dunno, the books didn't seem that damaging to me. the chief revelations that I saw were that the clintons had marital troubles and that bill has wanted to be president for a long time. but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise

I just read the Post piece, and there's no there there.

And check out the authors: John Solomon, and, Anne Kornblut contributed! My very favorite Post writers.

Except for David Broder, of course.

Seriously, you gotta love this piece of reportage:

And it includes a thirdhand report that the Clintons had a secret plan after the 1992 election in which he would have eight years as president and then she would have eight years, although last night a key source disavowed the story.

wapo:
""Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton," by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr., reports that during her husband's 1992 campaign, a team she oversaw hired a private investigator to undermine Gennifer Flowers "until she is destroyed." Flowers had said publicly that she had an affair with Bill Clinton while he was governor of Arkansas."

Hillary didn't have to go too far to destroy flowers:

CONASON/LYONS (page 25): Musicians and club owners who had worked with Flowers described her as manipulative and dishonest. Her resume falsely proclaimed her a graduate of a fashionable Dallas prep school she’d never attended. It also listed a University of Arkansas nursing degree she’d never earned and membership in a sorority that had never heard of her. Her agent told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that contrary to her claims, Flowers had never opened for comedian Rich Little. A brief gig on the Hee Haw television program had come to a bad end, the agent would later confirm, when Flowers simply vanished for a couple of weeks with a man she’d met in a Las Vegas casino—and then concocted a tale about having been kidnapped. She had never been Miss Teenage America. Even her “twin sister Genevieve” turned out to be purely a figment of Flowers’ imagination.
...
Flowers never produced a single paragraph, valentine, or birthday card as evidence of her twelve-year affair with Clinton; no witness ever came forward who had seen them together. Indeed, she would eventually write an entire book, Passion and Betrayal, without stating a specific time and place where she and her famous lover were together.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh101503.shtml

And don't forget flowers "murder list." A list of all the people the Clintons killed.

If you forgot just how sick things were back then look through Somerby's archives.

Greg:
"but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise"

I don't know what that means but I hope it's not what I think. The Big Dog wasn't president for 6 months when bobdole launched the first of an endless string of investigations all based on lies. At best most "liberals" stood by and watched and at worst "liberals" invented the biggest sickest lies. Would a rerun of that make you happy Greg? Just asking.

Greg, it's only because we've all been so inured to attacks on Hillary due to the fact that many - but not all - have been irresponsible and ideologically motivated, that you could possibly say what you just said. Imagine if the Post had reported that Obama has had a practice of disposing staffers or other of his lieutenants to pressure people who had said unfavorable things about him to the press to recant their statements. That would be blaring headline news, and rightly so.

Yet today, the Post reported that this kind of subornation of false statements was a standard operating procedure for Hillary (as well as Bill). The most damning example is that Webb Hubbell and Vince Foster had been dispatched to get Betsy Wright (who worked for the Clintons, not the Repbulicans!) to falsely recant a statement she had made to the press. I had not heard that one before. The whole picture is of a woman with the worst kind of situation ethics; "shady behavior is OK if it's to defend ME, because I am one of the GOOD people." This is the kind of self-righteousness that has led W to cross accepted lines in the belief that he represents some greater good. It's dangerous. And for this blog, which is rightly earning a reputation for exposing corruption in an evenhanded way, to ignore it coming from Hillary is problematic to say the least.

The "yawn" staffer you quote deserved a bonus for fooling many folks, including Ben Smith over at Politico, and apparently you, because the power of these two books is that they come from folks with no obvious ideological agenda. Carl Bernstein, for example, has been an unabashed liberal for years. These books will have for more credibility than the Regnery Press crap from a few years ago. The books remind us that Hillary is damaged goods among not only Republicans but the all-important independents. She is about the only major Dem who I can imagine losing in what should be a triumphal year for Dems in 08.

