When Dogs Bark

If there is any doubt as to how deranged Big Media, even British Big Media, have become when it comes to the topic of Hillary Clinton, more proof sadly has arrived.

The Atlantic Monthy, once a prestigious publication, has debased our national conversation on the 2008 presidential election with a brand sparkling new anti-Hillary Clinton article called No Girlfriend of Mine.

We will tease you for a while by withholding from you the topic of that debased article.

The equally debased London Times today published an article based on the debased article in the debased Atlantic Monthly.

Here now is the key sentence from today’s London Times which describes a reason why Hillary might not become the president – you fill in the blanks with the reason provided as to why Hillary will be kept out of the White House:

“Some believe ___ _________ ___ could now come between Hillary Clinton and her ambition to return to the White House as America’s first woman president.”

Can you guess what the great reason is for Hillary not getting elected president?

The answer is: “the abandoned pet”.

Here is more from the deranged article actually published in the London Times:

“AS THE “first pet” of the Clinton era, Socks, the White House cat, allowed “chilly” Hillary Clinton to show a caring, maternal side as well as bringing joy to her daughter Chelsea. So where is Socks today? [snip]

Some believe the abandoned pet could now come between Hillary Clinton and her ambition to return to the White House as America’s first woman president. [snip]

Clinton’s treatment of Socks cuts to the heart of the questions about her candidacy. Is she too cold and calculating to win the presidency? Or does it signify political invincibility by showing she is willing to deploy every weapon to get what she wants?

“In the annals of human evil, off-loading a pet is nowhere near the top of the list,” writes Caitlin Flanagan in the current issue of The Atlantic magazine. “But neither is it dead last, and it is especially galling when said pet has been deployed for years as an all-purpose character reference.”

Flanagan’s article, headed No Girlfriend of Mine, points out that Clinton wrote a crowd-pleas-ing book Dear Socks, Dear Buddy: Kids’ Letters to the First Pets, in which she claimed that only with the arrival of Socks and his “toy mouse” did the White House “become a home”.

Caitlan Flanagan is an absolute idiot that owes thinking people, as well as all Americans, an apology for writing such stupidity and the Atlantic Monthly owes us all an apology for publishing such stupidity.

Here is idiot Caitlan Flanagan’s garbage:

Sometimes I imagine Betty Currie (remember her?) starting another long morning of her golden retirement. She pours a cup of coffee, glances at the headlines of the newspaper on the kitchen table, and then, with a sigh of infinite resignation, she cinches the belt on her dressing gown a little tighter, finds a plastic bag, and heads to the bathroom to clean the litter box of a former celebrity.

When I first heard, during the strange final days of Bill Clinton’s presidency, that the first couple were going to jettison Socks, the family cat, I assumed that it was one of those weird rumors that attach themselves to the Clintons, in this case one easily dispelled: a single photograph of the kitty happily curled up on a window seat in his new home, and that would be the end of it. But then, as so often happens with weird rumors that attach themselves to the Clintons, the story turned out to be 100 percent true. Reporters asked Bill about it during a press conference, and he hemmed and hawed. As the final days passed by—which, as you may recall, included a newsy sluice of pardons and outrages, hardly a time when journalists had to invest minor incidents with greater importance—reporters couldn’t quite get their heads around the business with the cat.

In this hour of crisis, the official Socks the Cat Fan Club sent an inquiry to its namesake’s most stalwart champion. Hillary’s Senate office replied with a note—at once chilly and patronizing— suggesting, more or less, that they butt out.

Caitlan Flanagan is an idiot. Her “chilly” narrative is what is disturbing. Her “hemming and hawing” distortions are disturbing. Caitlan Flanagan is an idiot spinning idiot narratives.

This past week we have all beheld the Ellen DeGeneres doggie breakdown on television. Here is the sad tale, courtesy of the (surprise!) London Times:

American comedian Ellen DeGeneres has caused an unlikely scandal after breaking down and sobbing on television.

