Why People Zone Out on Hillary


Hillary Clinton -- the woman assumed to be the next Democratic Party presidential nominee and quite possibly the next president -- is evidently a big snooze.  According to Mediate, her interviews to promote her book on CNN and Fox had underwhelming numbers. In the case of Greta Van Susteren's show, she sent people fleeing midway. More importantly, her book itself is a sales disappointment and, I would wager, even more disappointing if you could ascertain how many who did buy it read actually past page 15.  I wouldn't be surprised if it was in single digits.

No, I haven't read it and don't intend to. Almost all books by contemporary politicians are intellectually vacuous, ghostwritten exercises in self-promotion or, as in the case of Barack Obama, a straight out pack of lies. Who would spend their valuable reading time on that with the thousands of great books, past and present, available?  I haven't even made my way through half of Dorothy Sayers.

Which leads me to the deeper reason the country is sleeping through Hillary's book and it's not just because it's hugely over long and therefore a totally un-green waste of paper and trees (although that's true).  Most people know she's basically dishonest, a prevaricator.  Even liberals, though they won't readily admit it, know this.  Who can forget her blaming her husband's compulsive philandering on the "great, right-wing conspiracy"?  If they only had such power. Or the dim-witted claims of being under fire when she hadn't been (at least Geraldo makes a show of ducking)  and, more recently, the banshee-cry of "What difference does it make?" concerning the deaths of our people in Benghazi?  The Benghazi lies are actually exponential. (I'm not even going to go back to Whitewater, the miracle quick killing on the stock market, the mysterious Rose Law Firm bill and all the rest.)