More balanced book on Hillary Clinton to be released the same day as Bernstein's

[wyldwolf]

Little, Brown & Company has moved up to June 19 the publication date for “Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton,” by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr., both reporters for The New York Times. The new date coincides with the publication of a rival biography of Senator Clinton by Carl Bernstein

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/02/arts/02arts.html?ref=arts

She is one of the most influential and recognizable figures in our country, and perhaps the single most divisive individual in our political landscape. She has been the subject of both hagiography and vitriolic smear jobs. But although dozens of books have been written about her, none of them have come close to uncovering the real Hillary--personal, political, in all her complications. Now, as she contemplates a historic run for the Presidency, Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. bring us the first comprehensive and balanced portrait of the most important woman in American politics.

Drawing upon myriad new sources and previously undisclosed documents, HER WAY shows us how, like many women of her generation, Hillary Rodham Clinton tempered a youthful idealism with the realities of corporate America and big-league politics. It takes readers from the dorm rooms at Wellesley to the courthouses of Arkansas and Washington; to the White House and role as First Lady like none other; inside the back rooms of the Senate, where she expertly navigates the political and legislative shoals; to her $4 million mansion in Washington, where she presides over an unparalleled fundraising machine; and to her war room, from which she orchestrates ferocious attacks against her critics.

Throughout her career, she has been alternately helped and hindered by her marriage to Bill Clinton. HER WAY unravels the mysteries of their political partnership--one of the most powerful and enigmatic in American history. It also explains why Hillary is such a polarizing figure. And more than any other book, it reveals what her ultimate hopes and ambitions are--for herself and forAmerica.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?r=1&ean=9780316017428

[SaveElmer]

1. Yeah...no one apaprently cares about this one I guess...

Guess this thread won't make the Greatest Hits page...

Color me surprised! :sarcasm:

[Connie_Corleone]

2. Don't judge too quickly.

I would rather read this book than the Bernstein book. I like biographies that are more neutral and doesn't try to push someone else's agenda, which is what Bernstein's book is sounding like.

I may criticize her on some issues, but she is my second choice so far in the primaries. No one is going to agree with me 100%.

K & R

[AtomicKitten]

4. yahtzee

There are some folks here at DU that don't grasp the concept of seeking out unbiased information. They confuse snark for facts, investigative journalism for barely veiled hit pieces. Jeez, I can't even stand it when a newscaster rolls their eyes much less makes a remark indicative of what they think. Just the facts for me, please.

[Forkboy]

64. See post #75

Gerth is not an "unbiased" source,and he will not treat Hillary kindly.

[AtomicKitten]

66. thanks for the heads-up

My comment was more generalized about this subject, but your post has info that's good to know!

[Forkboy]

68. You're welcome

Gerth is not a good guy,and this book will mostly likely reflect that.I wouldn't expect this to be a warm fuzzy.

[Tellurian]

5. Brilliant! Love it!

Just put my order in for:



I'm sure it's going to be sold out before it's released!

Bernstein....grrrrh!

[mtnsnake]

8. In the words of the immortal Robert Palmer, the Goddess of Peace is simply irrestible!

I imagine copies of that book will be grabbed the minute they're put on the shelves.

What an awesome cover on that book. Thanks for posting that picture.

:toast:

[Tellurian]

28. Her cover shot is very natural..

one of my favorite songs too, Mr.Snake.

I can hear it now blasting over the loudspeaker at the Convo Hall..:)

[Forkboy]

63. And don't color me suprised that you don't know who Gerth is.

See my post #75 and tell me how fair you really expect this book to be.

Guess this thread doesn't deserve to be on the Greatest page...unless you like promoting things that will hurt Hillary.

It's pretty fucking said when I have to defend her against you guys because you guys are so eager to counter the other book that you'll latch on to anything that might look good on the surface.

A lot like Hillary herself.

[LaurenG]

3. I think she has this part (in bold below) right. There is no way any dem should lay

down and take what Kerry took ever again.

inside the back rooms of the Senate, where she expertly navigates the political and legislative shoals; to her $4 million mansion in Washington, where she presides over an unparalleled fundraising machine; and to her war room, from which she orchestrates ferocious attacks against her critics.

[babylonsister]

6. She orchestrates ferocious attacks against more than just her

critics. I hope she lays off other Dems, like she hasn't done in the past.

[wyldwolf]

7. do you remember that kid on the playground?

The one who had this nasty habit of hitting other kids? Until he hit the wrong kid and got his teeth knocked in?

That's what your statement reminds me of. The Clintons are constantly attacked - even by other Democrats. When they hit back, everyone whines about it.

[mtnsnake]

9. Spot on, wolf! nt

[babylonsister]

10. And do you remember Clinton, WITHOUT provocation,

attacking Kerry for his botched joke? There was no reason to slime him, but she did anyway.
Sorry, but I won't soon forget that, and that will remain one of the reasons I don't care for her.

[mtnsnake]

11. WTF are you talking about "without provocation"?

She was asked by a reporter about it for crise sakes.

[babylonsister]

13. A reporter may have 'provoked' her, Kerry didn't.

She's a snake, kind of like yourself! ;)

[mtnsnake]

17. Thank you for the compliment. I wasn't expecting that!

:)

[babylonsister]

41. Not you, silly, just referencing your name.

:hi:

[Adelante]

35. oooooooooooh

Cool one :)

[wyldwolf]

12. What Clinton said pales in comparison to what other Dems said and was hardly an attack

Clinton: "I think we have to look forward here we don't need to be refighting the 2004 election as much as President Bush would like that to happen... What Senator Kerry said was inappropriate and I believe we can't let it divert us from looking at the issues that are at stake in our country."

Let's compare that to...

Netroots "progressive" darling Jon Tester: "Senator Kerry's remarks were poorly worded and just plain stupid... He owes our troops and their families an apology."

[karynnj]

26. Her tone was acidic

It was a couple of days after Kerry left a pronoun out of a sentenence, after the RW turned the statement even as siad inside out to say something he never said. The intended text was available before the talk.

Hillary could have said that what Kerry was intended is known and he has a 30 some year record of working for veterans - and most Democrats have better records than Republicans on this. This would actually have gotten out a Democratic message.

It would also have helped Hillary, showing her as gracious and a nice person. (Given that this is - fairly or not an issue - this could have helped.) I will likely still vote for her in a general election, but I have no respect for her as a person. NONE

[wyldwolf]

27. no, you want it to be acidic because you don't like Clinton. But you must like Tester

[karynnj]

39. I have no opinion of Tester

There was a huge difference in that Hillary KNEW John Kerry and knew better. It was gratuitous and for me it confirmed stuff I had heard but didn't believe.

People here now enough of Kerry's history to see that for a major Democrat to give credence to anything saying that John Kerry would say anything to hurt the troops is beyond disgusting. That is the only interpretation of Hillary's inappropriate.

Saying the comment was stupid or poorly stated is fine - Kerry said the same about it himself the day afterwards. Those words do not reflect on Kerry's charicter, inappropriate does. It was simply kicking someone when they are down. That Kerry had been working day and night to help Democrats apparently didn't count to the ice queen.

[wyldwolf]

45. which is amazing because what he said was so much worse than what Hillary said

[karynnj]

48. I explained why I didn't think so

Tester had likely never met Senator Kerry. His comments are what Kerry himself said and Kerry had already - by the time of the bitchy Hillary comment- appologized to the troops and familes if the they were offended.

hillary knew exactly what she was doing and it was calculated. I hope she calculated that people like me might find it inexcusable. Fortunately for her, most of the country will not consider that episode.

[wyldwolf]

52. yes you did. But regardless, what Tester said was much much worse

[babylonsister]

55. This thread's about Clinton, not Tester. Why bring him up?

Why try to change the subject of what Clinton said?
Nevermind, I know why.:eyes:
You can have your preferences and reasons for or against, so can the rest of us.

[wyldwolf]

57. Oh, just seeing if she holds Clinton to one standard and other to another one.

[Forkboy]

56. Not too crazy about Tester either.

Next?

