Gene Lyons: Hillary biographies sleazy, predictable

If you wanted to diagnose the nation’s dysfunctional political press, few episodes are more symptomatic than the publication of competing biographies of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Headlined by The Washington Post, excerpted in The New York Times, their simultaneous appearance illustrates the Beltway buddy system at its incestuous worst.

Anybody who can do a Google search can assess “Her Way’s” basic fraudulence. Let’s pass over the diabolical pact the Clintons supposedly made to succeed each other in a 16-year presidency. Historian Taylor Branch, who supposedly confided this dark secret, calls it “preposterous” and says the authors never interviewed him.

At least Carl Bernstein admits never interviewing his subject. So here’s his take on Hillary’s career at Little Rock’s Rose Law Firm. “The potential conflicts were obvious and almost unavoidable in a state in which a single law firm represented the enormously wealthy few (’the ArkoRomans,’ in local parlance) and maintained close friend-and- family relationships with members of the political class.”

I’ve lived 35 years in Little Rock, without hearing the phrase “ArkoRomans.” But yeah, it’s a small city. People do get to know one another. Most Arkansans like it that way. But a single law firm? Goodness, the attorneys run from pages 38 to 96 in the Yellow Pages.

I believe I’ll pass.

http://www.leadercall.com/opinion/local_story_162094503.html?keyword=secondarystory

The sentence that reads "At least Carl Bernstein admits never interviewing his subject." originally ran this way:

"At least Bernstein, whose ex-wife, screenwriter Nora Ephron, once described him as "capable of having sex with a venetian blind," admits never interviewing his subject." (Source)

Gee, who's smearing whom here?

"Gee, who's smearing whom here?"

Probably the douchebag making money off a biography in which he didn't interview the subject and has already been nailed for stretching the truth in said biography.

Speaking as a former journalist, I can tell you it's unlikely that Lyons removed that phrase. The editor probably did. And that's a good thing. The ad hominem further cheapened Lyons' dubious argument.

As for stretching the truth, reread the sentence. Lyons either misinterpreted or deliberately mischaracterized it, creating a straw man that he easily defeated. In other words, his fundamental premise is wrong. Frankly, it's reminiscent of suggesting that Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet. Just as it's absurd to suggest that Gore actually claimed he invented the Internet, it's equally ridiculous to suggest that Bernstein claims that there is only one law firm. Surely you don't think he's that stupid. What his sentence says, at least as I read it, is that for the wealthy and powerful in Arkansas, there is really only one law firm of choice.

Pretty soon, every petty little Beltway egomaniac with cash-flow problems will write an anti-Hillary biography in hopes of nursing at the ever-bursting teat of right-wing hate and ignorance.

and a large law firm representing a large number of clients. Imagine?? But what about those 48 pages in the phonebook with lawyer ads? Gosh, bernstein must have retired from being a journalist who does research and stuff.

It's either a puff piece or a hit piece.

I would just replace "hit piece" with "critical piece."

But to characterize Bernstein's book as a "hit piece" simply because it isn't a hagiography seems a bit extreme.

I haven't read Bernstein's book, and I doubt that many on this board have either. Most of us at this point are relying on the assessments of others. Elizabeth Kolbert reviews both recent Hillary books in the current New Yorker and arrives at a very different view of Bernstein's book:



Based on these excerpts, it doesn't sound like a "hit piece" to me. Methinks the Hillary supporters doth protest too much.

And in some cases that may be true,even in this one.But I'm highly dubious of any book that comes out during the election.The bottom line in such an instance is always sales,whether by telling the truth,lies,innuendo or just opinion...or a useless mix of all of them.

I find such books to be pretty useless overall.The candidates have records,positions,and their own words with which to judge them by.I find second hand accounts to be highly dubious sources to base much thought on in regards to the candidates when we have an abundance of words and deeds of their own to study at our fingertips.I will always question the author's motives in such cases,and hope others do so as well.

You are correct that we should all read it.I haven't done so.But so far there's nothing in there that has been mentioned that is new in any real way,good or bad.Pointing to a review,also good or bad,makes even less impact on me than the book itself does.I can find reviews that claim Ann Coulter's books make good points,or that explain why every band should sound like Bachman-Turner Overdrive. :)

Hillary is the worst candidate out there to me,so that's not the basis of my protests.It just doesn't sound like these books are bringing anything new to the table.Just money to the author's wallets. :shrug:

but haven't started it yet.

I don't know if I will ultimately throw it across the room in a fit
of rage, finish it, or just reject it as not worth reading.

but I was curious.