So Hilary now is an author! Not that I doubt for a moment her ethical scruples, but this begins to sound like a replay of the $100,000 profit-in-two-weeks cattle futures deal!
First; this is an ADVANCE. What publisher (other than the one that got screwed in the (fake) Hitler diary scandal, gives out 8 million dollars on a book THAT HAS YET TO BE WRITTEN?
Second: this raises some grave questions about ethics-not to worry-she signed the deal BEFORE being sworn in as a NY Senator-so (as a public servant)she is “clean”. I guess the Clintonian logic of what is ethical is still active!
Third: the conglomerate which owns the publisher also owns CBS-the network that her husband gave a televised interview on!
I’d say: look for Senator Clinton to be very active in helping CBS in the future…but what do i know (I’m just a memeber of the “vast right wing conspiracy”!!
The largest previous advance was $8.5 million given to the Pope for one of his books. I’m sure the Pope is also going to unethically advance the interests of his publisher.
What ethical questions exactly?
Omigod!! Are you sure about this?!! The President of the United States sat for an interview for a major television network?!! I don’t think that has EVER happened before!!!
If you don’t like the phrase “vast right wing conspiracy”, try “rabid Clinton-hating right-wing loonies.” And get back to me when you find the bodies of the people Clinton murdered.
Look, I dislike Hilary as much as the next person, but try making some sense. A freshman Senator doesn’t have enough clout to be worth an $8 million bribe.
Sua
I don’t have any problem with her book deal. But neither did I with the similar Gingrich one. Let’s see the riteous Democrats, who protested so much then, come after Hillary now. (Sua, I think Hillary has a bit more clout than your average freshman senator, don’t you think?)
I also had no problem with the Gingrich deal, and I agree that, to be consistent, the dems should go after Hilary. There might be a difference in the House and Senate ethics rules, however – I think the House barred advances after the Wright scandal, while the Senate has not. That is only a bit more than a WAG, though.
I agree she has more clout than the average freshman Senator, unfortunately. However, I don’t think that giving a public $8 million bribe to one of a hundred Senators is particularly effective. If nothing else, the other 99 might get suspicious when Hilary introduces legislation revoking the licenses of all NBC, ABC, and Fox television stations ;).
I have no problem with the book deal.
How do you feel, egkelly, about your favorite conservative supreme court justices’ desire to receive honorarium for speaking gigs? While they are in office.
Many conservatives don’t seem to have a problem with a little capitalism on their side of the fence.
All of them. Except for non-famous first-time authors, this is how almost all book deals go. The publisher pays the advance, the author writes the book, the author doesn’t expect to get any more money out of the publisher (though, of course, they hope for huge sales and big royalties…but that doesn’t happen so much).
If you’re objecting to the procedure, don’t. It’s standard.
If you’re objecting to the amount…well, that’s something else. Personally, I think there’s a market for the story. No more outrageous than Arnold Schwarzenegger being paid $15-$20 mil for movies that bomb.
How can anyone claim to be a right-winger without having at least heard the endless jokes about how It Takes a Village?
**
The one that wins the bid of course. Huge advances are SOP whenever a publisher thinks they have a guaranteed winner in a book.
**
? In other words, Hillary didn’t do anything wrong, against the rules, or illegal, so we should be mad at her. I see.
**
And your point would be…?
Sua, you and Izzy might be a little more candid about the origins of the Wright “scandal” that Gingrich used to get him out as Speaker. Specifically, in what material way was it different from the Gingrich deal that you’re brushing off, other than the obvious party-affiliation one?
I don’t know which is worse, the Democrats who went after Gingrich being silent this time around, or the Republicans who defended Gingrich attacking Clinton this time. Simply put, the issue is fundamentally a non-starter regardless of which side of the political table you sit on, then or now.
Not even remotely comparable, other than the fact that they both involved books. The story with Wright was that he had written a book that no one was buying. He used it to get around the limits on honoraria, by selling it in bulk to groups that asked him to speak there. By contrast, in the case of Gingrich, and Hillary, the publishers were offering big bucks for books that they had legitimate reason to believe would sell well.
Maeglin
Do you have a source for your allegation? Scalia has denied it vehemently. Or is it just that the worst can be assumed to be true about any conservative?
Ptahlis,
Are the Republicans attacking Hillary?
Sua, you make no sense! On the one hand, you point out that Hillary’s book deal is (slightly) smaller than the Pope’s, and on the other hand, you want to excuse her by pointing out that she’s just a “freshman Senator,” unlikely to wield significant influence. I’m not sure where you’re going with this!
On the one hand, I’m reminded of Lloyd Bentsen’s rebuke to Dan Quayle, “You’re no Jack Kennedy.” Without question, Hillary is no pope, nor is she likely to ever acheive anything like the Pope’s stature on the world stage. On the other hand, you want to dismiss a woman who is completing an eight-year stint as First Lady, a woman who sought to establish her power by federalizing roughly 15% of the U.S economy, by referring to her as a “freshman Senator,” innocent, clean, and without friends in high places.
Sorry, Sua, you have to make up your mind! Is Hillary pope material, worthy of roughly the same money as the Pontiff, or merely a newbie in the Senate, unlikely to earn her keep as an author?
You can TRY to have it both ways, I suppose…
Please excuse the snicker at that last sentence. No doubt the college that was paying him hugely (with the money coming from Larry Klayman) for teaching a nearly-no-show Poli Sci class was sure their students were getting a great educational opportunity for it.
Ptahlis,
Are the Republicans attacking Hillary? **
[/QUOTE]
I can answer that easily. Yes. Trent Lott has already said he will make it very clear to her that she’s only 1 of 100. He also has said wouldn’t mind having a bolt of lightning strike her on her way to the Capitol. That’s the GOP Senate leader talking, mind you.