Nice try. But ya really can't pardoy the sick and demented hate filled spew of the 90s.

You are inadvertently adding to the credibility of the Gerth/VanAtta book. Where do you think the dossier on Flowers came from? Duh, the Clintons' private investigators. Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that Ms. Flowers was of less than stellar moral character. Can you name a single Bill Clinton paramour who was not morally compromised in some way? That's either the kind of person Bill was attracted to, or he realized that this kind of person could not win a credibility contest with a respected Governor/Rhodes Scholar in the event of the person went public.

But while Ms. Flowers probably was a less than fully honest person, I also have ZERO doubt that Bill slept with her repeatedly. Remember Bill's carefully worded denial: "I did not have an eleven-year affair with her. ... WHat she said isn't true." We all knew that that meant the affair was shorter, but that there was an affair. I didn't care anway, since I more or less liked Bill's policy smarts and he was obviously better than either of his Repub opponents. But I can't stand the fact that his personal failings made his presidency less effective from a progressive point of view than if he had been of sound moral character. And Gore would not have needed to win Florida, as he would have won at least one other state he lost, if Bill hadn't been such a polarizing figure by reason of his poor morals.

Many years ago, someone remarked that "for Bill Clinton, women are the spoils of his feminism," meaning that his record of supporting women's rights in the public policy arena won him some leeway for treating them like disposable consumer goods in private. These books are showing that Hillary was a sort of sickening accomplice/enabler, in that she was fully behind the efforts to discredit these women as human beings so that the impression would be that their claims to have slept with Bill were false.

I am sick and tired of the Clintons' psychodrama played out on the public state. It's a distraction from progressivism; it plays into the hands of the enemy; and it's just tiresome. I hope these books do, along with other reporting, cause Dems to rethink their support for Billary.

I am sick and tired of the Clintons' psychodrama played out on the public state. It's a distraction from progressivism; it plays into the hands of the enemy; and it's just tiresome. I hope these books do, along with other reporting, cause Dems to rethink their support for Billary.

You are so "sick and tired of the Clintons' psychodrama" you type 3 large paragraphs of sick and tired Clinton psychodrama. You are so "sick and tired of the Clintons' psychodrama" you hope these books provide even more.

Good Gravy!

Something humans might wanna read starts in the second paragraph:

In the mid-1990s, you see, your liberal journals averted their gaze when Gene Lyons’ Fools for Scandal detailed the loathsome games Gerth played in his original Whitewater “reporting”—the bungled (or dishonest) work which gave the name to an entire era. Nor did they jump on Gerth’s strange conduct when he bungled his Wen Ho Lee reporting—reporting the Times felt forced to retract. The fiery liberals at your liberal journals gave this cosmic loser (and Clinton-hater) a pass. And so he lives to play us again. Indeed, he’s pimped in this morning’s Post. “Hard to dismiss!” Baker says.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh052507.shtml

Will the Clinton psychodrama stories go away if progressives ignore them? If the answer were "yes," I'd agree with you wholeheartedly. I fear the answer is, "no," because for better or worse, the press eats the stuff up and there is apparently a large market for it.

Something we agree on: Ignoring the psychodrama stories won't make them go away

The stories don't happen by accident. Execs, editors and writers decide they are going to attack a Democrat. When they attack one Democrat they attack all Democrats. As long as Democrats let execs, editors and writers get away with they will continue.

"large market for it"

The stories don't happen by accident. Execs, editors and writers decide they are going to attack a Democrat. When they attack one Democrat they attack all Democrats. As long as Democrats let execs, editors and writers get away with they will continue.

"large market for it"

If by large market you mean anybody that signs up for the conservative book club gets a free copy and any time more than 2 repubs are the same place they hand free copies then yeah.

“If you think the answer to any of the first four questions is "yes," I can't fault you voting for her”

You’re a former deaniac right? Yeah, sure you are. Now you want dean Obama. How about this: For me personally I want accurate information on each candidate. For me personally it’s way too early to decide which dem candidate I’ll vote for.