The show business veteran bawled for several minutes on her syndicated chat show yesterday as she told the audience about an unfortunate incident involving a dog, her hairdresser and a canine contract.

The 49-year-old explained she had adopted a puppy named Iggy from an animal rescue centre on September 20, but, despite training and neutering, Iggy failed to impress the comedian’s cats. On hearing her hairdresser was looking for a family pet, and to prevent her feline friends suffering further distress, DeGeneres gave the dog away.

When pet rescue agency Mutts and Moms heard of Iggy’s new domestic arrangements, it informed DeGeneres that giving away the Brussels Griffon terrier cross was a breach of the adoption contract she had signed. The agency reclaimed the dog, leaving the hairdresser’s two young daughters distraught.

We’ll spare you the rest of the details concerning Ellen’s doggie problems. Suffice to say that pets are greatly loved and separation from our furry friends causes all sorts of distress. When it’s pet species vs other pet species, watch out.

Which brings us back to idiot Caitlan. Caitlan could have spared the Atlantic Monthly a paycheck and expense report by referring curious Socks’ fans to Wikipedia, that online resource. Here is the true saga, not the idiots version, of Socks the cat and why Socks lives with her new mom Betty Currie

Socks was adopted by the Clintons in 1991 after he jumped into the arms of Chelsea Clinton while she was leaving the house of her piano teacher in Little Rock, Arkansas, where he was playing with his sibling, ‘Midnight’. Midnight was later adopted by someone else. After Bill Clinton became President, Socks moved with the family from the governor’s mansion to the White House and became the principal pet of the First Family in Clinton’s first term, though he was known to share his food and water with a stray tabby, dubbed “Slippers.” He was often taken to schools, hospitals, and nursing homes to take part in goodwill visits.[citation needed] During the Clinton administration, children visiting the White House website would be guided by a cartoon version of Socks.

He eventually lost the position of principal Clinton pet in 1997 when the Clintons acquired Buddy, a Labrador Retriever. At this point some fans of Socks joked that Socks had been “voted out of office” of White House pet in favor of the more traditional dog. Socks found Buddy’s intrusion intolerable; according to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Socks “despised Buddy from first sight, instantly and forever” and Bill Clinton said that “I did better with the Palestinians and the Israelis… than I’ve done with Socks and Buddy.” When the Clintons left the White House in 2001 they took Buddy to their new home, but left Socks under the care of Bill Clinton’s secretary, Betty Currie. Socks was only the fourth cat to occupy the White House since Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency.

In mid-2006 Socks was in good health and still living with Currie and her husband in Hollywood, Maryland, about 130 km from Washington. In October 2005 he made a now-rare public appearance when Currie was guest speaker at an Officers’ Spouses Club luncheon at Andrews Air Force Base. Socks accompanied her and took part in a photo op.

By the way, poor Buddy was killed by a car shortly after moving to New York. At the time, and we are serious, there were numerous stories about the “strange” death of Buddy and the complicity of Bill and Hillary Clinton in poor Buddy’s death (we kid you not). Betty Currie took the little cat, not the big Labrador home with her, and they lived happily ever after. Socks is the lucky cat who lived in the White House and escaped the plots and investigations of Congressional Ripublicans unhappy with Peace and Prosperity in the Clinton years.

We suspect Caitlan’s next move will be a mind meld with Representative Dan Burton, the deranged Indiana Ripublican who investigated Socks the cat’s mail in one of his Caitlan Flanagan type investigations.

According to the Atlantic Monthly Caitlan is now hard at work writing a book about the emotional life of pubescent girls – we kid you not.

The Atlantic Monthly can be reached at letters@theatlantic.com
The Atlantic Monthly forum is HERE.


47 thoughts on “When Dogs Bark

  1. Oh my Lord… just when you think you’ve seen it all. These stupid stories get out there and spread faster than video. I’d like to believe that this is so silly that it will be ignored by the public but we all know many people will buy every word of it..unbelievable..

