Dog Bites Man Stories
Tom DeLay is a crook. Similarly, Fred Barnes' hackery knows no bounds:
Finally, there's the media, more aptly called the Republican-hating media. We've already seen what they are willing to do to protect Hillary Clinton. They trashed a perfectly respectable, though highly critical, biography of Hillary by veteran newsman Ed Klein. It got so bad that conservatives, too, began attacking his book. If this is happening in 2005, imagine what lengths the press will be willing to go to in 2008 on Hillary's, or another Democrat's, behalf.
Come now. Isn't it possible that conservatives, like most of the press, attacked the book because it was so egregious. Let's recall:
Not, it should be noted, because conservatives are wrong about the book. The Truth About Hillary proceeds, as they have hinted, at a relentlessly puerile pace. Here, for instance, is Klein on Hillary's college-era physiognomy:Though Hillary was never a standout beauty, she had had a nice figure in high school and college. Indeed, several of her Wellesley College classmates, who played sports with Hillary, described how she looked in a T-shirt and shorts. They said she had a tiny waist, slim legs and ankles, and small buttocks.This paragraph offends on so many levels that it's hard to know where to begin. There's the sheer irrelevance of Hillary's appearance circa 1967. There's the vague attribution to "several of her ... classmates," which, if you consult the endnote, appears to have been one "Wellesley College classmate who requested anonymity." And then there's the slow and subtle accumulation of winks at what Klein elsewhere calls "the culture of lesbianism." Hillary, ever a failure at femininity, "played sports." What's more, the other girls were totally checking her out.
"Perfectly respectable." Sure.
Advertisement















Wow, that's a lot of reading in to 2 short sentences of Klein's book. But I would take exception to this: "There's the sheer irrelevance of Hillary's appearance circa 1967." Why is it irrelevant? Isn't the book a biography?
September 28, 2005 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is appearance relevant in a supposedly serious political bio?
September 28, 2005 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! Real Al -- troll-rated twice already, and not even by me. You are not loved.
September 28, 2005 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't (and won't) read the book, but I don't think it is meant as simply a collection of her political positions at various points in time.
September 28, 2005 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I don't judge whether I am loved by the ratings I receive here, John... especially not the ratings I receive from people whose basic premise is to troll-rate anything I write. (I do admit, though, that I find interesting what people will rate up or down.)
September 28, 2005 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I am sorta with Al here.
Once the book was clearly identified by most reviewers as Kitty Kelley style trash, what is wrong with enjoying it as such?
This paragraph offends on so many levels that it's hard to know where to begin.
Really? You're easily offended! I get a kick out of knowing a little more bout what was attractive about Hillary besides her brains. Maybe it's a girl thing.
Like with Kitty Kelley, though, I just wonder whether its true.
:-)
Oh, and you shouldn't get all hepped up about the guy John McLaughlin used to call "Freddy Barnie Barnes." My impression of him has always been someone who the majority of talking headdom doesn't take seriously, and also as someone who wouldn't know the difference between a scholary bio and a pop trash bio if it hit him in the face. He's always played the Republican weinie whiner role, the same as Alan Colmes plays the liberal weinie whiner. Don't start giving him the raised status of a hack. He knows he doesn't deserve it.
:-)
September 28, 2005 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I consider Tom DeLay an arrogant, unprincipled creep, but being indicted is not the same as being convicted. Technically, he is not now a crook.
September 28, 2005 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't wait to read Al's biography: The True Story Of How Pond Algae Learned To Troll.
September 28, 2005 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the same time getting off on a technicality doesn't mean someone is not a crook. Does anyone seriously think DeLay hasn't played fast and loose with the rules for years?
September 28, 2005 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
In good old days the extend of hackery had to be limited by the number of trees in Canada. Now, in the age of electronic media...
On the other hand, doesn't Klein get a bum rap? He could write "while her rack lacked the bounce, the butt was OK". Instead, he just conveys that idea using rather elegant language. Note the "slim ankles", it has a nice 19-th century ring to it.
I wonder if we should prepare biographies of GOP leaders in a similar style. "His friends from cheerleader squad commented on his nicely rounded calfs and rather disappointing size of details revealed under the showers."
September 28, 2005 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
By that standard, Nixon was not a crook.
What makes someone a crook is whether they commit crimes, not whether they are convicted.
September 28, 2005 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink