As Long As We Were Looking Back at Watergate, We Might As Well Take In the Clinton Scandals As Well…

|

Leftist Clinton critic Doug Ireland gives thumbs down to Edward Klein's The Truth About Hillary.

Advertisement

NEXT: The Italian Job

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It isn’t about any ambition that Hillary might have for the White House. The blinding hatred for Hillary and Bill has everything to do with fund raising. It works too. The irony is the thought that anyone could see the Clinton’s ambition as exceptional. Especially, after the mountain of bs that was paraded out during Terry Schivo.

  2. Quote of the day, Ireland, referring to Dick Morris as an “ambulant cancer on the body politic”

  3. I was too young for politics when the whole Monica thing went down. At the time I was learning to hate the religious right, and the only preconceptions I held about the whole thing (up until now) came from vague memories of my father arguing with my mother’s fundamentalist relatives at family reunions. This recap is great for me because I can get a decent summary without all the bullshit.

    If I were a lesbian, I would have some intense personal hatred for Hillary Clinton. I don’t care how many leftists trash this book. This is going to get a lot of sexually frustrated Christians to vote Republican, and the press in this country just can’t imagine why the Gay Marriage straw man worked so well.

  4. who knows? maybe this book will produce a backlash. its absurdities might only work to thrust hillary into the forefront of the presidential race that she is almost certain to enter.
    this could be senator clinton’s fahrenheit 9/11. although, hillary as a lesbian isnt so crazy. ive seen her in person, heard her speak. its a definite possibility. one that would ruin her.

  5. It’s all about making a living by telling people what they wanna hear.

  6. The book is a plant. The problem with the Clintons isn’t sex, its abuse of power. Also, selling out this country for that power. Focusing on Monica doesn’t hurt Hillary, and neither does painting her to the left, especially in her youth. I think this book is intended to innoculate Hillary from real, deserved criticism. Secret meetings, the travel office firings, Craig Livingston and FBI files, there’s plenty of real stuff to write about, hopefully a serious author will do a complete bio, and soon!

  7. And Charlie Trie, the missing billing records, the pardons for sale (or PR votes), friends who prefer jail to crossing her, indicted fundraisers, and on and on. Maybe a real book is impossible because the whole story would take more than a lifetime to complete.

  8. Of course, according to Slate’s Juicy Bits, he also accuses Hillary of having an affair with Vince Foster. I do love how the right wing can never actually figure out which sexual crimes they want to tar Hillary with.

  9. So Butch believes that the book will produce a pro-Hillary backlash. Not a chance. Butch, you are making the erroneous assumption that the American voters are intelligent voters and will see through the book’s lies. You forget that these are the same people who buy what Madison Avenue tells them to buy.

  10. thank goodness the orders come from madison avenue. better them than greenpeace.

  11. Of course, according to Slate’s Juicy Bits, he also accuses Hillary of having an affair with Vince Foster.

    Ya know, the big question driving the whole Vince-was-murdered conspiracy thing was nobody could come up with a decent motive for his suicide.

    Finally, we have a plausible reason for Vince Foster to blow his brains out.

  12. …because suicides that leave the survivors wondering why are completely unheard of.

  13. RC:

    why? because HRC wouldn’t?

    shudder. now. imagine his psych. state to run to her. hell. bill ran from her. straight to the trailer park. on our (taxpayers’) dime. shudder again. and damn him for that.

    joe: do you know the “bushbodycount” site? what is your take on that, if you know it?

    cheers,
    drf

  14. Never heard of it. If it bears any resemblance to the Clinton Body Count idiots, I don’t wanna.

  15. Hi Joe!

    thanks.

    gotcha. i had suspected it was the same as one of “those” sites, too.

    cheers,
    drf

  16. I have loathed Hillary since the early 80s, when she and other then-members of the Legal Services Crporation board refused to leave office when President Reagan fired them. They claimed that somehow they didn’t serve at the pleasure of the President, as if the brouhaha over President A. Jackson’s power to fire Lincoln holdovers had never happened. That episode marked her as someone who would defy the law in order to achieve a desired result. Coming from someone who had been a staff lawyer for the congressional committee that drew up the bill of particulars against Nixon, her objection to getting sacked was perplexing. Anyone who had researched the history of impeachment would know that the courts would uphold Reagan, which they did. The administration did cut a deal with the Democrats so that the LSC board was changed into one with some presidential and some Congressional appointments, so Ms. Rodham did get something out of her obstinance.

    The pattern that “rules are for other people” continued for Bill and Hill over the years. In addition, her attempts to paint herself as a possible “co-president” in the 1992 campaign offended my republican virtue – note the small r. I didn’t care for that crap when Edith Wilson pulled it, either. After Bobby Kennedy’s turn at being his brother’s Attorney General, Congress made it illegal for the President to appoint close relatives to important positions. Hillary ran afoul of when Clinton set up a health care advisory board in an effort to grease the wheels for his doomed plan.

    Though I detested her picking my native New York as an avenue into the Senate, I have much less a problem with her now that she has actually presented herself before the carpetbagger-loving voters of the Empire State. Much of the carping against HRC from the left is the kind of whining any officeholder who has to position herself in order to get reelected will hear. If The Rod is serious about a presidential run, she’s going to try to make herself seem more and more moderate as the months go on. The best thing that could happen to her would be some other pol – the execrable Russ Feingold, frex – to get into the race and promote a leftier platform. Then HRC can look like a sensible alternative to those wacky pinkos who don’t know how to compromise. Enough of the liberal base, especially the hardcore of professional women with government jobs who are as important to the Dems as the labor movement, might stick with her as she rebrands herself. Nail down most of the left, move close enough to the center to appear electable, and you can be the Dem nominee.

    So, I don’t think Klein’s book will touch Hill. Her true believers won’t read it, nor will most middle-of-the-roaders, who hate all that nasty personal attack stuff. It is just more choir-preaching for the righties, even if it didn’t come from a movement conservative.

    Kevin

  17. Perhaps this book was intended to cause a backlash. It would certainly be a shrewd move.

    Yes, I do have my tinfoil hat on.

  18. The timing’s not right. A backlash strategy wouldn’t put this book out until early 2007, at the earliest.

  19. HRC is up for reelection to the Senate in `06, but it would surprise the hell out of me if the Republicans/Conservatives found themselves a candidate that could even compete with her. Giuliani probably won’t run, and Pataki may have too much baggage.

    Kevin

  20. Exactly how many indictments and convictions happened on the Clinton watch?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.