Storm of a Century

"Two Hillary Clinton biographies create gossip storm in Washington" -- that's a headline in The Los Angeles Times. The reporting in the article, however, doesn't support that at all:

The books are "interesting and perhaps illuminating, but they didn't drop any new revelations into the campaign," said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, who headed up public opinion surveys for Sen. John F. Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004.

Even some Republicans saw no reason for Clinton to be concerned about the books' fallout. "It doesn't strike me that there was anything new in either of these books that I didn't already know about Hillary Clinton," said Whit Ayres, a longtime Republican pollster and strategist.

The Clinton campaign heartily agreed, pouncing on an early wave of ho-hum reviews from political bloggers. "The biggest news here is three reporters have spent the last 10 years combined looking at Sen. Clinton's life and finding nothing new to report," said Howard Wolfson, the campaign's communications director. "They've got zero."

The only reason anyone's talking about these books at all is that newspapers keep writing stories on them. The LAT's reporter, Stephen Braun, at least had the good sense to report how pointless this all was. But then along comes the headline writer to say it's the talk of the town. Obviously, Memorial Day Weekend is tough for everyone in the news biz, but this is really pathetic.

Comments

If you mean pundittown, then, indeed, it certainly was the 'talk of the town'.

Chris Matthews, of course, made it the centerpiece of his show, and when Gloria Borger pointed out that Rudy Giuliani, by the way, is not without sin, Matthews quickly moved on--of course skipping THAT subject.

What amazes me is how all these pundits moan they suffer from 'Clinton fatigue', and don't want to 'go through that again' (Andrew Sullivan volunteering to speak for 'the country'--I don't remember his being appointed spokesman for me).
Yet it is THEY who constantly keep bringing it all up again, while protesting how they don't want to discuss it. So why do they?

I would have rather heard about how Rudy didn't talk to his children and left early at his daughter's graduation. What family values!

But then again, he's on marriage # 3, but those sinful Clinton's are still on #1.

When will the puditry MOVE ON?

Posted by twit | May 27, 2007 1:04 PM

Hillary Clinton is a lousy choice for our nominee 37 different ways to Tuesday. The public and tortuous nature of her marriage is one of those ways.

I'll be damned if I'm going to defend her against this type of stuff prior to her actually winning the nomination.

Posted by Petey | May 27, 2007 1:18 PM

What is the point of Tweety's bizarre fetish? Is it because he is trying to get in good with the neo-con crowd and doesn't want them to hold his stint working for Jimmy Carter(or was it Tip O'Neill?) against him? Is there a reason why HRC or Bill can't come out and rip Tweety and the other punditry a new one for such an unhealthy osession?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | May 27, 2007 1:58 PM

"What is the point of Tweety's bizarre fetish? Is it because he is trying to get in good with the neo-con crowd"

Thank god Joe Klein isn't as clueless as his conscience.

Posted by Petey | May 27, 2007 2:09 PM

This is probably good news for Sen. Clinton. While her opponents will certainly try to launch all sorts of attacks on her, their arsenal of weapons is much more limited. After all, as we are now seeing, they don't have anything new on her. Even if they try to dig up old claims, they probably won't stick. So now, they'll almost have to pay attention to policy. And if Mark Penn is fired from the campaign, this might be even more true.

Posted by Brian | May 27, 2007 2:15 PM

What's most pathetic is reporters and bloggers whoring for the pre-publication spin campaigns from competing political camps, when most of the bloggers and reporters in question haven't yet read either book.

But I'm with Petey and, shockingly, Andrew Sullivan on this. There is enough we already know, even without the addition of more books to the public record, to see how collectively insane it would be for Democrats to nominate Hillary Clinton. Somehow the prospect of a primary and then general election campaign devoted to discussions of which women Bill Clinton did or did not grope, fondle, screw, harass or pay off, and which of those bimbo eruptions Hillary Clinton knew about and helped suppress, does not appeal to me in the least.

If you're hoping for a national debate on serious issues in 2008, you're not going to get it with HRC. Instead, you can look forward to months of non-stop, revolting tabloid seaminess. It is thoroughly mad that some Democrats are poised drop a sordid impeachment-era stinkbomb on what could otherwise be an uplifting campaign.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 27, 2007 2:36 PM

Chris Matthews: used undies sniffer, female and male. (No glass ceiling for him)

The speculation, gossip and innuendo will never stop on the Clintons. The dead trees press and the cable jerkoffs (like Mathews) just feed each other new material.

"Ooooh, she wore a yellow pants suit. Were her panties matching, I wonder. Were they clean?"

They will keep Matt Drudging stuff up as long as their are Dem. candidates.

Meanwhile, The Globe has been running several George and Laura wife-beating and divorce stories a month for a while on the front page, and guess what, no gossip on cable, Drudge, or the Corner yet. The last story said that GW told the Queen to mind her own business when she apparently offered Georgie-porgie some marital solice in a convo at the WH when the Queen visited for George's first (and last) white tie state dinner.

If the Queen knows, why don't we? Has Laura on several occasions moved into a DC hotel with her secret service guards to escape GW's violence?

The world wants to know, and it would be irresponsible not to speculate.

Posted by JimPortlandOR | May 27, 2007 2:38 PM

totally off-topic:

Matt, I just watched you on blogging-heads for the first time.

Overwhelming reaction: your voice and vocal mannerisms are as near a match as I have heard in a decade or so for those of David Lewis, a.k.a. the greatest philosopher of the late 20th century. (I took three seminars with him, so I got to soak up the persona fairly thoroughly).

Being like DKL in pretty much any regard is a good thing, except maybe fashion sense.

