As candidate, or as president?
The latter, which of course presupposes the former.
Now I’m wondering if anyone has done a hand-count of the number of Clinton-bashing books vs. Bush-bashing books. Strictly on non-policy-based[sup]*[/sup], this-peson-is-an-evil-schemer stuff, I suspect the anti-Clinton titles vastly outnumber the anti-Bush titles.
[sup]*[/sup]Since, as mentioned before, criticism of government policy is fair game…
Looks like The Weekly World News and National Enquirer teamed-up to make a hard cover special edition.
I’m sure there are left wing sites and blogs that have accused Shrub of murder, and probably rape as well, but they’re pathetic nobodies that have gotten maybe 100 hits in their entire existence. Drudge gets two million hits a day, and after all this time he is still the centerpiece of the conservative presence on the internet. his behavior is a good indicator of what American conservatives find acceptable, and another totally false allegaton of rape is business as usual for him.
Is it always, though? For example, the book, “The Year of the Rat”, is clearly criticism of government policy…in that case, Clinton’s China policy. It claims that Clinton favored China to the extent of compromising US security in exchange for illegal contributions to the DNC. So, is that fair, or sleazy?
Or, what about Barbara Olsen’s “The Final Days”? Part of it is an attack on the Clintons’ beliefs, part of it on elements of their personality she doesn’t like, and part of it is on Bill Clinton’s policies…his pardons and executive orders issued near the end of the administration. So, is that book fair, or is it not?
Notable exception: Matt Drudge is a closet gay.
Confirmation: Numerous sources–none from the Drudge Report, of course.
True. I gotta figure that that the whole idea of this book is just to sell copies and make money. Republicans ought to salivate at the thought of Hillary as the prez candidate in 2008. If the Republicans can’t beat anyone as liberal as her in 2008, they are in real trouble for the next election.
Care to cite these sources so that we can evaluate their credibility? Not that it matters much to me, given that my politics are anarcho-syndicalist and Matt Drudge would carry no credibility with me even if someone could produce a video of him in a sex crazed orgy with a dozen cute chicks.
I absolutely reject the claim that Drudge’s behavior is a good indicator of what American conservatives find acceptable.
I’m sure he wants the money, but what I meant was that I think Klein is using what is now a standard tactic: make an allegation against someone, and get your side of the media commentariat to repeat it until the mainstream news media has to cover it. By that point, even if your opponent denies it ever happened, it hardly matters.
I love it. Republicans say she’s too liberal, Democrats say she’s too centrist. Are we even on the same planet anymore?
How many Dems think she is too centrist? I like Hillary. What Dem should I support who is well to the left of her?
Do you want me to conduct a straw poll?
I have no idea who’s going to run in 2008, but Hillary’s record in Congress is not that of an extreme liberal. She’s gone out of her way to work with Republicans so she could refute that charge. Did you notice how many appearances she made with Lindsay Graham, who gets ranked as one of the more conservative Republicans? Last month she held a press conference with Newt Gingrich.
I’m not telling you not to support Hillary, I was only saying I find the dissonance amusing. It’s not like you’re the first person who has made that kind of statement. Myself? I don’t relish the idea of voting for Hillary, and I didn’t vote for her in 2000. But if she ran the right campaign, or if I got desperate, maybe I would. I don’t need to decide right now, so I won’t.
Yeah, I know, categorization of those books isn’t always clear-cut. That’s why I haven’t bothered to undertake such an endeavor. 
Yeah, that’s what O’Reiley and Coulter and Limbaugh are for. 
I wouldn’t say she’s too centrist, but I find the notion that the Clintons are way-out-left radicals to be rather laughable. A “radical lefty” Bill Clinton certainly wouldn’t have signed NAFTA, for instance. Or, as Michael Moore likes to say, “Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we had.”
The Clintons, however, are IMO definitely easier to tolerate than anyone the GOP has nominated in the last 20 years…
Ok, but I hope you’re not expecting the New York Times–not that the Times’ credbility has been sterling, as of late.
How does this link titilate you?:
*Is it just me or does anyone else have the secret desire to blackjack Matt Sludge in the back of the head down some dark alley one night. You know, the moon is full and he is out “on assignment” and WHAMMO!. Thus ends the career of a journalist that could be said to be like a cross between Edward R. Murrow and the smell of ass. *
I’m sorry, I was just fantasizing.
The difference between this book and the books about Bush (such as The Price of Loyalty), is that the Bush books contain decent arguments grounded in facts and are not written by Bush butt-sniffers. In the case of the TPOL, it was written by a conservative who was a Bush cabinet member. You are comparing these two books how?
In that case, you’ve legitimized Dick Morris’s books about Bill and Hillary.
I don’t think books about Bush I should count as Bush II/Shrub.
All those books are about Bush II, except for a few, which are about the entire Bush family as a unit, including Bush II.