[blm]

62. What Dem attacked the Clintons when they NEEDED defending? What Dems DEFENDED Clinton

when he NEEDED it?

[wyldwolf]

67. blm, you know, if Kerry had fought back, we wouldn't have Bush right now

[blm]

69. If Clinton had fought back instead of letting most people think 9-11 was HIS fault

then it would have made it ALOT easier for ANY Dem running in 2002 and 2004.

[wyldwolf]

71. blm, you know, if Kerry had fought back, we wouldn't have Bush right now

[carolinayellowdog]

14. Don't expect balance or fairness from Gerth

This is the NYT reporter who flogged the Whitewater pseudo-scandal relentlessly for years.

[PATRICK]

15. Thanks I was just going to ask

why the NYT was expected to do a fair biography of the Clintons. That would be something gratuitous and new. Now they expect and/or want her to be president???

[blm]

16. I didn't see a ferocious attack on Bush and Rove for their Clintons trashed the WH lie.

Where was it?

Where was the ferocious attack when Bushies blamed Clinton for 9-11? They let EIGHT BOOKS get press for 4 years without answering the attacks and charges made until a movie was about to air that used the charges in those books for its premise.

So - who DOES the ferocious attack team target the last 6 years, anyway? Other Democrats.


This talk by historian Douglas Brinkley occurred in April 2004:

http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."
>>>>>>


http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

By M.J. Rosenberg

I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.
On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.
>>>>>

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Did McAuliffe not bother securing the election process for 2002 and 2004 because he was focused on 2008 along with the rest of the Clinton team?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[wyldwolf]

18. you know, if Kerry had fought back, we wouldn't have Bush right now

[blm]

20. By himself? Again? Just like on BCCI? If Clintons had fought back on trashed WH lie

or those EIGHT BOOKS blaming Bill for 9-11, it would have helped in 2002 AND 2004.

If Clinton hadn't let Poppy Bush off the hook on all the outstanding matters of IranContra, BCCI, Iraqgate and CIA drugrunning, there would have been NO Bush2 running in 1999.

So - since Kerry's fighting against Bush1 helped Clinton into office in 93, don't you think the least Clinton could have done in return was KEEP PURSUING THOSE MATTERS of Poppy Bush's crimes of office?

Wouldn't that be what YOU WOULD DO if YOU were elected to serve in power in DC, wyldwolf?

[wyldwolf]

21. blm, you know, if Kerry had fought back, we wouldn't have Bush right now

[blm]

23. If Kerry HADN'T fought Bush1, Bill Clinton would NOT have taken office in 93.

How did Bill and Hillary reciprocate for that?


This talk by historian Douglas Brinkley occurred in April 2004:

http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."
>>>>>>>


http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

By M.J. Rosenberg |

I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.

section break

On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.
>>>>>>


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[wyldwolf]

24. blm, you know, if Kerry had fought back, we wouldn't have Bush right now

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tellurian]

50. IF KERRY HAD FOUGHT BACK WE WOULDN'T HAVE BUSH RIGHT NOW!

Have I said this before..ok, one more time!

If Kerry had fought back, we wouldn't have Bush Right Now!

[Tellurian]

47. Yes, If Kerry had fought back we wouldn't have Bush right now!

And if you want PROOF positive of the CRAPPY, STUPID, Campaign Kerry ran-

Rent the DVD "SO GOES THE NATION"

Irrefutable PROOF of the ineptitude of Kerry and his Campaign Chairman, Mary-Beth Cahill

and The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight Staff. That continue to BLAME everyone but Kerry for the LOSS!

It's a real eyeopener!

[karynnj]

31. He did and you know it

Quick Summary:


1992: Flowers: Clinton and I had an affair.
Clinton: She is lying
Flowers: Here's a tape of Clinton
telling me to lie about it
Clinton: It's distorted
Clinton: I brought pain to my marriage
Hillary: (standing by him)
On this and the draft dodging charge and others Clinton - simply offered explanation after expanation.