I'm pretty sure you were too young ever to see the guy in action--he died at a lamentably young age. But I'm sure they made you read a lot of his stuff back at his alma mater.

Anyhow--as someone who knew him tolerably well, I thought it might entertain you to hear of the resemblance.

Posted by former student of DKL | May 27, 2007 2:45 PM

It'll be hard for the Democrats to lose the 2008 presidential election, yet by nominating Hillary they have still a chance to succeed.

Posted by abb1 | May 27, 2007 2:57 PM

I am sure the books are "talk of the town" in Washington among the Sally Quinn coctail guests. And since these people usually generalize from their own obsessions to the general public they are assuming it is a huge story across the country.

What I don't understand is why these people don't have a similar obsession with Rudy's multiple marriages. After all he is a serial adulterer on his third marriage. He is also the GOP front runner. Why aren't they chatting away about Rudy's marital problems?

Posted by DonB | May 27, 2007 3:02 PM

"The speculation, gossip and innuendo will never stop on the Clintons."

This is the mistake Democrats make. They think it is about the Clintons.

It isn't. Who can forget the endless Gore pseudo scandals during the 2000 election? LovestoryGate, LoveCanalGate, BuddhistTempleGate, EarthTonesGate...........I can go on and on. It was the same with John Kerry in 2004. There was the KerryInternGate, BotoxGate, WindsurfGate, LooksFrenchGate and finally the Swiftboating.

Already we've been treated to Edwards HairCutgate, RealEstateGate and there will be many more. And if you think the MSM's love affair with Obama will last till election day you are deluded.

There are pseudo scandals about GOP politicians too but they don't get repeated in the MSM. This is the difference between Dem and GOP politicians. Any controversy about a Dem politian, no matter how absurd makes front page and evening news. Remember the Kerry botched joke? It went on for three full days with big MSM headlines. You don't see that with McCain or Rudy or Romney botched lines.

Dems get this treatment because the GOP has built a Right Wing Noise Machine which forces the MSM to cover these pseudo scandals wall to wall. The allegations gets aired by Rush/WSJ editorial page/Drudge/FOX/NY Post/Moonie Times.........And finally the MSM is forced to cover it because "it's out there".

Posted by DonB | May 27, 2007 3:31 PM

DonB is correct--and Petey, given what your candidate has already endured, you should understand more than anyone that you MUST defend Clinton against this type of stuff RIGHT NOW.

These journalistic frauds need to be called out in real-time, and everytime, they attempt to create a false narrative that attacks a Democratic candidate. Because, to paraphrase Somerby, it is certain to be your candidate next.

We Dems can fight it our amongst ourselves, and we most assuredly will, without legitimizing this MSM nonsense. And silence is legitimizing it.

Posted by Andruw | May 27, 2007 5:02 PM

DonB is correct.

Just as HRC gets worked over for her husband's effairs, Edwards will be denounced as a hypocrite for once being poor and now being rich and Obama will get attacked (sometimes probably simultaneously) for not being "really" black or for being a crazy black man (witness the BS about Obama's membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ).

No candidate will be exempt from unfair attacks by te GOP-it is a question of whether or not a candidate will be able to respond effectively when they are attacked.

Posted by Son Of A Bad Man | May 27, 2007 5:12 PM

I would prefer Gore or Edwards, but the very serious MSM is so focused on such critical issues as weight and haircuts that trivialities like Iraq, terrorism, income equality, etc. don't receive as much attention.

Of course, no rich Democrat can really support measures that benefit poor people without being called called a hypocrite by the same fatuous people that form our elite punditocracy.

Posted by Rich | May 27, 2007 5:12 PM

Blast.

Posted by Son of a Bad Man | May 27, 2007 5:14 PM

"it is certain to be your candidate next."

Why is it hard for Dems to see this?

Right now I am leaning towards Edward and believe he would be the strongest general election candidate; a charming southern white male.

That said I don't see 2008 as a cakewalk for Dems. GOP has a built in advantage in presidential elections. Right Wing Noise Machine is one of those built in advantages. The Machine helps them define the opposition. And if you can define the opposition as Godless/phony/liar/wimp/fag/traitor you win by default.

Already Edwards is being defined as all those things and more. Dems need to build an infrastructure to defend their candidates against smears. And Dems need to understand that a smear on one is a smear on all.

Posted by Donb | May 27, 2007 5:21 PM

Sure. Still, there's a difference: it's easier to demonize and defeat a candidate whose negatives are already high; it's a gift. Just like for the Democrats it would be easier to deal with Gingrich than Romney.

Posted by abb1 | May 28, 2007 2:00 AM

"three reporters have spent the last 10 years combined looking at Sen. Clinton's life and finding nothing new to report,"

Whoop dee doo. The old stuff is bad enough, who needs any new evidence that she's unfit to hold public office?

Posted by Brett Bellmore | May 28, 2007 7:57 AM

Petey, you're right. I could care less if it prevents Hillary as our candidate.

Republicans are fragmented, which is great if you enjoy only one scandal a week instead of 30. The family values crowd has lowered the volume on the endless fear-mongering, and the no-new-taxes dogma has been tempered a bit. Now is finalllly the time for a Democrat president who can put a nail in the GOP's coffin.

However, there's a spoiler waiting in the wings. This candidate, because of ego and ambition, will surely ruin any hope of a Democrat in the White House. The candidate has a lot of Democrat support, despite certain electoral defeat, a split among Progressives, and GOP victory.

I never thought I'd say it but Hillary Clinton = Ralph Nader.

Posted by Chris_ | May 28, 2007 12:29 PM