    On another note: Meet the Press had an all female panel today which was different for that show. They discussed many topics about Hillary and most of the discussion was about her as a campaigner, her relationship with Bill and a little about her perceived weaknesses. Russert, however, lead off the discussion with a video of Obama slamming Hillary’s war vote even though this topic was not discussed with the panel. He also, of course, had to show that video of Rudy slamming her experience although one of the panel members did a good job refuting it (I think it was Doris K. Goodwin the historian).

    I am cynical these days. I’m thinking that Russert and MTP have gotten a ton of emails about their obvious Obama adoration and needed to do something to “prove” they weren’t biased. I’ll certainly be watching to see if they start having more balanced discussions with their political panels in the future. I’m not expecting that will happen any time soon…

  2. i knew socks went with bettie curry after bill’s presidency. i think mostly becuase chelsea went off to college. i remember when buddy died in 2002 by a car accident. i own 3 cats with my wife, ziggy, merlin, and jasper.

  3. From the Washington Post;

    A Difference on Iran?
    Barack Obama’s unconvincing attack on Hillary Clinton’s ‘saber-rattling.’

    Sunday, October 21, 2007; Page B06

    SEN. BARACK Obama argues that he has a significant difference with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Iran, an issue that may be more important for the next president than Iraq. In an op-ed, Mr. Obama condemned as “dangerous” and “reckless” a Senate resolution Ms. Clinton supported that urged the Bush administration to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization. He said the resolution “opened the door to an extension and escalation of the ongoing war in Iraq to include military action against Iran.” He also said the “first and most important avenue to contain Iranian aggression” should be “direct diplomacy” — which he said Ms. Clinton had called “naive and irresponsible.”

    There are two important issues here: whether it is right for the United States to designate part or all of the Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, as the Bush administration is likely to do in the near future; and whether direct talks between Iran and the United States are worth pursuing. Ms. Clinton has been criticized by some on the left who contend that the terrorism designation would unncessarily raise tensions with Iran and increase the chances of war. But it turns out that Mr. Obama doesn’t share this view: He, too, favors the “terrorist” designation. In fact the main point of such a step is to allow the United States to tighten economic sanctions against Iran — a strategy that both candidates rightly favor.

    Nor do Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton disagree very much about talks with Iran. Both say their administrations would open unconditional negotiations with Tehran about its nuclear program — unlike the Bush administration, which has offered such talks but conditioned them on Iran’s suspending its uranium enrichment. If there is a difference, it is that Mr. Obama once said — unadvisedly — that as president he would meet unconditionally with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is a Holocaust denier and advocate of Israel’s destruction but not Iran’s most important leader. Rather than admit his mistake — Ms. Clinton was right to call the remark “naive” if not “irresponsible” — Mr. Obama has tried to make it appear that the criticism amounted to a dismissal of “direct diplomacy.”

    So is there any real difference between Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton on Iran? Mr. Obama contends that one distinction lies in Ms. Clinton’s acceptance of language in the Senate resolution that “it is a critical national interest of the United States” to stop Iran from creating a Hezbollah-like force in Iraq. Mr. Obama claims that such language is “saber-rattling” that could be used by the Bush administration to justify an attack on Iran. This is hard to fathom. Not only is there no mention of the use of U.S. force in the resolution, but last year Mr. Obama gave a speech in which he said it “is in our national interest to prevent” Iran or Syria from using Iraq as “a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries.”

    In fact the two leading Democratic candidates have advocated pretty much the same policy for Iran, just as they have for Iraq. In the case of Iran, the strategy is, for the most part, centrist and sensible and doesn’t differ much from what the Bush administration is doing. Now, trailing in the polls and sensing a political opportunity, Mr. Obama is trying to portray Ms. Clinton as a reckless saber-rattler. That is irresponsible and — given the ease with which the charge can be rebutted — probably naive, as well.

    Other editorials in this series can be found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions.

  4. Great Editorial, The Realist. Thanks for posting it. So much for Obama’s silly claims. We are astounded that the Washington Post has called Obama on his bull. This could easily be turned into a Hillary campaign leaflet and distributed whenever Obama speaks about Iran.