2004: SBVT: First attacks on Kerry's service
Kerry: put 100+ pages of naval
records with on the web
Kerry: Nixon tapes say he was war hero
Kerry: All men in boat when got medals
back him
Kerry: medals were 35 yrs old
never challanged in
1970s
Kerry: Brinkley's book - Kerry had
no control, 100+ people were
interviewed.

Kerry had all of this to the media in APRIL. With an honest media, the SBVT would have backfired - they didn't even try to offer proof even though they refuted the official record.

In 2004, Kerry couldn't have yet seen the rules had changed. In 1992, excuses and explanations were sufficient, in 2004, tuth and official records were ignored.

[wyldwolf]

38. if ONLY Kerry had fought back!

[karynnj]

44. So, are you now saying the problem was that Clark, Clealand

and Dean defended Kerry - and it would have better if ONLY he fought back. Are you suggesting he should have challanged O'Neil to a one on one fight? hardly Presidental.

[wyldwolf]

46. If Kerry had JUST fought back!

[karynnj]

51. So he shouldn't have spoken about Iraq at NYU, The war on terror

at the University of Pennsylvania, his excellent healthcare plan, his broad vision connecting the research and development or alternative fuel and energy efficient technology, which would lead to better jobs, a cleaner environment, and better health and instead wake up each morning and go to a rally and speak JUST about the evils of the SBVT - he already was speaking about the Bush/Cheney misdeeds)

Sounds like a good plan to me.

Incidentially did you for a minute stop to think what those creeps were saying. They literally complained that this 25 year old was not more seriously injured. The record shows he risked his life to save someone else. Although I knew in 1971, that he had medals, in spite of all the publicity I didn't know he saved someone. That Senator Kerry even had to defend the record he had shows how screwed up the media was in 2004.

[wyldwolf]

53. but if Kerry had just fought back against Bush... Bush would be gone!

[blm]

58. Kerry DID fight back - Clintons and other bigname Dems sided with Bush2 and stayed silent

even though Kerry DEFENDED Bill on draftdodging charges in 92.

How did the Clintons reciprocate in 2003-4?

[wyldwolf]

59. if Kerry had just fought back against Bush... Bush would be gone!

[mtnsnake]

19. blm, will you please stop posting "Clintons trashed the WH". The rumor was Clinton "STAFFERS" did it

...not the Clintons. In the next one thousand times you post that message in a subject title, PLEASE at least post that the running Republican lie was that Clinton EMPLOYEES or STAFFERS trashed the WH and NOT the Clintons.

[blm]

22. The LIE was that the Clintons trashed the WH - It was a lie that the Clintons didn't fight

in any 'ferocious' way.

And I guess you are forgetting that included in that story is the 'stolen' items by Hillary.

I am quite clear that the Clintons trashed the WH story was a LIE - and trying to claim it was all about the staffers is a distraction from the narrative that was being pushed in the media - the MEDIA said it was the Clintons who trashed the WH, and they were targeted by those mediawhores.

The Clintons COULD have fought back, that is entirely possible, but how would we know, with the corporate media giving almost all the airtime to Rove's narrative all the way through to 9-11.

[mtnsnake]

25. The LIE is that Clinton EMPLOYEES trashed the WH and NOT the Clintons. Big difference!

And I guess you are forgetting that included in that story is the 'stolen' items by Hillary.

Oh for crying out loud. Just the fact that you bring this trashing the WH nonsense up so often is proof that you want people to start actually believing that there is something to it. Everyone knows that if someone repeats the same mantra over and over and over again, that eventually some of the people will start believing it really happened. If you truly cared about the lie that "Clintons trashed the WH", you wouldn't repeat it so often as you do in your subject line.

[blm]

30. Nope - I want people to see that Bushies' LIE about the Clintons was never 'ferociously' fought

and also not fought by the Clintons was the RW lies that blamed Clinton for 9-11 in EIGHT BOOKS that were published and marketed after 9-11.

It wasn't until the books were made into a movie that Clinton came out publically to defend himself the week before the movie was to air in Sept 2006.

Would have been more beneficial to Democrats over all if Bill and his team had 'ferociously' fought back when those lies were first being marketed and for the 4 years they were pushed in the media.

