The Truth About the Truth About Hillary

When Drudge broke news of “The Truth About Hillary” by Ed Klein some time back, I was skeptical about both the content and its ultimate impact on the campaign. Now that Drudge has revealed the substance of the book’s most sensational charge, namely that Bill raped Hillary leading to the conception of Chelsea, my intial reaction seems confirmed.

As Steven Taylor writes,

How in the world Klein can make this claim (based, it seems, on a alleged throw-away line that Bill supposedly uttered-see Ann Althouse for a likely explanation) is beyond me. It certainly goes beyond the bounds or reasonable research and journalism.

This claim takes me back to the worse of the Right during the Clinton years: the making of allegations without foundation out of a visceral and sensational dislike of the Clintons.

Indeed. Thankfully, Taylor’s reaction seems to be by far the most prevalent one, at least if the generally negative reaction around the Blogosphere is any indication.

Astute readers will note that I have a BlogAd for the book in my right sidebar. In the spirit of free speech and selling out for mad blog bucks, I almost never reject ads for content so long as the ad itself isn’t offensive. Goodness, I took money from George Soros.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2006, Campaign 2008
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Kristopher says:

    Great minds think alike…My post from yesterday: “The Truth Behind ‘The Truth About Hillary'”.

  2. The Truth behind “The Truth About Hillary”

    The hatred of Hillary Clinton really baffles me, but the latest attacks involving a new book by Edward Klein and its overhyping by NewsMax.com is truly sickening. As if the involvement of NewsMax wasn’t bad enough, you have the canoodling of Ed Klein…

  3. McGehee says:

    There’s a book out dishing on Hillary? What — has the VRWC lost my fax number again?

  4. NIF says:

    Grandmaster of Lolly-Gaggers

    Today’s dose of NIF – News, Interesting & Funny … It’s Kerry-180 Tuesday

  5. What's That You Say?

    There's a new book out dishing on Hillary?

    Why wasn't I told? Did the VRWC lose my fax number again?

  6. John Gillnitz says:

    Wow. An inflammatory accusation by an anonymous source. Where has that happened before?

  7. Backbone says:

    James: politics suits you well. Publicly state an opinion, then take money to undercut your moral stance. Your actions speak louder.

  8. James Joyner says:

    Backbone: Does not compute. The New York Times will run an editorial endorsing John Kerry for president but will continue to run advertising for George W. Bush. There’s nothing inconsistent about that–the advertising is the expression of someone else’s ideas. The only problem would be if I were not speaking my mind on issues because of conflicts with advertisers, which I’m rather clearly not doing.

  9. slickdpdx says:

    The sensational and incredible claim based on wild speculation really undermines that book. Expect the media to focus on exactly what is most easily discredited. Did Klein have to make it so easy? His goal must have been free publicity for the book, I bet he loses sales over this.

    I don’t see a problem with accepting the advertising. Advertising is not equal to endorsement. Unless the advertising is offensive or beyond the pale of rational discourse, I don’t think there is anything that requires a publisher like James to reject the business.

  10. Backbone says:

    Appreciate the response, however I wonder if you would allow a publication to advertise (at the same rate) if it claimed that Reagan or W raped their respective wives and fostered their children through such a despicable act.

  11. I’m very happy to see this post. I have been wondering what sort of response would come from the right from that allegation. I certainly would not have given a similar claim about Bob and Liddy Dole or George and Laura Bush any credence.

  12. For what it’s worth, I personally wouldn’t want to run that ad, but I don’t have any problem with you doing so – nor do I think it is hypocritical of you.

  13. Bithead says:

    Personally, I’ll withhold judgement until someone actually READS THE BOOK.

  14. tubino says:

    Given that the publisher has stated that they hope the book kills Hillary’s political aspirations, doesn’t Hillary have perfect grounds for a libel suit?

    A number of credible witnesses and legal records support the picture of a drunk-driving irresponsible coke-snorting AWOL George Bush — but the rightwing nutcases get plenty more media attention with less or no evidence.

    John Gillnitz wonders, “Wow. An inflammatory accusation by an anonymous source. Where has that happened before?”

  15. Big Brother says:

    let’s face it, Bill is no stranger to rape… Juanita Broderick can attest to that. But as evil as the Clintons are it’s hard to see anyone wanting to rape Hillary!

  16. Juan the Landless says:

    Jack Newfield had it right. The best thing about the Clintons is their enemies. From high profile losers like Matt Drudge and Jerry Falwell to bottom feeding losers like Ed Klein, the Clintons have it all.

  17. Al says:

    I dunno, I think the more sensational carges is that Hillary has had lesbian relations with known satanists.

  18. Juan the Landless says:

    Don’t hold your breath, Bithead. Anyone stupid enough to read Ed Klein’s book is still struggling with Dick, Jane and Spot.

  19. DaveD says:

    I have to agree with Bithead. Unless Klein has lost it I cannot believe that anyone who wanted their work to be taken seriously would make this allegation in print. You’d have to be an idiot to not to see how unsavory this is. I could say I will wait to see for myself when the book comes out, but I wouldn’t buy a book on the Clinton’s no matter what was in it.

  20. Why wouldn’t Klein make the allegation? It’s only a matter of degree worse than things people have been making up about the Clintons for years.

    In the race to sell books to Clinton haters an escalation of wild charges is inevitable. Who’d buy it if it said the same stuff that’s been said a thousand times?

    But it’s nice to see that so many right-wingers consider it over the line. While you’re at it you might consider going all the way and acknowledging that Hillary–whatever you think of her politics–isn’t a lesbian.

    C’mon, you can do it. Try it, “I profoundly dislike Hillary Clinton’s politics and personality but as a person of integrity I admit that she’s a married heterosexual woman and mother, and that allegations of her being a lesbian are just nasty political smears”.

    I knew you could do it!

  21. Terry says:

    Make some stuff up.

    Say it over and over again.

    Get it said enough times on the corporate media, et voila, “everybody KNOWS that Clinton did … “.

    “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one
    fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly…it must confine itself
    to a few points and repeat them over and over.”

    -Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister

  22. Juan the Landless says:

    As Terry says, Karl Rove has read his Goebbels. Karl has also read his Mencken. “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” Thus, Bill O’Reilly, Mel Gibson, George W. Bush, and so many more.

  23. Bithead says:

    C’mon, you can do it. Try it, “I profoundly dislike Hillary Clinton’s politics and personality but as a person of integrity I admit that she’s a married heterosexual woman and mother, and that allegations of her being a lesbian are just nasty political smears”.

    And you know this… how?

  24. *I* have to prove that a woman who is married, has a child, and who has never been connected romantically with another woman is not a lesbian?

    But those who claim she is don’t have to prove it? No names of someone she was with, no confessions from an old lesbian lover, or even someone who claims they SAW her with another woman–they can just point out that she went to Wellesley, wink-wink-nudge-nudge?

    How about this: YOU prove you’ve never robbed a bank. Or had gay sex. Or that George W. Bush REALLY believes in God.

    I love that right-wingers claim to be so value-oriented, but hesitate not a bit to sugest that a married mother has to prove she’s not a lesbian.