Dear Readers,
Okay. You have worn me down. I shall comment this once about the book, the title of which will not appear here, as well as the article, published yesterday at Politico, and typed by a renowned fan of anything negative about the Clintons. His name will not appear here either, but you all know who he is.
Back in July, when North Korea was doing a lot of sabre missile-rattling, when Secretary Clinton was asked for her position visa-a-vis NK’s activities, she responded thus.
“What we’ve seen is this constant demand for attention,”
“And maybe it’s the mother in me or the experience that I’ve had with small children and unruly teenagers and people who are demanding attention — don’t give it to them, they don’t deserve it, they are acting out.”
Given:
- The nature and breadth of the of the Clinton Derangement Sydrome (yes, as I reported at the beginning of the New Year, still alive and well) apparent in the article as well as the book (which I have no intention of reading much less PAYING for);
- The fact that I did read Michiko Kakutani’s review of said unsourced book in the Sunday New York Times where she brought the review to a conclusion by noting that there are no endnotes;
- The fact that the Clintons themselves are ignoring the book;
I stand by my decision not to battle hearsay nor to rebut the clearly deranged article at Politico.
If the best defense is a good offense, here is the type of information I find far more substantive than unsourced remarks lacking quotation marks and hyper-emotional ranting from unruly bloggers.
- Poll: Americans most admire Obama, Clinton, Palin : Among women, Clinton continues an unprecedented 17-year run as the first or second most-admired woman. She first led the list in 1993 as first lady and has held the top spot for the past eight years as a New York senator and, now, the nation’s top diplomat. (This is from USA Today and is based on numbers)
‘Hillary effect’ cited for increase in female ambassadors to U.S.
There are 25 female ambassadors posted in Washington — the highest number ever, according to the State Department.
“This is breaking precedent,” said Selma “Lucky” Roosevelt, a former U.S. chief of protocol.
A key reason is the increase in the number of top U.S. diplomats who are women, what some call the “Hillary effect.”
“Hillary Clinton is so visible” as secretary of state, said Amelia Matos Sumbana, who just arrived as ambassador from Mozambique. “She makes it easier for presidents to pick a woman for Washington.”
To tell you the truth, I believe it is her unfalteringly rising star, her hard work, her successes, her cheerfulness in the face of adversity, and her unflagging popularity that precipitate these faceless, nameless attacks to begin with. The result of all of the above remains the best defense as well. I have no intention of arguing at nit-picky levels the many outtakes of memory by the jaundiced and disaffected. She is out there, as I write this, working on our behalf to keep us safe. As for Bill Clinton, he has other fish to fry too, starting with trying to get Haiti on its economic, environmental, and social feet.
What is that? A fly buzzing around my head? Shoo!
(And that is all I shall have to say about that!)
Best regards,
Homegirl Still4Hill
The Department of Homegirl Security 
You know, the more I think about the Politico article the more I think it’s main purpose is to try to bait the Clinton’s into responding to this tripe. There is nothing the media loves more than innuendo and gossip and while I understand that at times journalists use unnamed sources to get at important information, I think to have an entire book based on such, is just sloppy journalism.
I was watching the news tonight and its clear that members of the media club don’t want to criticize one of their own (in this case two of their own), otherwise they would spend a little bit more time looking into a) whether it’s ethical (in relation to journalistic ethics) to publish a book which is largely just unnamed people bashing each other; b) what the motivations of the unnamed sources may be and how that may impact the veracity of their accounts and c) what the motivations of the authors are.
I’ll admit I couldn’t help myself and went over to Politico both yesterday and today and criticized (in the comment section) the two people who have the story on their columns over there. I’m trying to not get itchy fingers and waste too much time addressing the book and those that are running with it because I think that’s exactly what they want.
LikeLike
Ben Smith is garbage.Just like judas,daschle,and kerry got their karma,so will little and I do not mean that Hillary will do something,but that ben will reap what he sows.
LikeLike
In my world ~ Hillary Clinton IS the President.
LikeLike
Instead of just regurgitating what is said in the book and assuming its the truth, the journalists who are interviewing these authors need to ask more questions about the unnamed sources- like, for example, what motivations did they have for being part of this book? The readers should have some way of being able to judge the veracity of these accounts but conveniently, by protecting them all under a veil of anonymity, we can’t do that.
LikeLike