Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Swiftboating Hillary

By Jamison Foser, Media Matters original to AlterNet. Posted April 21, 2005.


An upcoming book aimed at derailing Hillary Clinton's 2008 bid is taken seriously despite its source and the fact that nobody's read a word of it.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Jamison Foser

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Why is Ann Coulter on the cover of Time magazine this week, the subject of an oft-favorable 5,800 word profile? Coulter is the author of a series of shrill, error-laden partisan screeds that likely line the shelves of your local bookstore. But how does Coulter, and the legion of hyper-partisan, venom-spewing right-wing authors she leads, sell so many books when her books are so full of errors, omissions, and outright lies? How did Unfit for Command come to dominate last year's presidential campaign for a month?

Conservative publishing houses and authors have come to play a huge role in our political discourse, with the rest of the media bestowing great attention -- and the influence that attention brings -- upon them; attention and influence that few progressive authors can match. It certainly isn't because Coulter, Dick Morris, David Bossie, Laura Ingraham and the rest are more factual than David Corn, Eric Alterman, and Molly Ivins -- quite the opposite. And it can't be because they are better writers, as anyone who has opened a Dick Morris book can attest.

The recent flurry of publicity surrounding the forthcoming attack book The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President provides a valuable lesson in how conservative publishers gain attention (and influence) for their books and authors -- and how those books are little more than partisan political tools.

A full five months before Edward Klein's book about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is scheduled to appear in bookstores, media outlets from Fox News to the Kansas City Star brought readers and viewers speculation that the "damaging" book could "torpedo" Clinton's potential 2008 presidential campaign.

The stories began with a Drudge Report posting that touted the book as "the ultimate Hillary-attack" and quoted a "source close to" Klein saying "The revelations in it should sink her candidacy."

That was enough to set the conservative media machine in motion; the Washington Times, New York Post, MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," and Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes" amplified Drudge's posting.

The Washington Times claimed a "new book could prove a roadblock to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's possible run for the White House in 2008."

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough told viewers the book's "contents are top-secret, but the sources say the revelations inside could torpedo Hillary Clinton's chances at a run at the White House," later adding, "A lot of people believe a new book, which promises to be a tell-all about Hillary Clinton, will stop her in 2008."

The Fox News shoutfest "Hannity & Colmes" hosted professional Clinton-basher Dick Morris, who announced that he was a source for The Truth About Hillary, and proudly answered "Yes" when host Alan Colmes asked if his goal is to "do anything you can to derail a possible Hillary candidacy?" Morris' own 2004 book attacking Sen. Clinton, Rewriting History, threatened to set a new world record for lies-per-page, as Media Matters showed at the time; immediately calling into question the credibility of any book that relies on him as a source.

Discussion of The Truth About Hillary and speculation about its possible impact on Clinton's possible presidential campaign wasn't limited to the explicitly conservative media; the Associated Press, New York Daily News, Philadelphia Inquirer, and Seattle Post-Intelligencer, among others, got in on the act. The Inquirer explained:

"There's a good bit of 'pre-buzz' buzz about an unauthorized biography of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton due for a September release by Sentinel Books. That would be the 'preliminary' media hysteria leading up to the marketing blitzkrieg-driven 'genuine' pre-publication buzz, which should start around June."

Daily News gossip columnist Lloyd Grove suggested that the "buzz" surrounding The Truth About Hillary was the result of intentional "leaks" from the publisher: "Klein yesterday wouldn't shed any light on Drudge's account and uttered a noncommittal 'uh-huh' when I noted that some might consider the report a ploy by Sentinel to generate prepublication buzz."

But while several news organizations touted the book, none had anything to say about the book's substance -- not entirely surprising, given that it won't be published for several months, but it does highlight the absurdity of suggesting that the book could affect a presidential campaign when not one media figure discussing it has read a word of it. Nor did the media outlets that "reported" on the book ask the obvious question: what new allegations could the book possibly contain?

The Clintons' business, personal, and public lives have been the subject of countless Congressional investigations; a $70 million Republican-led independent counsel investigation; and a cottage industry of right-wing attack books with titles like "Hell to Pay," "The Case Against Hillary Clinton," "American Evita: Hillary Clinton's Path to Power," "Ron Brown's Body: How One Man's Death Saved the Clinton Presidency and Hillary's Future," and "Hillary's Scheme: Inside the Next Clinton's Ruthless Agenda to Take the White House" -- and that's just the first page of Amazon.com search results for "Hillary Clinton." She has been accused of illegal firings, illegal hirings, affairs, murders, cover-ups, shake-downs, high crimes, low crimes, and changing favorite baseball teams. Yet none of the media outlets that have breathlessly covered this "damaging" new book have thought to ask the obvious question: what new allegations could they possibly throw at her? Kidnapping the Lindbergh Baby? Killing JFK? Killing JFK, Jr.?


