Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Former First Lesbian

If you believe Ed Klein's new book, you now swear on your mother's life that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian. Niiiiice.

Based on what? Because she likes power? Because she inexplicably stays with a philandering husband? Because she HAS a philandering husband? Because she doesn't wax girly in public? Because she has a desire for her own career and success independent of her family's? Because she says what she thinks?

Oh yeah. Definitely lesbian...If you still think it's 1950.

Think about it. By these standards--liking power, having a desire for career, refusing to emote publicly for the entertainment of others, staying with boyfriends/partners who are unfaithful to the disbelief of all your friends, refusing to toe the line on what our country's ideal of what a woman should be--then The Haggis is a big fat glorious lesbian.

That's right! I must be a big lesbo! Why hasn't anyone written the tell-all expose of how I must absolutely love to have crazy lesbian sex with women based on my last name, my desire to have a career, my refusal to leave a man who cheated--regularly--because I loved him (likely lesbian cover story!), my refusal to publicly emote in a "female-appropriate" way, my habit of telling friends I love them even if they are women...I'm sure Ed Klein can build the case against my purported heterosexuality quite easily.

Even some conservative outlets are not touching this one. Which ought to tell you something, since the right has rarely bothered about truth or decency in reporting...


Anonymous said...

I don't want to be inappropriate, but if there is a video, I'd like to buy it. ;)

Anonymous said...

"...since the right has rarely bothered about truth or decency in reporting..."

Hm...interesting comment. Does that mean, by your interpretation, that Dan Rather is on "the right"? Or maybe that makes Al Franken a "conservative". Oh wait, I know - Michael Moore is actually a member of the "vast, right-wing conspiracy" that was responsible for exposing the "truth" about Bill Clinton's numerous trysts with an intern. Let us not forget "Newsweek" and their excellent story on Gitmo soldiers' treatment of the Koran - that, of course, is the "real" truth, at least according to Senator Durbin.

Of course, us conservatives care nothing about "truth" in the media - why do you think we read the New York Times?!?

In fact, I think the Senate needs to have a hearing into who leaked to Ed Klein the intimate details of Hillary's think Ted Kennedy should head up that one. Maybe then we can get the "truth" about Chappaquidick, too.

Regardless, E, I think you are wrong on this one. Yes, Ed Klein's book is a little over the top, and his comments will do nothing to either a.) help motivate the Republicans, or b.) help discredit Hillary's woeful stance on certain issues.

Vigilante said...

I thought I was going to have an opportunity to comment on Klein's book and was looking forward to it.

But the discussion to this point amounts to nothing more than a troll swimming though this site like some bottom-feeding, androgynous carp.

1. Dan Rather cares about truth in reporting. That's why he apologized for inadequate fact-checking. When is the last time someone on the Faux network copped to one his daily lies?

2. Al Franken never lies. He outs liars. (You're confused.)

3. Michael Moore? I know where he's been wrong, (not often) but you don't.

4. Bill Clinton lied, but no one died.

I could go on, but I'd rather talk about Klein.

In the meantime, anonymous, you know where to find me. Or you could if you weren't such a ... primate.

Vigilante said...

That said, I won't waste anymore time on this guy Klein, who's also a bottom feeder. I'll just excerpt from Tim Rutten's smackdown from today's LA Times:

Every once in a while, something hits your desk and makes you wonder whether there really isn't an argument to be made for book burning...Edward Klein's purported biography of the New York senator and former first precisely that sort of something.

Prurient in its focus, shameless in its methodology and vile in execution, this volume is a near-perfect example of what has come to be called "bio-porn," a particularly noxious subgenre of the polemic literature that nowadays infests our bestseller lists.

A book like this does not have a publisher so much as it does an aider and abettor ... in this case, a person called Adrian bring to market the "conservative" titles that lately have been reliable moneymakers. The problem with an enterprise conceived to pick conservative pockets rather than address conservative consciences is that it tends to miss some of the movement's finer points — such as self-restraint and civility. With all the rhetorical refuse being flung across the chasm dividing red and blue these days, those virtues are harder and harder to discern. But even now, few serious conservatives are willing to stand by and watch them trampled quite as wantonly as Klein has done.

....Peggy Noonan... former speechwriter for President Reagan went on to call the book "poorly written, poorly thought, poorly sourced and full of the kind of loaded language that is appropriate to a polemic, but not an investigative work."

...The distaste for this volume arises from its sordid obsession with speculation about Hillary and Bill Clinton's sex lives; its repeated reliance on single, anonymous sources for all of its more scurrilous allegations and the malicious spirit that virtually oozes from each page.

...Here there's little to ponder, but a simple vice: greed. The guys who flood half the world with pornographic DVDs from mail drops in Chatsworth operate in pretty much the same manner — though without the sanctimony.

...Mere avarice cannot explain the author's motives. Usually one would expect to find some lacerating slight or traumatic grievance behind malice of this sort. If not some deep and terrible grudge, then pathology would seem to be the only rational explanation. . . Klein's own biography gives little hint of either.

...It would be easy, for example, to vivisect Klein on a factual basis. Even the most casual reading of this book turns up one error after another.

... But this sort of analysis won't do. The problem with the serious news media's handling of books like this one is that too many organizations and writers allow themselves to be drawn into reporting or analyzing "the controversy." In the process, all the prurient allegations — in fact, the more prurient the better — no matter how preposterous, are dragged into print so they can be denounced.

The way to handle "The Truth About Hillary" responsibly is to give it no further notice, no wider discussion.


If the serious media can't draw the line on this one, then there no longer are any lines to draw.

So, E., why did you even bother?