    AmericanGal, this story is all over the place, as you say. It is a “human interest” story which travels very rapidly. We have already read several articles and blogs treating the story seriously.

    Terrondt, great names for the kittys. Poor Buddy. Seamus has had a better time of it and will soon be a White House doggie.

  5. Taylor Marsh is all over the McClurkin scandal, and boy is she mad!
    Let’s hope that the anger over this snowballs in the gay community, the liberal blogs and the press. The controversy puts Obama in a bad position (pun intended) whether he sticks to his guns or backs out. Another not-ready-for-prime-time move by the Obama camp.

    “The disgusting views of McClurkin are only a small part of this issue for me. Having Barack Obama invite him in on a South Carolina tour is the same as embracing McClurkin’s dangerously bigoted view of homosexuality, all based on the fact that he was molested as a child and now — praise the Lord! — is “cured.” Right. But that the most visible black leader today is embracing McClurkin in order to win a state is not only disgusting but dangerous. Homosexuals have in the past been ignored in the black, religious section of the African American community, with devastating consequences. The Village Voice, as well as The New York Times, have covered this issue, which many have never considered.”


  6. Taylor Marsh has done a terrific job in demonishing those old, silly and hypocritical boys -Obama, Edwards like.

    We need to shower her more love. Comment more there, and give her some heads-up to let her to follow up.

  7. BTW, Drudge now has a picture of Socks and a link to the Socks saga up. The comments on Atlantic Monthly so far are negative to the story.

  8. Obama’s next step could be to Springfield
    A few years as governor would boost senator’s presidential aspirations

    October 21, 2007
    STEVE HUNTLEY shuntley@suntimes.com
    A few random observations for a Sunday morning. Not a single vote has been cast, but the political pundits are talking about the inevitability of a Hillary Clinton nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate. Let’s forgo a debate on her various vulnerabilities, Barack Obama’s celebrated strengths and the many uncertainties of primary politics, and accept it as true for the moment. The question then becomes: What’s next for Obama?

    He could return to full-time work in the U.S. Senate. But history tells us that the longer a politician stays in the Senate, the bigger resume of votes he accumulates that can be turned against him in a national political campaign. Even if Clinton were elected president, the fact remains that Capitol Hill has not been as successful a launching pad for presidential aspirations as state capitals.

    So perhaps Obama might think about directing his attention toward Springfield and run for governor in 2010. Gov. Blagojevich’s scorched-earth policy there has alienated Democratic and Republican legislators alike, and a couple more years of the chaos we witnessed this year will have voters eager to embrace a leader at least capable of working harmoniously with his own party.

    A few years running the state would give Obama the kind of executive seasoning that the electorate likes to see in candidates for president. It’s a lack of experience that has been perceived as the Achilles’ heel of his White House bid.

    Now, a move toward the executive mansion would upset the plans of a few Democrats. However, Obama leaving Washington would open up what looks like a safe U.S. Senate seat for Democrats.


  9. On ABC’s ‘This Week’, Mark Halperin made the ridiculous claim that “None of these candidates of either party have really elevated their game. No one is out there dominating based on performance.”

    Even RightWinger Laura Ingraham yelled out “Hillary is 30 points ahead of the field !”.

    She looked at him like he was from Mars.

    George Will was trying to invent some possible convoluted method that Edwards or Obama could still ZOOM past Senator Clinton.

    Geez, these people are desperate.

  10. I am glad that WashingtonPost has finally outed Obama on this issue. The silence of WashPost editorial on the “Iran” and “meeting with dictators unconditionally” issue was leading me to believe that they were only singling out Hillary on her every statement, but were letting Obama get away with his dishonest attacks. Although belatedly, they finally outed him on this issue where his blatant dishonesty was troubling me. May be WashPost editorial is late on outing Obama, but not biased I thought they were before this editorial.