No fan I of Hilary Clinton’s politics.
However, I see very little wrong with with her book deal.
Intrestingly, the Washington Post’s editorial page condemned her, suggesting she should have taken her royalties as they were earned, rather than accepting an $8M advance.
I don’t agree - although I’m pleased that the Post, that bastion of left-leaning views, applied the same poor logic to Ms. Clinton as it did to Mr. Gingrich. In this case, Hilary’s clean; she merely negotiated the best possible deal for herself, a tactic used by authors everywhere.
- Rick
There will be only one of the BillanHillaryanAlgores in a position of power after January 20, so it’s only natural that the focus of the right-wing hate industry will be concentrated on her. We’re seeing the start of it now, even here on this board. Fortunately for her, she’s proven she can blow it off. Few of us would have that strength.
As for the allegations that this deal is simply bribery, consider some of these points:
-
Among other things, she’s a hot celebrity, and her story is at its hottest right now. Celebrity books sell pretty well, and this one ought to be a doozy. Publishing is a market-driven industry. The price on this deal looks like she went for the high bid. Wouldn’t you?
-
Regarding the time it will take her away from her Senate duties, who really thinks she’s going to write it herself anyway?
-
ALL publishers have their businesses affected by Congress. So do all businesses. Why single out this one, and one recipient, out of the entire morass?
-
If this is a bribe, as has been pointed out already, what can the most junior member of the out-of-power party do in return? I’m surprised that none of you has suggested it’s for past favors rather than future ones. You’re losing your fastballs.
(Those who know me will be looking for a cool 31 deg F in Hell. Honestly, I never thought I’d say anothing like that).
I can’t stand her politics, but why bother getting involved in a business deal between two concenting idiots, er, adults? C’mon, she has a right to contribute to a book, the publisher has a right to pay her.
What’s the problem? Is free speech only good when you agree with it and/or like the source? Same for free enterprize. More power to her! If she would only spend more time on books and stay out of politics…
[quote]
Do you have a source for your allegation? Scalia has denied it vehemently. Or is it just that the worst can be assumed to be true about any conservative?
[quote]
Don’t be peckish, IzzyR. And don’t give me any silly straw men about conservatives.
Scalia may have denied it, but the measure to lift the 11 year old ban has Rehnquist’s backing. Furthermore, I did not even mention Scalia in my post.
Scalia may not directly support an overturning of the ban, but he does want to lift the $21,195 cap on outside judicial income. And he when asked what he thought about lifting the honoraria ban, he said it was a “good idea.” Perhaps he did not support it so directly as legal reporter Tony Mauro alleged, but he certainly agrees with it.
You may read the full story here.
MR
I’ll add that Bill O’Reilly, chief political commentator for “fair and balanced” Fox News, said in the campaign that he despises her so much that he’s actually going to run against her himself in 2006.
Um, I wasn’t comparing Hilary to the Pope. The OPer was asserting that no one else had ever gotten such a large advance, and I was merely responding that the Pope had received a larger advance. I then used sarcasm (i.e., the Pope isn’t accused of ethical violations for accepting a large advance), to show that receipt of such a large advance is not in itself unethical.
As for the last bit (innocent, clean, etc.), my point is that an $8 million public bribe to a legislator is a waste of money. The other legislators should/will be on guard and will foil any attempts by the bribed legislator to enact legislation for the benefit of the briber. The same applies to Trent Lott as much as to Hilary.
Again, apples and oranges. Her clout in Washington, while likely greater than the typical freshman Senator, is irrelevant to HOW MANY BOOKS SHE IS LIKELY TO SELL. Let’s face it, were Monica to write a book, it would probably sell more than the Pope’s :D.
And that is what an advance is given for. Her publisher has made a prediction that her book is likely to sell 94.11764% copies as the Pope’s book is (assuming the same cover price).
If you want to compare the markets for the books, the Pope has a worldwide audience, but largely consisting only of Catholics. Hilary is a well-known American, and scads of people are going to by the book in the hopes she spills the beans about the First Marriage. Both lefties and righties will buy the book – lefties to find more things to worship about her and Bill :rolleyes: and righties to find more things about them to hate :rolleyes:
As a final note, don’t be acting like I’m defending Hilary. I’m not – I don’t like the woman and, unlike most of her bashers, I’ve actually had the opportunity to vote against her, and I did so. I’m just trying (fruitlessly, apparently) to say that, if you want to go after her, the book deal ain’t the way to go.
Sua
Poorly informed, ElvisL1ves. I’m a Democrat.
Newt was offered a $4.5 million advance, straight up. My fellow Democrats screamed bloody murder for two reasons.
First, the publisher’s owner was Rupert Murdoch, whose conservative leanings are well-known. The inference drawn by Dems was that Rupert was sliding Newt a bit of money on the side. This inference was acceptable if and only if there was no way Newt’s book was going to sell enough to cover the advance. Not knowing anything about the publishing business, I can’t comment - nor should the Dems who complained, unless they know more about publishing, which I strongly doubt. There’s an easy way to check - Newt actually wrote the book, so if someone wants to research how many copies it sold and how much Newt made in royalties, be my guest.
Second, his deal came on the heels of his rising to prominence being the GOP front man on the Wright scandal (which was a scandal - he was using bulk sales of his book to get around the honoraria limit). It smacked of hypocrisy for him to accept such a large advance after screaming bloody murder about Wright. I don’t think it was hypocrisy myself, but I can see how my fellow Dems felt that way.
Sua