# HRC's 8 Million $ Book Deal **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 21, 2000, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrcs-8-million-book-deal/46726 "2000-12-21T17:45:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Pyrrhonist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@Pyrrhonist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pyrrhonist)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2000, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrcs-8-million-book-deal/46726/21 "2000-12-21T23:14:22Z")
Another thread on the same topic Here. **A KIND OF INSIDER INFORMATION:** A friend of mine (an avowed Liberal Lefeter) who has worked in the book selling trade for over fifteen years and as book buyer (non-fiction titles, including all political titles) for over five thinks it “pretty unlikely” that it would sell the 2 million plus copies to cover the cost of the advance. Simon & Schuster will be playing it rough by asking for huge buys (i.e. multiple waist high stacks in all the stores) to cover promoting the book, and he is not looking forward it. And this from a guy tickled pink when he got a signed advanced copy of _It Takes a Village._ If someone with his years of experience in the industry and Liberal political tendencies thinks it is “pretty unlikely” that the publisher will not recover the cost of the advance, then maybe the $8 million is not really for the book. ---
**Author:** ![CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crankyasanoldman/32/11670_2.png) [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrankyAsAnOldMan)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2000, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrcs-8-million-book-deal/46726/22 "2000-12-22T03:58:35Z")
According to what I heard one commentator bitching about, there is a little more to the Rupert Murdoch thing. I guess his company was about to do some merger that would need approval (I wish I listened more closely, hope I don’t have this wrong) and thus it was thought that giving Newt an huger-than-justifed-by-expected-sales advance looked like influence money. Similarly, S & S’s parent company is expected something important before congress in the future (sorry, being vague again…) That’s why parallels are being drawn. Frankly, I think that after 8 years as FLOTUS and the wife who was cheated on and all the other stuff that went on, well, I think her book could be a blockbuster, and it makes sense to me that someone would pay her big bucks to write it. I think the potential Jerry-Springeresque aspects to her book make this a different thing, which might partly account for why this is being regarded differently. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2000, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrcs-8-million-book-deal/46726/23 "2000-12-22T04:18:46Z")
SuaSponte, fair enough, I was going on memory. I do gather your moderate Democratic leanings from your other posts, and I share them. I still don’t see why you think the Wright and Gingrich (or, for that matter, HRC) book cases were materially different, though. What did Wright do that was a “scandal” that Gingrich did not also do? Or is the difference that only the Wright case was pumped up into a scandal in the typical Beltway style? Wright’s book, as I also recall, was so short that he either should have fired the ghostwriter, or else he actually wrote his book himself too. The aforementioned Rupert Murdoch is also the owner of Fox, which of course is in character. Do you happen to know if the special bill that let him jump the queue and made him a US citizen, and therefore eligible to buy a US network, was rammed through before or after his payment to Gingrich? ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2000, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrcs-8-million-book-deal/46726/24 "2000-12-22T13:54:11Z")
**ElvisL1ves,** > [@](#): > > 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. You are confusing two totally separate issues. Though they are equally bogus, so perhaps one might easily get them mixed up. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Are the Republicans attacking Hillary? > > 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. Again, I remind you that this thread is about the book deal. > [@](#): > > I still don’t see why you think the Wright and Gingrich (or, for that matter, HRC) book cases were materially different, though. What did Wright do that was a “scandal” that Gingrich did not also do? Both Sua and I have already explained this. Does this mean that you intend to simply ignore anything that you don’t have an answer for? **Maeglin** Let me remind you of your words that I was refering to. > [@](#): > > How do you feel, egkelly, about your favorite conservative supreme court justices’ desire to receive honorarium for speaking gigs? While they are in office. To repeat: what evidence do you have that egkelley’s favorite SC Justice (which you are now suggesting is Renquist?) desires to receive honoraria for speaking gigs while in office? (Is this peckish?) (Your link was to the exact same AP article that I had linked to earlier. Am I missing something?) ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2000, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrcs-8-million-book-deal/46726/25 "2000-12-22T14:41:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TBone2 \* > \*\* > 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… \*\* What she’s worth as author right now is soley a matter for the publisher to decide. That publisher decided she was worth nearly what the Popester was given. Seeing as how Hillary is pretty popular with the womenfolk, I think she may indeed sell quite a few books. If she rips her husband, it’ll be a goshdarned bestseller! ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2000, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrcs-8-million-book-deal/46726/26 "2000-12-22T14:56:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \*Again, I remind you that this thread is about the book deal. Weren’t YOU the one that asked Ptahlis if the Republicans were attacking Hillary? I answered instead, with a couple of examples. Got a rebuttal, or was that it? > [@](#): > > I still don’t see why you think the Wright and Gingrich (or, for that matter, HRC) book cases were materially different, though. What did Wright do that was a “scandal” that Gingrich did not also do? Both Sua and I have already explained this. Does this mean that you intend to simply ignore anything that you don’t have an answer for? [/quote] Nope, the Wright and Gingrich deals both basically looked like getting cash for favors, whether specific or general ones. We non-lawyers can see that easily, and perhaps more easily than some technicality-absorbed lawyers can. The HRC deal doesn’t have that same odor to it - what favors can she return from her office, after all? I asked why you think the Gingrich and Wright cases are MATERIALLY different, and neither of you have been able to say so in a plausible way, so far. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2000, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrcs-8-million-book-deal/46726/27 "2000-12-22T15:16:36Z")
Elvis, It does not seem like you actually read the original comment by Ptahlis, or at least understood its context. You might wish to do this. He was referring to the hypocracy of attacking one of Gingrich/Hillary **for their book deals** while ignoring the other. The idea that Gingrich’s deal involved getting cash for favors was purely supposition (as it is with Hillary). Not so with Wright. It is important for people to appreciate this distinction. Even non-lawyers. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2000, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrcs-8-million-book-deal/46726/28 "2000-12-22T15:41:42Z")
Learn to read, **IzzyR**. Observe. > [@](#): > > How do you feel, egkelly, about your favorite conservative supreme court justices’ desire to receive honorarium for speaking gigs? Justices’, of course, is **plural**. “Your favorite,” of course, is rhetorical. By no means was I referring to any particular justice. You just can’t deduce that from what I said. Reply on the level of _logos_. As for the article, well, I am quite amused. You see, I didn’t actually _read_ yours, I just drummed up a cite of my own. To reply again to your request for evidence: _read the article_. > [@](#): > > Mauro and another reporter wrote that Scalia might be the chief instigator for a Senate bill that would lift an > 11-year-old ban on federal judges supplementing their incomes with speaking fees. The measure has the backing of > Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. And > [@](#): > > He added that he has not urged repeal of the honoraria ban, but when questioned about it has twice replied that he “thought it was a good idea.” So he did not instigate or urge the repeal but he thinks it’s a good idea? Come _on_. The next quote is the real killer. > [@](#): > > Scalia recounted the pay cut he took in 1982, when he left a teaching post at the University of Chicago to become a federal judge. He noted that he also gave up the faculty perk of paid college tuition, “a significant benefit for someone with nine children.” Yeah, nine children. Scalia really has to worry about putting his son Eugene through college, given that he’s a partner in the law firm that defended George W Bush. :rolleyes: MR ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2000, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrcs-8-million-book-deal/46726/29 "2000-12-22T16:05:02Z")
**Maeglin** > [@](#): > > Learn to read, IzzyR. Ah, but you make it so hard for me. First you wrote about the “conservative supreme court justices’ **desire to receive** honorarium for speaking gigs” Now you deftly switch to the measure having “the backing of” Renquist, and Scalia thinking “it’s a good idea”. Same thing? Well, of course. Surely they are only agreeing with it because they are eager to cash in “a little capitalism”. As in “So he did not instigate or urge the repeal but he thinks it’s a good idea? Come _on_”. Add to this a snide remark about Scalia’s son Eugene, and what do you get? “That the worst can be assumed to be true about any conservative”. Now where have I heard that before? ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2000, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrcs-8-million-book-deal/46726/30 "2000-12-22T16:28:20Z")
**IzzyR** , what in the Nine Hells is your point? The original argument was that Hillary’s book deal was unethical. My point, elliptically delivered, is that it is certainly no more unethical than judges receiving honoraria, which _most conservatives have no problem with_. The unwritten (and obvious) implication is that they would receive honoraria from concerns often litigating in their courts. _How is this any less unethical than receiving money for a book?