Still a yawn. I'm sorry, but your outrage seems contrived. It strikes me as more of the false moral posturing which the Republicans are so good at.

I'll only say that Hillary has indeed been lucky in her enemies over the years. They have made up a lot of stuff about her and thereby crowded out criticism coming from saner corners. I know that most Democrats tune out anti-Hillary attacks because of this crowding out effect, and I sincerely hope independents and moderates do as well, because if she gets the nomination I will want her to win. I just foresee a replay of the Kerry debacle, where the Repubs stir up what we might all think is old rehashed stuff, but the attacks stick with voters who don't follow politics as closely as the readers of this blog. The reason they might stick is that, though much of what's been said about Hillary is false, there are accounts from multiple Democrats and progressives who've worked closely with her, including Mark Fabiani and many years ago George Stephanopoulos, that she is deeply cynical and amoral, and out for herself above all else.

Well put, Dajafi. I made the mistake of posting when I was a bit agitated, and your more sober assessment is dead on.

I can assure you I'm no "concern troll." I'm just one person who always votes Democratic and would vote for Hillary if she won the nomination. I have nothing to do with any campaign or any book; but I like to get an independent sense of politicians by refusing to overlook someone's faults just because the other side wrongly accuses her of terrible things. I will admit that I prefer Obama to Hillary and possibly Edwards over Hillary. I don't think that makes me a "concern" troll.

On the subject at hand, it appears that you've accidentally helped make the point that others have made above better than I: Hillary is lucky in her enemies, because they've made so many false charges that the true ones have trouble getting through. I did not in any way suggest I believed the outlandish murder conspiracy claims or any of the other false charges you've helpfully listed. They are crap and I would never listen to Limbaugh and Hannity. They truly are evil. If Carl Bernstein now is up there with those 2 in your pantheon of evil, you've lost me.

I will however confess to believing that Bill Clinton had more than 2 affairs, and I find it quaint and very revealing of you naivete that you think Bill had just two infelidities, Gennifer and Monica. The only other person in the United States of America I can think of who would make that statement is Paul Begala. More importantly, you also ignored my point that I do not give a rat's hair about Bill's infelidities; what does trouble me is that he -- and now apparently with Hillary's active support -- had a habit of strong arming and pressuring people who would speak about this matter in an effort to get them to change their stories. If any Republican were found to have done that, say Giuliani, you and others would -- rightly -- be all over it. Let's not be hypocrites.

The last two elections have been razor close, and my main point is that I'll throw up if on election night in 2008 it's another 51-49 Repub victory, because more than 2 percent of the public was so turned off by the personality of our candidate that they voted for the Repub despite agreeing with our candidate on more issues.

Merits aside, neither of these books are going to have a serious impact poltically. Neither of them are even a one day story, pity for their publishers no doubt.

So what happened to Kerry? He was blindsided by a series of well funded and entirely fabricated attacks.

Ao is it better that Hillary won't be blind-sided since it is already out there, and that much of what will be thrown at her will be the truth? 

So many people distrust and dislike her for exactly the characteristics that these books bring out.  What moderate republian, (which is what we need to join our forces) is going to vote for her?  I can hardly convince myself to do it if she gets the nomination.  

Jan

Well put. This sums my feelings up precisely. And I'm tired of the apologists in the party enabling this psychodrama to have such a good shot at continuing, if the polls are to be believed:

But I can't stand the fact that his personal failings made his presidency less effective from a progressive point of view than if he had been of sound moral character. And Gore would not have needed to win Florida, as he would have won at least one other state he lost, if Bill hadn't been such a polarizing figure by reason of his poor morals.