Digg!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The French are right
Posted by: paschn@comcast.net on Apr 21, 2005 5:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You must be commended for your fight to awaken the American Sheeple. but it's all for naught, for you see,... The French are right.....Americans are dumb. and since it's pretty much true.. .the next step should be removing them from the world gene pool...Let 'em keep allowing Swine Bush and his puppet masters to screw the world long enough...eventually the world will unite and topple the true Evil Empire on this earth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The French are right Posted by: 42Years
» RE: The French are right Posted by: rockin_rooster
» RE: The French are right Posted by: Kym525
» RE: The French are right Posted by: elmysterio
» RE: The French are right Posted by: drmeow
» RE: The French are right Posted by: ALANHESTER
Sink the Swiftboats
Posted by: lamar on Apr 21, 2005 5:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Swiftboat ('swift bOt); transitive verb: (1) To accuse a public figure of questionable conduct without the benefit of evidence, usually by an entity informally associated with a person or entity benefiting from the accusation. Noun: (2) An unsubstantiated charge made against a public figure or organization, usually made by a proxy entity. See also: Smear, hatchet job, character assassination. (3) An organization dedicated to swiftboating on behalf of a respectable organization. (4) Washington D.C. slang for what's in Ann Coulter's pants. (5) archaic: a type of boat used by the United States Navy to patrol the shores of Vietnam from 1965 to 1973; see also PCF.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sink the Swiftboats Posted by: LMNOP
If Only
Posted by: nakis on Apr 21, 2005 9:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If only the left had thinktanks like the right. Then maybe we would know exactly why they are trying to torpedo Clinton.
Clinton is doing a fine job of that by herself. And does anyone really think that America is going to vote in a woman president??? Is the right political machine getting so thorough as to remove even the minor threats? I'm beginning to think that too much money and too much power is getting to them. Like a cancer, expanding and producing too much to remain healthy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We do know why Posted by: Iamnotafruittree
» RE: If Only Posted by: elmysterio
» Uh Posted by: jami
Hillary has no chance in '08...
Posted by: nickptar on Apr 21, 2005 10:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and it's not (just) because of this book. I think she'd be a good President, but do you really think that, in less than four years, America will be ready to elect a woman (especially a Democrat, and even more especially one whom so many people hate) to the highest office in the land? The time certainly will come, but not yet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hillary has no chance in '08... Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net
The Right is doing Progressives a favor.
Posted by: KSU_Butters on Apr 21, 2005 11:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's be honest, the only thing to like about Hillary is how much the Right hates her. Other than that, she is a key figure in destroying progressive politics in America. Her bland centrism as a "New" Democrate and DLC Hack has turned the party of FDR, JFK, and RFK into the Party of Gore, Libberman, and Kerry.

Her recent backtracking on Abortion rights is stupid as it is shameful. No one who's pro-life is going to vote for her, but it's sure as hell going to alienate a key Democratic bloc, some in a Nader or Nader-like camp. And remember, were was She when America really needed her? She kow-towing to the GOP on the Iraq War vote. The Dems need someone with courage in their convictions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That was the main problem with the entire Clinton Administration
Posted by: kermit_the_bear on Apr 21, 2005 12:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Starting with Healthcare. They had at one time favored single payer but backtracked when that didn't look politically expedient. That continued all through both terms. Clinton had some very good ideas but always changed his mind with the polls. He could have been great if he had stuck by some of his good, if not popular ideas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Woman in the White House???
Posted by: Kym525 on Apr 21, 2005 1:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's almost as good as a BLACK WOMAN in the White House (i.e. Condoleeza Rice). I'm sorry but this country isn't progressive enough for either of those two women to sit in the highest office of the land.

As far as Hillary is concerned - don't get too down on her. She's simply doing what male politicians have done since time immemorial - playing politics. She's reinventing herself the way male politicians have always done, but for some reason when she does it, it's a cardinal sin or something.

Besides, it isn't about HER as much as it is about US. What kind of candidate do WE want? Hell, when liberals are afraid of being LIBERAL, what else would a smart politician do when her core constituency is too chicken-stuff to back her up? Most liberals (and I AM ONE so I can criticize to my heart's content) are scambling to find 'values' when in fact we've always had them.

It's not about voting for Hillary, but making her and other politicians accountable to US as voters when they get into office.