    Obama could have simply said he was misquoted on “meeting the dictators unconditionally” quote. Instead he was misquoting Hillary and equating her to Bush. So much for new type of politics.

  11. I even cancelled my subscription to WashPost. I will watch them some more and if I feel they are not showing bias towards any particular candidate, then I will think of subscribing again. 🙂

  12. admin, That Atlantic Monthly is so idiotic it’s unbelievable. The topic is nitpicky to begin with, and I love cats. Not only that, it’s a smear to boot. I knew Socks moved in with Betty Currie because he didn’t get along with Buddy, and Socks already had a strong attachment to Mrs. Currie, and vice versa.

    The topic of the Clintons makes supposedly rational media people lose their marbles, lol.

  13. AmericanGal, I missed Tim Russert’s show today. Could you give some recap about what the panel said about Hillary? Thanks! 🙂

  14. paula, they had a roundtable of female talking heads. what little i did see of them mentioning how negative obama is getting on hillary. i will see the rest of it on my dvr. im watching late edition with wolf blitzer now.

  15. hillfans, when it is all said and done when hillary gets the nomination, according to proffessor allan lichtman’s keys there are 7 negative keys against the gop. by next summer i expect 8 keys turned against the gop. just 6 negative factors are needed for hillary to win next fall. the nomination is the tougher part, not the fall.

  16. I think Doris Kerns Goodwin is daft!

    She may be the go to historical expert but her alter-expertise is in doublespeak.
    Her description comparing Hillary to Eleanor Roosevelt was stunning. Of course we all know what Eleanor Roosevelt meant when she made the women to T-bag comparison. But no, DKG tried her very best to regurgitate the quote into something not applicable to Hillary. That woman is a db…!

    Re: The Socks Story..

    Doesn’t anyone get it? This is ALL Rovian! When a story breaks unfavorable to his client, Obama. Which is this: ” Obama to do gospel tour with radical right singer who crusades against “the curse of homosexuality” There is always an Anti-Clinton story following to distract from the REAL story.

    It’s elementary… Rove is on the job. Can we make a rule here..out play this idiot because he’s a formula player…When an unfavorable story breaks about Obama, have another story ready to go right behind it because there will definately be a defamatory story about the Clintons… after the fact.

    Let’s call it the double wammy play or the Sandwich play..whatever OK? Can we up the gamesmanship please…? And not waste time on irrelevance!

    Mrs. S.

  17. i see russert dumped eugene robinson off his weekly roundtable. i guess he realized he was too much of a obama cheerleader and might as well put a obama for prez pin on his shirt during the show.

  18. joe friday, the so called mainstream media will do ANYTHING to keep this race much closer than it is. if hillary blows away obama and edwards there is nothing more to cover as far the dem nomination goes. so they are desperate to keep anybody but clinton in the game even though in reality it is not. well, iowa is a tough state though.

  19. The topic of the Clintons makes supposedly rational media people lose their marbles, lol.
    What rational media people?

    Most are upper middle class and the rest is elite upper upper middle class and then you have the elite 1%.

    Also I couldn’t believe the nonsense this week with all the Hillary bashing, it’s gotten so ridiculous and now we have a freak’n Sock story. I’m surprise the cat is still alive after all this time…meh.

    This just tells me that Obama doesn’t have any Ideas and has been stealing from everybody else….even Edwards slam that title on him. I would love for the media to focus on the candidate’s policies.

  20. thanks admin. my poll fix for the day has been satified.lol. the naysayers day by day and week by week are losing this so called “hillary is not electable” bs.

  21. I believe altantic monthly is connected with andrew sullivan, a british born living in the us and a strong obama supporter……he recently got married to his partner in britain and years to have gay marriage made legal in the us.
    I wonder what he thinks of Obama’s sc tour..

    and i guess this catty caitlan just needs to rile something ……just before halloween!

  22. carbynew…

    The saving grace of the “socks” story is…they must be scraping the bottom of the barrel if all they had was a socks the victim story…

    and Welcome carbynew to the “PINK” state OR the ‘state of PINK’…whichever you prefer.

