Who's going to read the Hillary Clinton book?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I don't know why I care, but I do.

I take that back. I was a history major and I love presidential biographies. So, um, that's a good reason.

― teeny (teeny), Wednesday, 4 June 2003 23:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Who even knew one was coming out? (I didn't until yesterday.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 5 June 2003 00:07 (twenty-two years ago)

reading presidential biographies (especially the multivolume ones by the appointed presidential historians/archivists) is a sign of adulthood on par with getting over chuck palahniuk.

― vahid (vahid), Thursday, 5 June 2003 01:08 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm set there for my eternal adolescence,then, since I never got into him to start with.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 5 June 2003 01:21 (twenty-two years ago)

ha, maybe you've just always been old, Ned.

― Dan I., Thursday, 5 June 2003 01:30 (twenty-two years ago)

*coughs and wheezes* Yesh yesh...

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 5 June 2003 01:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Didn't yesterday's newspaper have all the good bits anyway?

― hstencil, Thursday, 5 June 2003 05:36 (twenty-two years ago)

grant's memoirs are very good, and very sad at times. somehow i don't think this will be on the same level.

― amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 5 June 2003 05:45 (twenty-two years ago)

The Pinefox, obv

― RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 5 June 2003 08:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Hillary Clinton: Classic or Dud?

― the pinefox, Thursday, 5 June 2003 09:34 (twenty-two years ago)

It kind of bums me out that Hillary is now saying that there was no "vast right-wing conspiracy" when books like the ones by David Brock and Conason / Lyons document this "conspiracy" quite well.(anyone who doesn't like the term "conspiracy" - well, tough. Read the books and tell me that I'm wrong.) She knows damn well about this, so what does she hope to accomplish in trying to deny it and turn it into a strictly private issue? You should read both of those other books before you read this one.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Thursday, 5 June 2003 12:54 (twenty-two years ago)

The reasons could be political, given that she is a standing senator and all. But maybe she should be given the benefit of the doubt here?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 5 June 2003 13:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Bill Clinton himself endorsed the Conason / Lyons book.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Thursday, 5 June 2003 14:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm hardly surprised he would.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 5 June 2003 14:44 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't see why Hillary should be given the benefit of the doubt (of what?) and not him, or Brock, or Conason. You don't have to be a fan of either of the Clintons to understand what the right was doing during the Clinton years (and the things Brock & Conason / Lyons talk about are consistent with my first-hand knowledge of right-wing factions).

I don't think Hillary should be treated differently because she's a woman, and not a nasty horndog male or whatever Clinton is supposed to be.

I am honestly waay disappointed in the way the left took no interest in what was happening in the nineties, simply because they didn't like the Clintons. They did exactly the same thing with the Gore and the 2000 election. All of those same characters are much closer to the White House now than they were in the Bush I years.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Thursday, 5 June 2003 15:09 (twenty-two years ago)

The Pinefox did blue writing, & linked to one of his threads!

Respect the power of Hillary!

― Mooro (Mooro), Thursday, 5 June 2003 15:45 (twenty-two years ago)

(Alas, not really - ilx does it for me)

― the pinefox, Thursday, 5 June 2003 15:51 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.