Many years ago, someone remarked that "for Bill Clinton, women are the spoils of his feminism," meaning that his record of supporting women's rights in the public policy arena won him some leeway for treating them like disposable consumer goods in private. These books are showing that Hillary was a sort of sickening accomplice/enabler, in that she was fully behind the efforts to discredit these women as human beings so that the impression would be that their claims to have slept with Bill were false.

I am sick and tired of the Clintons' psychodrama played out on the public state. It's a distraction from progressivism; it plays into the hands of the enemy; and it's just tiresome. I hope these books do, along with other reporting, cause Dems to rethink their support for Billary.

 Oh, and to those who equate any criticism of Hillary now with the truly bizarro episodes driven by the far Right in the late 90s needs to understand that one can be disturbed by Hillary's baggage without being, well, you know, 'disturbed.' 

Will it be the truth? Was it the truth that she had a lesbian affair with Vince Foster but murdered him to keep him from squealing about the drug trafficking she used to engage in her whitewater business scandal?

Seriously? Hmmm.

Give me a break.

Set aside the hysteria, the rumour, the innuendo, the girls room gossip that guys like RaymondoA seem to live for, what have you got?

Hillary Clinton is pragmatic, she knows how to spin, she treats people who attack her as enemies, she challenges adverse stories above and behind the scenes, that she doesn't stick her neck out, she was progressive when she tried to push health care but not so much now, yadda yadda yadda.

Old news. No discoveries. Everyone knows. No one cares.

All the rumours about Bill Clinton being pants impaired were out there while he was running for office.

It wasn't news. No one cared.

You ask what moderate republican would vote for her?

I ask you what moderate republican, period? What moderate republican? Does such a thing as a moderate republican exist any more? Is there a moderate republican, or are they all just sucking George Bush's knob?

Where are the farking moderate republicans? What were they doing during the military commissions act? The PATRIOT Act? What were moderate Republicans doing when giant tax cuts were given to the rich? When giant deficits were run up? Where were the moderate republicans during Katrina? What were they up to when a raving lunatic like Alito got sent to the Supreme Court? Who heard from moderate republicans when Mark Foley was engaging in homosexual pursuit of underage pages?

I'll tell you where the moderate republicans were. They were marching in lockstep. They were on their knees in front of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, they were unzipping the flies of Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and Pat Robertson? They were spurting all orgiastic over Terry Schiavo.

"Moderate frikking republicans"? Don't make me laugh.

They're nothing but dinner table Nazi's. They're the sort of assholes who are friendly and genial and easygoing enough that you can have them over for dinner and think they're nice guys... but when push comes to shove, there they are in the lynch mob stringing up the poor black gy.

You want to know what defines 'moderate republicans'?

I'll tell you: Bottom line they do what their masters tell them. Always. And they can't exist without a master. Set them free, and they'll just run to the lunatic who shouts angriest for them to slip a collar on.

A 'Moderate Republican' combines the worst aspects and the worst things you can ever say about a Liberal, and they make it worse cause they don't have a farking smidgen of principle behind any of it all.

If you figure on relying on 'moderate republicans' you may as well go home now.

What's a definition of a moderate republican: A liberal, but without the principles.

What's the difference between a moderate republican and an earthworm? An earthworm might some day develop a spine.

What's the difference between a moderate republican and a flatworm? A flatworm has a memory.

Moderate republicans? ptooie!

When I mention "moderate republicans,"  I am talking about those people who don't foam at the mouth when they hear the words, "abortion, or gay marriage" and who consider themselves republican because they believe in fiscal responsibility and small government.

Moderate republicans? ptooie!

You sound the way Tom Delay sounds when he talks about any Democrat.  Is that how you want to sound?  I know you're angry, Valdron.  So am I.  But if we despise every republican we are no better than this bunch that started the K Street Project.  We have to turn things around, in my opinion.

PS.  I hope your little story about Hillary having a lesbian affair with Vince Foster was supposed to be absurd.  It didn't do anything to refute my point that some, some of the crap they are spreading about Hillary is true.  The problem is that with her baggage, it is not very convincing to say, "OK, That is true, but this sentence here; it isn't true at all."  That is the kind of stuff that makes it impossible to maintain credibility.