_ The question was for **egkelly**. You stepped in with a cite which evidently I flipped against you. Scalia and Rehnquist _do_ in fact want to be paid to speak, Scalia’s vehement denials nonwithstanding. Scalia also made an idiotic comment to the AP, which I rightly called him out on. The man apparently does not have to support nine children when at least one, and probably more, are _adults_! Now you return with this same red herring about “believing the worst possible thing about a conservative.” This, of course, is obfuscating the actual issue in a transparent attempt to impugn my credibility. You are going to have to try harder than that. MR ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2000, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrcs-8-million-book-deal/46726/31 "2000-12-22T16:42:27Z")
**Maeglin** There is nothing dishonorable in comparing honoraria with book deals. (The issue of honoraria was the subject of a previous GD thread by **spoke-** ). But you chose to present your argument in the form of some personal accusations about conservative SC Justices. I had read a bit about this issue, and wondered if you had any information about these accusations other then your imagination. It has by now become clear that you do not. Your remarks about Scalia are misleading. > [@](#): > > Scalia recounted the pay cut he took in 1982, when he left a teaching post at the University of Chicago to become a federal judge. He noted he also gave up the faculty perk of paid college tuition, “a significant benefit for someone with nine children.” Presumably, in 1982, his son Eugene was not yet through college. Really, you do not help yourself with this sort of thing. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2000, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrcs-8-million-book-deal/46726/32 "2000-12-22T16:47:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > **The idea that Gingrich’s deal involved getting cash for favors was purely supposition (as it is with Hillary). Not so with Wright.** I don’t believe the facts support that. Can you cite any favors that Wright was alleged to have performed, either? Or any that Hillary can perform that would be worth $8M? As for Gingrich’s deal, these links: [http://www.internews.am/textonly/english/collegues/pressclub/02.1998/15-18.html](http://www.internews.am/textonly/english/collegues/pressclub/02.1998/15-18.html) [http://www.aptn.org/ibis/newscorps.htm](http://www.aptn.org/ibis/newscorps.htm) (there are many others, but these are pretty comprehensive) make clear how Rupert Murdoch got his US citizenship, and legal control of Fox, right after giving Gingrich $4.5M for his book rights. That may be “supposition”, but it’s much stronger than anything alleged about Wright’s deal. FTR, Gingrich is now on the Fox payroll, according to [this link](http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=3437). ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2000, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrcs-8-million-book-deal/46726/33 "2000-12-22T16:51:52Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Maeglin \* **How do you feel…about supreme court justices’ desire to receive honorarium for speaking gigs? _While they are in office._** Suspicious. Whether or not anyone’s opinion has been swayed toward a plaintiff/defendant who gave them speaking fees, the presumption of impartiality suffers. Hillary should submit her book deal to the Senate Ethics committee for review. $8 mil is a lot of hay, and the presumption that she might feel obligated in future to return a favor (not necessarily one associated with sponsoring a bill) needs to be dealt with. Her supporters can do better than to say in effect, “So what if it looks sleazy? Your side did it too!” ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2000, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrcs-8-million-book-deal/46726/34 "2000-12-22T16:59:19Z")
**Elvis** I did not mean that Wright gave any favors, just that the accusations against him were not supposition. He was clearly attempting to circumvent the law that placed a limit on honoraria. So I guess we can see the sinister all-powerfull hand of Newt Gingrich in any dealings that Murdoch has with the government from the date of his book deal. Murdoch becomes a citizen (how hard is that?) - Gingrich pulled strings!!! Murdoch gets a drivers license - Gingrich did it!! I think this needs more. (I’m not sure at all what you are mean with the relevation that Gingrich is now on the Fox payroll. This is common for ex-gov officials.) ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2000, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrcs-8-million-book-deal/46726/35 "2000-12-22T17:01:12Z")
> [@](#): > > But you chose to present your argument in the form of some personal accusations about conservative SC Justices. I asked **egkelly** a question. I also posted a benign statement of fact. Many conservatives like to benefit from capitalism. There is considerable evidence that conservative justices would like to be remunerated for speaking. You chose to interpret it a personal attack. Reply on the level of the _logos_. When I am trying to persecute conservatives, I will make myself absolutely clear. > [@](#): > > Presumably, in 1982, his son Eugene was not yet through college. This simply cannot be presumed. If it takes, on average, ten years to make partner at a law firm, and we don’t know how long Eugene has been with Gibson et al. or whether his job there is not in fact his first position at a law firm, it is impossible to deduce that Eugene was still in swaddling clothes (or at least supported by his parents) in 1982. If you are willing to do the research, I’ll eat my words. On a side note, Scalia does not discuss the significant government benefits he earns for his high office. I wonder what his mortgage payments are. MR ---