    Mrs. S.

  23. I walked in a 5K race for breast cancer research this morning sponsored by a sorority here on campus, and I saw Hillary bumper stickers and yard signs as we walked the path. I was so happy. I am so mad about this McClurkin story. I am going to GLBT center this week to inform them. This is disgusting. I have a curse apparently. I can’t believe he is campaigning with this dude!

  24. Andrew Sullivan said on today’s Chris Matthews Show that Hillary’s biggest problem is her voice (presumably because she sounds like a woman?). He recommends that she go to a speech therapist and learn to talk really, really low like Margaret Thatcher (presumably, you know, so that she sounds like a man?). And, this passes for punditry?

    And, good lord, was that panel of old, rich, white clucking hens on Timmy Russert’s show hard to take. One Republican. One woman who just published the 1,386th pscyho-babble bio of Bill and Hillary in the 1990s. This group made Doris Kearns Goodwin seem like the sensible one. Judy Woodruff was the one one on the panel who has a clue about the current campaign. The rest of them must honestly think the entire female population of the country spends every waking hour drinking Chardonnay and munching on brie at Washington cocktail parties. My god, I’d rather shove ice picks in my ears that listen to the beltway pundits.

  25. The ‘Meet the Press’ roundtable was mind-numbing. Who is this wacky woman Sally Bedell Smith ? She kept bringing up the most inane drivel.

    The ‘Atlantic Monthly’ story is beyond ridiculous. The “Silly Season” has arrived about a year early and the “Clinton Rules” are in full effect.

  26. Did anyone read the story about Argentina’s Cristina? I don’t know what to say. 2008: The year of the former first lady-turned Senator-turned President? Wouldn’t that be interesting?

  27. “Who is this wacky woman Sally Bedell Smith ?”

    She appears to be best known for her book, “Diana: A Princess in Search of Herself”.

    Arrgggghh. We are in the middle of one of the most historic, interesting presidential elections of my lifetime and the best the pundit class can come up with is National Enquirer bios, Socks the cat, and recommendations that women would be more appealing to women if they had deep voices like men?

    Just shoot me now….

  28. If you check the masthead of Atlantic Monthly, Andrew Sullivan is listed as one of a number of “senior editors,” not quite “editor-in-chief.” I have e-mailed him a couple of times to indicate how hilariously funny I find his foaming at the mouth fits about Hillary.

  29. I honestly DO NOT have the stomach for all of this anymore…IT gets so frustrating when you REALLY believe in a CANDIDATE, and you see hit pieces like KITTYGATE passed off as “reporting.” I am going to write a nasty letter to the ATLANTIC.

    And I am just going to insulate myself from these kinds of stories. They are demoralizing and unfair.

    Hillary is doing the right thing, by continuing to tell people what she stands for and what she will do as president….I also read that she has DRAFTED the most legislation in CONGRESS of ANY SENATOR this year (74 BILLS)…..But that wont make the news. Only cats, and cackling will.

    February 5th cannot come soon enough.

  30. The Socks story is not only on DrudgeReport and in “reputable” publications. A Google search shows the extent of penetration of this silly but “viral” or “human interest” story.

    The purpose of these stories is to push the “chilly and calculating” narrative and to demoralize Hillary supporters. They know they can’t beat Hillary on policy or experience or her commanding presence, so they want to destroy her with 1,000 silly cuts.

    We here all recognize the triviality of these stories but many who do not know Hillary will believe these preposterous narratives unless they are presented with the actual facts.

    These trivial stories are the building blocks of swiftboats.


  31. admin, So what do we do about that? It’s very frustrating. 🙁

    BTW, Pilgrim, I stand corrected on Andrew Sullivan.

  32. Watching PBS’s Masterpiece Theater…

    “The Amazing Mrs. Prichard”… almost a take off on Hillary’s presidential run..
    Mrs. Prichard unwittingly is talked into running for the job of Prime Minister..

    If Hillary is looking for a break from the hum-drum, this is it..