[mtnsnake]

34. You can still do it & be more accurate about who exactly the lie was about...the staffers

...not the Clintons.

If you're going to continue with that same message, and I'm sure you are, it's just more accurate if you state it as "the lie that Clinton employees trashed the WH" as oppossed to "the lie that the Clintons trashed the WH".

[blm]

61. The media repeated the lie that the Clintons trashed the White House and Air Force 1

the headline for 8 months was NOT that the staff of the WH trashed it and AirForce 1, was it?


And how did the Clintons 'ferociously' attack that lie against them and their staff?

Why wouldn't the Clintons attack that lie 'ferociously' since it was against them AND their staff, anyway?

Why did their 'ferocious' attack team SPARE Bush and Rove so much?

[mtnsnake]

73. Prove it!! Show me some links that say the Clintons, & NOT their staff, trashed the WH

Put up or get it right!

[blm]

74. Get real - Saying Clinton WH is like saying Bush WH - it includes the staff. Why pretend

that media did NOT intend to smear the Clintons, but ONLY the staffers with that charge?

And let's ASSUME that the media ONLY targeted the staff - then why wouldn't the Clintons speak out forcefully and 'ferociously' to defend their loyal staff from lies? Did they defend their staff from Rove's lies any more than they defended Democratic nominees who Rove's lies smeared?

[mtnsnake]

75. No, you get real. Prove it or stop spreading that myth!

If it's so true then just give us a link or two that proves it. Prove that the media or anyone else said that it was the Clintons who trashed the WH and not the Clintons' employees. You've been posting this crap over and over for at least a year and you refuse to get it right. It's one thing if you only posted it sporadically, but it's EVERY DAY, NUMEROUS TIMES A DAY, the same old "Clintons trashed the WH lie" when it should be the "Clintons EMPLOYEES trashed the WH lie". That kind of repetitive crap eventually sinks in.

[blm]

76. Prove what? Even assuming EVERY headline said WH staff and did NOT use Clinton's name,

then why didn't the Clintons defend their WH staff from Rove's lies?

[mtnsnake]

77. See post 73. Obviously, you can't prove it, so this conversation is over for now

...not that I don't enjoy conversing with you or anything, but we'll just have to find something else to "discuss" :)

[blm]

78. Baloney - you know headlines were written both ways - and Google proves it

but you CAN'T answer why the Clintons chose to NOT FIGHT Rove who was smearing the CLINTON WHITE HOUSE and staff with the trashed White House and Air Force One storyline they concocted to smear the Clintons.

[mtnsnake]

80. Yeah thats why you can't even come up with a link...because Google proves it. Suurrrre!!

Every link I've come up with shows that the lie was about Clinton STAFFERS or Clinton EMPLOYEES and NOT the Clintons. Case closed. :smoke:

[blm]

81. They use the word CLINTON White House. So WHY didn't CLINTONS defend their staff from Bushies LIES

You can't answer, because the truth is that Clintons don't RECIPROCATE and defend other Democrats - except Lieberman, of course.

[mtnsnake]

83. The Clintons weren't accused of trashing the WH. Their STAFFERS were. End of story. Bye.

[blm]

84. HAHAH. Clintons trashed the White House is what Bush WH claimed - it's the way headlines

work.

And the FACT remains that Clintons did not FEROCIOUSLY attack the Bushies who targeted the CLINTON WHITE HOUSE with their lies and smears about the trashing of the WH and AirForce 1 when the Clintons left.

Gee - why WOULDN'T the Clintons ferociously attack those Bushies who lied and smeared the Clinton White House and its staff?

[karynnj]

33. Lies are not usually that codified

What of the lie that Hillary took some White House furniture. That was specifically her.

[mtnsnake]

36. That lie is a different lie

...the one about Hillary stealing something or whatever it is you're talking about.

The other lie, the one that blm posts about all the time is about EMPLOYEES of the Clintons, not the Clintons themselves, as blm insists. There is a huge difference in perception when someone is talking about employees as opposed to the Clintons themselves.

