so much, IMO, is that they were so successfullly blown out of proportion by his political opponents, who to my mind are Machiavellian geniuses at personal attacks against opponents that flumox them ideologically by taking center-left policy positions that cannot be easily caricatured and demonized as “liberal” or worse.
I do agree, however, that Dems really need some fresh Presidential blood. I also recognize that Clinton hasn’t been that good for the party and the liberal agenda that I support, for the most part. And if Hillary runs, she’ll have to beat several men, who will be arguing strongly that Hillary is too much of a lighting rod, and too sullied by the very effective demonization of her and Bill by conservative activists and writers.
One more thing:
“And, markus, in their heart of hearts, both Clintons are the dyed-in-the-wool liberals you would love them to be. It’s just that political opportunism that keeps getting in the way.”
Actually, I think they both recognzie that unreconstructed liberalism, besides being politically unpalatable in America for a whole slew of reasons, also tends to screw up economies. So, they try to accomplish liberal ends with policy prescriptions that won’t lead to capital investor revolt and won’t make inflation go crazy.
Lula in Brazil has learned the same lesson, for the most part.
Pretty smart, in my opinion. “Clintonism”, at its best, from a purely policy perspective, is liberalism with brains, which I think is why conservatives hate it so much, just as much as Democrats tend to hate conservativism with compassion.
That’s my whole point, Markus–if you don’t buy into the evidence of the Clinton’s bad character, then the ethics-related attacks on them are indeed as you say they are–vindictive, mean, inexcusable.
However, if you study the record–the indisputable facts–and don’t come up with an understanding of the vitriol, then you are too “Dutch” by half. “Dutch” meaning that one way to have a low crime rate is to de-criminalize everything possible.
As far as calling me names, I deserved it for linking the “body-count”. Tho, again–did you read it? What if an nth of that is true? Why, with so many other options open for 2008, take the chance? Hillary has had a good, remunerative public career. You don’t owe her anything.
And, as you can see by this thread–the Clintons go through other people’s lives (and nations) like tornadoes–they’re crazy-making. Look at the stuff on them, the way the old debates have degenerated under them–you can’t believe it, but if any of it is true, you BETTER believe it.
Even you can’t believe any of their poses, but yet you continue to hope against hope. Again and again, crazy-making for their enemies, crazy-making for their friends. I KNOW you want better for your country.
Buddy, what do I think? No doubt that Clinton is a moral disaster and an ethical misfit. And even though I think self-delusion is a common thing, I am still a little mystified why he and Hillary remain popular. E.g I thought the left was supposed to care about abuse of women and not write Clintonesque behavior off as sexual antics by a generally good man who just couldnít help himself; and, instead of seeing their own idolatry, then ascribe such idolatry to the women who screwed around with him. No doubt Clinton’s many women suffered some, but that’s not the point…
And, on matters of life and death in national and international affairs, I think Clinton was at times a coward, a fool, and arguably even a murderer. What one can say about probably his worst (non-)decision, on Rwanda, Iím not entirely sure. Complicity in mass-murder, I guess, since he could have done something, but the situation was just too messy and he was too busy dicking around, and he was scared of Africa, so he just sat back and let things fly. And then, he had the nerve to go to Rwanda a year or two ago and offer the most lame, half-assed non-apology. After that, I am ready to believe almost anything that suggests the man has no moral fiber and the same with the people who love him and his family.
But, still, when I look at a site like this death count, Iím thinking someoneís justifiable revulsion for the man has gone a bit out of control. I googled your Dixie mafia suggestion, and donít find it hard to believe Clinton has all kinds of unsavory friends. Seems rather likely, considering where he came from. And while I can see, when Bill speaks, that he is hiding some severe moral personality defects – there is some kind of vacuum behind the mask – though this only tends to endear him to a certain audience ñ even the Bush family (elders) seem to fawn on him today ñ I am still hard-pressed to believe that the deceit and self-deception that is so common to humanity could reach the depths suggested by your link. But Iím not knowledgeable on these affairs. I donít have a clue what degree of fact and what of speculation is involved here. I donít know if all these people really died as reported or if, in most cases, their connections to the Clintons were in any way close. Power corrupts everyone in many ways and people die. No doubt there are similar deaths with varying degrees of separation from the Bushes. Though no doubt fewer, since I do believe the liberal-left is, in general, somewhat more deluded about morality and reality. BUt since there are two kinds of truth, the real truth (rather lonely)and the pragmatic truth (sociable), it is hard to say which side is the most untrue.
Still, you are right, there is something incredibly unnerving about this list. You either have to dismiss it as rightwing nutbar, or an extremely exaggerated account of the evident moral failings of Clintonia. Or, you have to realize, that sometimes the most far-fetched stories can be true because humanity can become truly fubar. And you are right to suggest that the 90s and still today, we live in a world with few highly moral leaders and lots of corrupt opportunists. High moral qualities at the top are obviously far from universal when a mad scrambling for positions is behind most worldly success. But a certain level of corruption we have to accept as inevitable to the human condition, or it begins to drive us towards conspiratorial fits and starts. Not that there isnít some kind of general, not-so-well-organized, because it doesnít need to be, it just works that way, conspiracy, among the idolaters of this world.