    Mrs. Prichard’ campaign slogan:


    here is the site…It’s on now. you can check for re-run times..


    Mrs. S.

  33. hwc,

    Remember we talked about Edwards’ ‘discount tickets’ from his trial lawyers on private jets? NYT has some details on spending pattern of a couple of candidates. Here’s what caught my eyes.

    John Edwards, who raised $7.1 million for the quarter but spent $8.2 million, was spending at a rate of $1.17 for every dollar raised in the third quarter.

    One big savings for Mr. Edwards is his use of the private jet of Fred Baron, a trial attorney, who is allowed to charge the campaign discount rates. Mr. Edwards paid Mr. Baron $234,000 for the use of his jet. Mrs. Clinton used chartered jets, which cost more, and paid $1 million. ”

    I hope you can dig a bit on this one, maybe write a diary on myDD. Edwards is in dire financial condition, he’s becoming an increasingly angry beast. A couple of days ago, politico also had some tidbits on how he deferred payroll expenses to make his cash-on-hand #s look better.

    I think he’ll slip into 3rd or even 4th place in Iowa. It’s going to be a wild ride.

  34. You know, it would be a bit funny if Obama and Edwards lose steam in Iowa and they end up in a tie with Dodd, Biden and Richardson.

  35. Gosh,

    This is going to hurt those Clinton haters. According to WSJ …

    Clinton Book Fatigue Despite Slow Sales, New Bio Joins the Lot

    Whether or not “Clinton fatigue” plays any role in complicating Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency, one thing seems clear: Americans are suffering from Clinton book fatigue.

    This week, Random House releases “For Love of Politics” by best-selling biographer Sally Bedell Smith, which covers the Clintons’ White House years. The policies on which they collaborated — including budget-balancing, rewriting welfare, the failed push for universal health care and even foreign policies — are background noise in a re-telling of the financial and sexual scandals that followed them from Arkansas to Washington.

    “For Love of Politics,” which The Wall Street Journal obtained in a Washington bookstore ahead of its release, follows two major biographies released this summer. “A Woman in Charge,” by Carl Bernstein, has sold about 57,000 of the 275,000 copies Alfred A. Knopf Inc. reportedly printed, according to Nielsen BookScan, which tracks about 75% of the book market. “Her Way,” by New York Times reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta, has sold about 19,000 of 175,000 copies that Little, Brown & Co. reportedly printed.

  36. Joe Friday, I too was mystified by Mark Halperin’s comment. So I referred to his book The Way To Win for an explanation. I found none, but what I did find was some good insights on the election process which validate what we do on this site.

    The opening chapter is entitled The Way To Lose, and it raises the provocative question of how Gore and Kerry could both lose someone who is obviously less articulate, capable, experienced, and intelligent.

    His answer is that presidential campaigns are about storytelling. A winning presidential campaign presents the candidate’s life story to voters in a favorable light, e.g. Bill Clinton. Whereas, a losing campaign allows someone else to frame the story in a negative light, e.g. Gore, Kerry. He calls the latter process “The Freak Show”.

    Concerning Hillary he says this: “No politician, not even her husband, has suffered as many mean spirited attacks by the Freak Show or served as such an all purpose instrument for filling its air time and internet space. No other 2008 candidate will hinge so decisively on her ability to manage its destructive forces.

    In the 1990’s Hillary lost control of her public image almost entirely. Today, no Democratic officeholder has a deeper understanding of how the Freak Show works, especially how it benefits conservatives, or has built a more sophisticated operation to deal with it. She has gone from being the greatest casualty of the Freak Show, to its greatest survivor, poised to reenter the White House as President of he United States.”

  37. Did anyone see “Notes On a Scandal”? Caitlan Flanagan sounds exactly like the woman played by Judi Dench — I mean, exactly like her.

  38. Does Flanigan have a really, really deep voice like a man’s voice. You know, the kind of voice the Atlantic Monthly now recommends for prominent females?

Comments are closed.