Jan

I think she is an effective senator

She is an atrocious senator like all Republican Lites. It will be my pleasure to vote against her twice again after she (hopefully) fails to win the nomination for president.

Unlike RaymondA I am fully willing to vote for Republicans. Does anyone here think it was wise of voters in Connecticut to boot Lowell Weicker out and choose Joe Lieberman? I voted once for Sherwood Boehlert because he and Newt were battling each other. Boehlert toyed with the idea once of running in both the Democratic and Republican primaries. He probably would have won both. One memorable Democratic opponent had an interesting cost saving plan for the Defense Department. He proposed mounting nuclear-tipped missiles on commercial airliners. I voted for that novel idea. Never really knew if the fellow was serious.

Those who blindly vote party labels are foolish in my opinion, especially when faced with a corrupt politician like Hillary Clinton.

If the Democratic Party is to stand for anything, it might be best not to vote for Republicans calling themselves Democrats. That way you might get Democrats who will not do Bush's bidding as just happened.

Best, Terry

Oh Val, my val.....I've missed you so....(sigh)

I support her and hope Hilliary wins. I'll be honest and say that, in a world far more perfect, given the choice, I would chose Obama. But, sad as it is, for me, as it too often is, it's about who will win the presidency and sorry, there are too many people in this country, right or wrong, who will not vote for a black man.

It's more important to get one of 'ours' in the White House to start reversing the damage that 8 years of Bush's reign has done. I think that ethically, Obama is a far better candidate, but he hasn't got a chance.

If polarizing means your favorable/unfavorables are close to 50-50, maybe Bill Clinton has not been "polarizing," particularly in recent years. The definition of "polarizing" I have in mind is that a "polarizing" figure motivates and excites the other party's base, so that even if only 35% find the person unfavorable but almost all of those 35 can be motivated to make a contribution or knock on doors by their loathing of the person, that person is polarizing. Gingrich was polarizing, Ted Kennedy twenty years ago was polarizing, W was very polarizing even when his favorable ratings were up in the 60-65 range, and Bill Clinton was and will continue to be polarizing, particularly if he starts making more and more public appearances rather than staying behind the scenes, as he's mostly done. Granted, Bill C is not up there with DeLay, or even W, as a polarizing figure but still he's fairly polarizing, as of course is Hillary herself.

Beyond that, I should say I don't object to those who polarize because they take a strong stand on issues, but Hillary has not been the progressive many hoped she'd be and yet she still polarizes. And that to me is what is truly unfortunate about her candidacy. If we nominate her, we get someone who is less progressive than Obama and yet more polarizing. Why is that the smart thing to do, even if you think -- as many readers of this blog do (and I hope most independents and swing voters do) -- that I'm vastly overstating her and Bill's character weaknesses?

I find it very difficult to believe that Democrats, likely to be presented with a golden opportunity to take the White House in 2008, would squander the party's nomination on Hillary Clinton. Some portion of the Democratic electorate seems temporarily dazzled and incapacitated by the notion of HRC at the helm. I don't understand the source of this mysterious entrancement myself, but I'm fairly confident it will pass. I suspect as the time for actual voting draws closer, many of the Democrats who now think they support Clinton will come to their senses, say "what the hell could I have been thinking" and vote for someone who has at least half a chance of being elected.

There is no way Hillary Clinton can be elected President of the United States in 2008. No way. I think at bottom, everyone knows this.

You've missed an acidic flensing artist?
More's the pity.

You know, on this board, I feel proudest of my reasoned, careful statements, balanced views, considered thought. I take no pride at all in flaying. The fact that I end up doing it is a weakness.

I wish I could be a better person, kinder, more generous and big hearted, rather than all too often a quick mind and a quicker knife.