Buddy –
I’m willing to cut the Clinton’s a lot of slack because:
1. Policy-wise, they’re like baby bear’s porridge with me: not too liberal, not too conservative. He’s the closest we’ve got to my main man, Tony Blair.
2. Politically, notwithstanding the first two dismal years of his administration, they’ve become astute. They have enough communication ability, charisma, political saavy and common touch to prevent Republicans from giving them the out-of-touch, elitist, secular liberal tag that has been so successfully pinned on Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry.
Slightly corrupt, a jerk like most pols, sensible policy views, politcally saavy. Given the alternatives, as a Dem, I’ll take it.
Truepeers–have some thoughts on that, but gotta make a buck–or salvage one here for an hour or two. Thanks for the food-for-thought, you always make sense.
Markus, I really wish you’d dig deeper into your own thinking self, and tell me if I’m wrong that deep down you’re starving for a proven election-winner, and are thus–understandably–blinding yourself with emotion. The paradox is, you could have what you’re hungry for if you’d quit eating what’s starving you.
Markus, Hillary is going to do everything possible–as is her media bloc–to make you forget how a new face can catch fire in the laser light of public attention in the months between conventions and the general election. I don’t say this because I fear Hillary and am trying to turn you onto a loser–I say this in the knowledge that either party’s candidate can win, and therefore am vitally interested in you guys putting up some presidential timber.
Buddy — I doubt it. Like a lot of liberals, I’m not as liberal as I used to be, and I see a lot of grey areas were I used to see black and white. But I haven’t pulled a Hitchens or a David Horowitz.
I’ve slightly recalibrated my positions, based on what reality has taught me. Clinton and Blair’s journey toward a sensible center/left — pro-free trade, pro- fiscal discipline, pro- military by and large, pro- personal responsibility and pro- efficient government — is similar to mine, and as a policy wonky kind of guy I find them quite appealing.
If I just wanted to win elections, Evan Bayh would be my man.
Markus, I don’t quite believe it. You sound too much like the generals, always fighting the last war. Now sometimes they do that and still end up “winning” with lots of bodies in the field. But why not, as Buddy suggests, go out there and look for the creative possibility? Sure, it’s hard to know who has the royal jelly to make the future, and sometimes hoping for it too much you land yourself with a Howard Dean; still, the genius of the America is on the margins, not in the established centers of power.
There ya go, Truepeers. Fresh face, white horse, new coalitions, excitement, adventure, opening doors and windows and minds and faces, the appeal of the new–versus a lapse back into the ditch, two semi-conscious grunting beasts in the mud and blood stabbing each other over and over and over with the same old rote by-the-numbers knives. Lethal, ugly, boring, and dammit, unconscionably dangerous in this day and time.
Democrats want to lead again? With the Clintons, it’s too late to “lead” in the eager, fresh voluntary sense, the other party can’t take the gamble of not fighting the Clintons hammer and tong. Whose fault is all that? You say one thing, I say another–can’t we agree that we do not have the luxury to give a damn anymore?
Democrats want to lead again? Forget trying to line people up under the old banner, grab a NEW banner, and LEAD both parties away from the last decade’s frightening railroad track to political murder-suicide. Politics can be rough without being deathly sick.
For example, Markus, look at your last post–“If I just wanted to win elections, Evan Bayh would be my man.” You’re saying you’d give up victory for more Hillary.
So, you want to be a rational centrist, and to simultaneously deny that you’re thinking emotionally about the Clintons. Paradox glows like neon. See the danger?
Buddy — you’re all over the place with your last post, and I’m not sure what you’re driving at.
Yes, I like the Clinton’s because they have good political acumen, and good policy ideas, among their shitload of baggage. Weren’t you looking for political acumen and good policy ideas as well in 2000, after having to vote for Bob Dole?
But I’d also have no problems with an alternative to the Clintons. Al Gore is the first un-Clinton that comes to mind — but God has other plans for him, obviously. And I like Edwards, though he screwed up his political career with bad timing. And I like Rendell, and Warner. But first they’ll have to show me that they have the political instincts of a Bill Clinton, as opposed to the political instincts of people like Bob Shrum.
And while any Dem nominee will be running as a moderate, there are two types of moderates: those with liberal values and goals, tempered with pragmatism and an openness to new ideas; and pro-choice Republicans. Bayh, I’m afraid, is the latter. So is Lieberman, for the most part.
What I’d really like to do is transplant Hillary’s brain into Mark Warner’s body.
LOL…THEN vote for her! Yeh, Shrum is better for you gone. Bob Dole was a “legacy” vote–much like Hillary would be if she was an actual moderate. Well, stick with her, then, and let’s all just try not to let the campaign get too ugly. I’ll restrain myself if you will. Unless she…oh, well…there I go again!