**Author:** ![Ptahlis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a8b319/32.png) [@Ptahlis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ptahlis)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2000, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrcs-8-million-book-deal/46726/36 "2000-12-22T17:57:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > > **Ptahlis,** > > Are the Republicans attacking Hillary? \*\* Insofar as I have seen, no Republican _officials_ are doing so at all, unlike the Dems and Newt. “Right-leaning media” are what I was referring to. My bad for being imprecise. ---
**Author:** ![TBone2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@TBone2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TBone2)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2000, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrcs-8-million-book-deal/46726/37 "2000-12-22T20:45:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*\*Originally posted by SuaSponte \*\*\* > > 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. > > Sua OK, Sua, I’ll let you slide on a lot of stuff because you seem genuinely interested and informed. But I can’t resist the opportunity to make a couple points here… The $8 million advance offered to Hillary comes from Simon & Schuster, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Viacom, which is owned by Sumner M. Redstone (born Murray Rothstein, Boston, ca. 1922), who counts among his many holdings CBS, MTV, ComedyCentral and Showtime, all well-established in their liberal stances. Redstone, a Harvard graduate, served as a co-chairman of Ed Muskie’s election committee in 1972 and as a director of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts later in that decade, at the invitiation of then-President Jimmy Carter. Since 1990, Redstone has served as a judge on the Kennedy Presidential Library Foundation’s select committee to award the annual John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award. I’m not sure if Redstone is a registered Democrat, but might it not be said that his liberal leanings are “well-known?” Might not Republicans be entitled, under the circumstances, to draw a few inferences of their own? As for Newt Gingrich’s book, and its sales figures, I dunno either, but I do wonder… After the left-leaning press (that is, practically ALL the press) nearly _crucified_ Newt at the time, excoriating him for writing it in the first place, scalding him for even considering accepting the advance, even after Newt returned the money, and after the same press basically _shunned_ both Newt and his book, I wonder if maybe – _just maybe!_ – sales of Newt’s book might have been somehow affected… I must say that I had difficulty obtaining much in the way of detail on Hillary’s prospective book deal through the usual press channels. I don’t recall a dearth of insider info when Newt wanted to publish! (I do so tire of so-called “journalists” who don their shoes each morning thus: “First, the left one, and now the other left one…”) ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2000, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrcs-8-million-book-deal/46726/38 "2000-12-26T15:16:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maeglin \* > **If you are willing to do the research, I’ll eat my words.** Acording to [CNN](http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/12/12/supreme.court.conflict/index.html#2), Eugene Scalia is 37 years old. That would make him 19 in 1982. (Justice Scalia is 64, or 46 in 1982). ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2000, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrcs-8-million-book-deal/46726/39 "2000-12-26T16:46:18Z")
Fair enough. Thanks for the link, **IzzyR** ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2000, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrcs-8-million-book-deal/46726/40 "2000-12-26T17:13:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TBone2 \* > **The $8 million advance offered to Hillary comes from Simon & Schuster,** Who had to bid for it like everyone else following an oral presentation on the planned content of the book. > [@](#): > > [Redstone] counts among his many holdings CBS, MTV, ComedyCentral and Showtime, all well-established in their liberal stances. CBS, liberal? The networks whose highest-rated shows include “Touched By An Angel” and which is noted for skewing to older demographics? Right. > [@](#): > > I must say that I had difficulty obtaining much in the way of detail on Hillary’s prospective book deal through the usual press channels. Right. Let’s see . . . when I search the Dow Jones archive, I find: A story in **USA Today** on p. D8 on 12/7, before the deal was announced, quoting reps from other publishers on their hopes to win the bid. A page 2 story in the **New York Times** on 12/13, again before the deal, noting that 4 or 5 publishers were still in the running and bidding had reached $7.5 million. A page 5 story in the **New York Times** on 12/14, before the deal, expanding on the ethical concerns raised by the potential deal. An **Associated Press** wire story on 12/14 detailing the bidding war and the ethical concerns. A 12/15 story in Toronto’s **National Post**. An **AP** wire story on 12/15 announcing the deal. On 12/16, the story appeared on p.A5 of **Newsday** , p. 5A of the **Dallas Morning News** , p. 5 of the **New York Times** , the front page of the **Denver Post** , A3 in the **Seattle Times**. . . should I go on? I think you should read something besides the Drudge Report and Archie Comics, maybe. > [@](#): > > (I do so tire of so-called “journalists” who don their shoes each morning thus: “First, the left one, and now the other left one…”) [HomerSimpson]Your story is boring. Quit boring everybody![/HomerSimpson] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrcs-8-million-book-deal/46726.md?page=1)