A new charge in a book that Bill Clinton raped Hillary Clinton to conceive Chelsea is a sad sign of just how far journalism has fallen, how politics increasingly means seeking (often via planting information or allegations) the most brutal destruction of those with whom you disagree, and how some Internet news sites will feel around in a toilet bowl’s bottom for something striking to display and to attract readers.
We don’t have that site on our blogroll. And this is one more indication that we made a good choice about that. (In fact, we will start doing a series of posts on some sites that are excellent alternatives to that site). We also will not mention that book or author here. You can visit the link above to read the details.
You can’t even use the word “reprehensible” on this. There have been many instances over the past years when thoughtful people have wondered: “How much lower can some journalists go to further confirm the public’s growing belief that journalism is sleazy?” The same for partisans — those who supply info to people writing books, newspaper articles, magazines…info that has nothing to do with ISSUES but everything to do with trying to totally take out someone who either has differing ideas or someone who poses a threat by their mere existence.
If you read this truly reckless item in SCREAMING LETTERS LIKE THIS on the alleged “news” site, you can see that there are all kinds of questions that can be raised about it. Here’s a teenie weenie one: without Ms. Clinton’s confirmation it would never appear in any newspaper. Newspapers don’t run stories about rape victims who haven’t contended they’ve been raped. Why here?
- It’s a compelling tidbit that makes the overall book more dramatic. We bet this book will be excerpted in one of the tabloids.
- If you traced the source on this it probably is not coming from someone who is a friend of the Clinton’s.
- It assures virtual free advertising because this allegation will be picked up and carried on the wires and assure the book will be sold to hardcore Clinton haters, particularly those who are gearing up to go after Ms. Clinton if she runs in 2008.
We won’t deal more with this book, that website, the author of the book again her. Except to say some radio talk shows were having a field day with this one this morning. One host and caller suggested that the mainstream news media will conspire not to give the charge any coverage and suggested if Ms. Clinton denies it or sues it’s a cover up.
In other words: confirmation — the same kind we have DEMANDED from Newsweek, CNN and CBS — is not required if it’s a disgusting charge leveled at Bill Clinton.
NOTE to those who are not true believers: If you ever hear any Republican, a talk show host, a listener or read a blogger defending this and they’ve criticized Howard Dean for being over the top, don’t bother reading or listening to them again. They have no credibility. The recklessness of this allegation in the book, being displayed on a website, or mouthed by any partisan dwarfs anything Howard Dean has ever said.
BUT THERE ARE OTHER VOICES SPEAKING OUT ON THIS ISSUE, TOO. Here’s a cross section:
—John Cole (Great Minds Think Alike Dept):”The only people who are going to read this book are the true believers and the true defenders. As a side note, when you hear the usual suspects echoing this charge as fact in some circles, it probably should be pointed out that this makes anything Howard Dean has said seem positively innocuous. I have had just about enough of these so-called ‘insider’ true stories that are really nothing more than smear jobs, regardless of the target.”
—Steven Taylor:
I have no problem with a book that criticized Mrs. Clinton’s politics, or one that examines here career –I think that there are questionable issues in her past and certainly elements of her politics that I think need refuting. However, to allege that Bill raped her is stunning and to link the conception of their daughter to that act is despicable unless there is actual proof. Given that Mrs. Clinton herself has not made the allegation, and the fact that story appears founded in the fact that Clinton may have made a bad joke and the fact that room was allegedly a mess after the fact is a pretty shoddy foundation upon which to make this charge.
Could we please debate the issues for crying out loud? And understand: I am not a fan of the Clintons, and am sympathetic to various claims made about Bill vis-a-vis other women. However, this strikes me as beyond acceptable in the extreme.
This is good. This is what Hillary wants. For the right to overreact, keep her in the news, make her sympathetic, give her more time with cameras, make her an emotional cause for women, turn men off from the whole election (who, after all, will want to swim in these currents?). (Book author) Ed Klein may be crazy, he may be stupid, but he’s doing no harm to anything but his own reputation. The media will ruminate about the return of Clinton -hatred, Hillary will craft a quip and smart statement to read when she’s asked about the issue, and Republicans, when they enter, will have one more media minefield to navigate, because the last thing they want to do is inject themselves into a marital rumor where their opponent was the hapless victim.
—John Henke:”Unless Klein has unimpeachable evidence—not an “anonymous source”…unimpeachable proof that it was actually “rape” and not just a joke—he should be kicked out of decent company; his journalistic career should be over. Even if he has solid evidence, I seriously question whether this is the sort of tale that ought be told. I’d say no. My money is on “Ed Klein is a contemptible slime”. Thank god, the Right side of the ‘sphere seems to be reaching a similar conclusion.”
—Dean Esmay:
Unless someone tells me there’s some article I absolutely have to see–which isn’t too often–I absolutely never read The Drudge Report. It’s a slimy smear rag. The latest item to hit the big time on Matt Drudge’s trash page also apparently comes from a former editor of America’s most worthless news magazine, Newsweek…
How low, how sick, how pathetic a partisan hack–or journalistic trash monger–do you have to be to “report” a story like that? Next we’ll probably hear from Republican partisans (or Drudge/Newsweek/Klein defenders) that the allegations are “believable” “given the pattern of past allegations.” You can already see it just reading some of Ed’s commenters, who are apparently so sick and twisted with hatred for the Clintons that they actually are saying things like “If Ed Klein is lying, they’ll sue–so the truth will out.” WHAT? WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!
—Betsy Newmark:”Oh gosh, please let us not have to go through another tromp through the Clinton marriage again. Just when there was a light at the end of the tunnel that the Jackson trial would soon end and we could delete all thought of Jackson’s sex life from our memories…Her popularity soars when others attack her marriage. Attack her on her policies and words and political record. Leave her marriage alone.”
—Powerline has two of its writers commenting, both blasting the book and “news” item. A taste:
PAUL MIRENGOFF: I agree with Captain Ed, Lorie Byrd, Bulldog Pundit and others that conservatives should eschew Ed Klein’s story (as reported by Drudge) that Bill Clinton raped Hillary, etc. Klein has a right to include the story in his book, subject to the libel laws. But even if it’s true (and it strikes me as highly implausible and insufficiently supported even by the “evidence” Klein apparently cites), it’s not germane to Hillary’s candidacy for the Senate or President. (I know that “clever” people can construct an attenuated argument as to why it is germane, but that kind of thing is the specialty of the left and we shouldn’t play the game). There will be plenty of genuine issues of policy and, yes, character to raise against Hillary. Let’s stick to those.
JOHN HINDERAKER adds: I haven’t followed this story closely, but from what I’ve read it appears to be an example of something that shouldn’t be published, even if the author knew for certain that it was true (which is obviously not the case here). What’s the point? I note, too, that Klein’s account apparently comes from an anonymous source, which strikes me as another example of how out of hand this practice has gotten. Journalists justify their use of anonymous sources with the fact that many people would be reluctant to “come forward” if they had to identify themselves. Yes–and that’s generally a good thing. There is a reason why many people will say things anonymously that they won’t say if they have to stand behind their assertions. Common experience tells us that claims that will only be made anonymously are often unreliable.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.