[karynnj]

40. It was part and parcel of the lies concerning the bad behavior of the Clintons in leaving the WH

[mtnsnake]

43. That does not change the fact that the lie in question is about their EMPLOYEES

and NOT the Clintons...not that I would expect you to admit that or anything. Jeesh.

[mtnsnake]

42. self delete

posted to myself instead of karynn.

have since corrected. lol

[Tellurian]

49. Yes, If Kerry Had Fought Back We Wouldn't Have Bush Right Now!

And if you want PROOF positive of the CRAPPY, STUPID, Campaign Kerry ran-

Rent the DVD "SO GOES THE NATION"

Irrefutable PROOF of the ineptitude of Kerry and his Campaign Chairman, Mary-Beth Cahill

and The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight Staff. That continue to BLAME everyone but Kerry for the LOSS!

It's a real eyeopener!

[Name removed]

29. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GeorgeGist]

54. You might want to do a bit of research ...

into Gerth's creds.

[Forkboy]

65. They're too busy patting themselves on the back for thinking they had a "gotcha" moment.

Anyone who thinks Gerth is going to be fair and balanced is insane.

[blm]

82. Or setting the party up for the eventual hatchet-job once it's too invested in Hillary.

I've never bought the entire pro-Hillary while attacking other Dems package.

[Forkboy]

60. I remember Gerth from the Wen Ho lee trial.He was one of the one really pushing Whitewater.

It’s remarkable that an article that says so little can somehow seem to say so much, but it’s hardly a new thing for Gerth. Indeed, starting with Gene Lyons’ 1994 Harper’s piece critiquing Gerth’s early Whitewater writing, questions have been floating around in the ether about Gerth’s insinuative writing. In his original Harper’s article, and then in Fools for Scandal, Lyons charged that Gerth and some writers at the Washington Post had essentially “invented” the Whitewater story, and he accused Gerth of an assortment of specific misdeeds--in particular, of “suppressing or ignoring hard evidence” that would have shown what was wrong with Gerth’s Whitewater case.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h041699_1.shtml

Here's something else that might make you think twice about pushing this book as a kind treatment of Hillary just yet.

Just as Hillary Clinton is celebrating raising $10 million last week, the presidential candidate has something to worry about.

A biography of the New York senator co-authored by Jeff Gerth, the New York Times reporter who first wrote about Whitewater, is filled with "explosive stuff" and "may force her to answer ethics charges in the Senate" in a partisan game of Hacky Sack to throw her off course, says our publishing source.

--

Gerth's writings about the Whitewater land deal in Arkansas spawned a highly politicized, $73 million federal investigation, which, as Joe Conason wrote on Salon.com, "found that Bill and Hillary Clinton had done nothing that could be prosecuted as a crime."

--

Writer Gene Lyons made a detailed criticism of Gerth's work in his book "Fools for Scandal," and Alexander Cockburn said reading his writings "is like bicycling through wet sand."

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/r_m/2007/03/27/2007-03-27_hot_on_hils_campaign_trail_an_explosive_.html

Hey...if you want to tout this as the good Hillary book that's ok.But if you support it now don't backtrack and whine when people use stuff from the book against Hillary later on.And that is what's going to happen.In your rush to counter the other book you might be walking right into another snake pit.

[flyarm]

70. you are 100% correct!! thank you!! Gerth was a pitt bull on Hillary!!

i guess some here are new to the political stuff that surrounded the Clinton years..and missed the fact that Gerth was a rabid pitt bull against Bill and Hillary!!

Wow it amazes me the amount of imaginary re-creations people here make on facts.

FLY

[Forkboy]

72. To quote the first reply to this thread " Yeah...no one apaprently cares about this one I guess..."

Post some counter-info and the thread suddenly sinks.

I'm going to have to revert to total snarkiness again. :)

[blm]

79. It shows the post isn't very well informed on what actually happened back then, OR

Could also be that the post knows EXACTLY what Gerth's contributions have been, and is playing the Push Hillary game in the many other proHillary postings made.

And by the time the Gerth book comes out it is too late.