And Dr. Rice as President? Oh yeah, the Klan and the Aryan Nations would LOVE that, now wouldn't they?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Woman in the White House??? Posted by: ALANHESTER
FACTS FROM A RETIRED PRIVATE INVESTAGATOR!!!
Posted by: WONDERWALEYE on Apr 21, 2005 2:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. If you will notice, this post was written by Jamison Foster-Media & Democarcy
2. If you research on the computer, you will find that SOURCE WATCH Has a report on Jamison Foster
3. SOURCE WATCH says: it is an encyclopedia of people, issues and groups shaping the public agenda.
4. SOURCE WATCH reports that Jamison Foster is senior advisor at "MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA [MMFA]
5. They say that Jamison Foster "has extensive experence in STRATEGY, having worked for nearly a decade in national politics.
6. "MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA"[MMFA] Is a web based research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the US media. It was founded by David Brock.
7. The site was devised as part of a larger media apparatus being built by liberals to combat what they say is the overwhelming influence of conservative commemtators.
8. The "project was developed with help from the newly formed Center for AMERICAN Progress, the policy group headed by John D. Podesta, "Bill Clinton's cheif of staff." Brock said he hoped it could help provide fodder for fledgling liberal radio talk shows being started across the country.
9. Funded with "more than $2 million in donations from WEALTHY LIBERALS" SOURCE WATCH reveals that among Mr. Brock's donors is SOURCE WATCH , MEDIA MATTERS for AMERICA, and Susie Tompkins Buell in which she is a close to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Ms. Buell's husband Mark; and James C Hormel, a San Francisco philanthropist, whose appointment as ambassador to Luxembourg was delayed for a year and a half in the late 1990's as a result of conservative lawmakers protesting what they called his promotion of a 'gay lifestyle'

When the above facts are concidered and the fact Mr. Foser only heard about the book, it is UNCLEAR if we shall ever get a impartial view from the media. TRUTH is very hard to come by these days. This morning I went to open a site called: IRAQ ACTION NETWORK-CANADA and the page came up: YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO VIEW THIS PAGE. Will AMERICA ever return the media back to the folks of this country? Or will it continue to be controlled by the few?The BIBLE SAYS: WHAT EVER IS DONE IN DARKNESS[background was not included]BRING IT TO THE LIGHT AND IT SHALL BE MADE MANIFEST. I have no idea who im going to vote for or "against" in the next election. MAY THE LOVE OF JESUS BE WITH YOU!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHICH IS IT?? PLEASE ANSWER THIS!! IT'S TIME THE PUBIC KNEW
Posted by: WONDERWALEYE on Apr 21, 2005 4:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
SOURCE WATCH is a project of the "CENTER FOR MEDIA & DEMOCRACY"

SOURCE WATCH defines propaganda as sometimes use true information.

SOURCE WATCH defines disinformation as deliberatley untrue.

SOURCE WATCH defines disinformation in that it is intention neutral.

So i ask you what does the above post fall under? The folks of this nation need to know!!!!

Why doesen't SOURCE WATCH define TRUTH???

I hope this sheds some light on todays politics!!!

MAY THE LOVE OF JESUS BE WITH YOU!!!![this has two meanings]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» THAT'S WHAT JESUS TOLD US TO DO!!! Posted by: WONDERWALEYE
The book's already accomplished its goal
Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net on Apr 21, 2005 8:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It doesn't matter what's in the book. The MSM who have robotically chanted "It's gonna hurt her" have done its dirty work for it. They have created the expectation that the book will harm her election chances.

This is just a small part of the "right wing conspiracy" Hillary pointed out years ago. She was right, it exists. Check out a book called "Hunting the President" (I believe) - about the low-life rednecks who worked against Bill Clinton since before he was even sworn in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oops! I forgot!
Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net on Apr 21, 2005 8:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary iced Lincoln too. And she was Pilate's Administrative Assistant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oops! I forgot! Posted by: ALANHESTER
» RE: Oops! I forgot! Posted by: Kym525
Hillary, thanks and good bye
Posted by: Djon on Apr 27, 2005 1:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Defense of Hillary is a distraction, a trap. She's under attack in order to draw out fools who will defend her.

Hillary's not a good potential candidate. Kerry's wife and women proven in serious leadership in every middle sized town in America are better bets.

Purported "progressives" abandoned women's issues, showed their true colors as individuals, when they defended Bill and denigrated the disturbed young woman he abused.

Time to come up with some policies beyond gay marriage, abortion, and gun control. "We" only hold those views because we have been attacked for them...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Missing the point on Hillary
Posted by: Firebird44 on Apr 27, 2005 6:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Repubs don't get to decide who our candidate is...WE DO. So what's all this about Hillary running in 2008? Hillary didn't declare her candidacy...the Dems aren't talking about her as a candidate. Only Republicans are. So what's going on? Simple. The Repubs are using the "threat" of Hillary to build their War Chest. It's a Republican fundraiser.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Larry Summers lives on
Posted by: jami on May 17, 2005 2:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's sad, though, how many men really secretly don't think a woman can do it.

They make a big show of being liberal, and they'll march in protests with "blood" dripping off their signs, but in their heart of hearts, they're no different than Laura Bush on this one. "Women can't do math..."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]