The Washington Post took a second bite out of the forthcoming MSM-originating Hillary Clinton biographies on Sunday, in an article titled "Unflattering Books Cause Barely A Ripple." Reporters Dan Balz and Perry Bacon Jr. stressed that (Democrat) voters in the Iowa towns of Algona, Charles City, Mason City and Emmetsburg didn't have book-related questions. The reporters dropped another fun quote from one of the books:
[Former WashPost reporter Carl] Bernstein's book, for example, reports that then-White House adviser George Stephanopoulos described to unnamed colleagues Clinton's responses to the White House Travel Office case and other scandals as "Jesuitical lying." Stephanopoulos, now anchor of ABC's "This Week" program, declined to comment when reached Friday.
Isn't it a little early for Balz and Bacon and the Post to call it a day on the "ripples" these books will have when they have yet to be released? Before the authors hit the talk shows? Will Stephanopoulos put them on his show? Will CBS's 60 Minutes publicize the Hillary books with the same fervor that they've shown for books the Bush people didn't like? If the major media decided to make a ripple, they could make one easily, even among Democrat partisans.
It's a classic liberal media tactic (certainly a common one back in 1992) to presume that if liberal Democrat primary voters aren't concerned about a scandal, then there isn't one. Unless these liberals in Iowa seriously challenge her past, will reporters continue to aid Clinton campaign spokesmen in suggesting there's no ripple in their happy ice cream bowl?
The Balz-Bacon piece includes some skepticism about Hillary's scandal-plagued candidacy (from GOP consultant Mike Murphy and some unnamed Democrats), but the conservatives were tagged in the story as "Clinton haters," when "Bush hater" is not a common Washington Post term:
Even some Republicans agreed with Clinton's team that the books will have minimal effect on Clinton's campaign. For Clinton haters, one strategist said, the books will reinforce what they believe already, but they will change no minds.
Democratic strategists not attached to Clinton's campaign offered harsher assessments, although they spoke on the condition of anonymity because they do not want to get into a public fight with the former first couple.
One Democrat called the books a reminder of "the tawdriness of the Dogpatch days," while another said, "It's not a deal killer, but it reinforces people's preconceived notions about her." He said his rule of thumb for her campaign is this: "The more the conversation is about the past, the worse for her. The more it's about the future, the better for her."
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
". . . Stephanopoulos, n
May 27, 2007 - 23:26 ET by Galvanic". . . Stephanopoulos, now anchor of ABC's "This Week" program, declined to comment when reached Friday."
Despite the circumstances of Boy George's departure from the Clinton White House, I suspect he's seeking a Press Secretary role in a Hillary Clinton White House, so his declination to comment doesn't surprise me. He's never been a genuine journalist.
"It's not a deal killer,
May 27, 2007 - 23:31 ET by bigtimer"It's not a deal killer, but it reinforces people's preconceived notions about her."
'Nuff said.
For now...because I am feeling generous at the moment.
I'm certain if the MSM pays
May 27, 2007 - 23:37 ET by motherbelt"Unflattering Books Cause Barely A Ripple." For a fair-haired Democrat, maybe. If it were a Republican, the article's title would be "Questions from the Past Continue to Dog Candidate."
I'm certain if the MSM pays any attention to this at all, it will be to supply many quotes from the Hillary camp of the "old news" variety. What's the statute of limitations? After how many years does it not matter if you were involved in a shady land deal, questionable futures investing, withholding evidence, and getting called before a grand jury? Hillary's camp will say this campaign should not be about the past...unless it's Rudy's past, or Romney's, or anyone else's.
Speaking as an ex-Jesuit …
May 28, 2007 - 00:06 ET by KC MulvilleSpeaking as an ex-Jesuit …
To understand the word ‘jesuitical,’ consider the following. The laws of the Catholic church demanded the sacrament of confession should always be received individually. However, there was a dispensation where the recipients were in “imminent danger of death.” The idea was to allow soldiers about to enter a battle to receive the sacrament in a group, so the squad wasn’t twiddling their thumbs waiting for the priest to finish each confession. Naturally, the Jesuits took that rule (“imminent danger of death”) whenever they wanted to have a group confession in peacetime. They justified it by arguing that since the congregation was likely to drive on public highways, they were in imminent danger of death. Jesuits didn’t create the dispensation, they were merely clever enough to use it.
Forgive my prejudice, but isn’t that head and shoulders above the embarrassing, “it depends on what the meaning of is is?”
Of course it is, it is attemp
May 28, 2007 - 00:12 ET by botgOf course it is, it is attempting to identify that which should be considered heinous with that which is considered respected in order to trick the hearer. More 'parsing' in an attempt to deceive.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Hillary's heresy
May 28, 2007 - 06:00 ET by Cool ArrowShe didn't even need a perfect act of contrition. Imperfect was good enough.
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
Thanks, KC, I was going to
May 28, 2007 - 06:36 ET by motherbeltThanks, KC, I was going to ask what "Jesuitical lying" is. Sounds like rationalization to the extreme.
You are most likely correct,
May 28, 2007 - 10:41 ET by botgYou are most likely correct, what however is the motive in each case? For the Jesuits it is to aid and ease the time constraints in the Hil-meisters case it is to deceive. The attempt to equalize the two is also a deception
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Exactly. He is employing
May 28, 2007 - 12:59 ET by dahliatraversExactly. He is employing a euphemism that is so stretched as to be inapplicable.
Nah, it's just bringing a sen
May 28, 2007 - 12:50 ET by KC MulvilleNah, it's just bringing a sense of humor to the party, and going for the greater good when the situation calls for it. The key is the greater good. The greater good doesn't justify lying, but if the greater good is being frustrated by a law that has a loophole, exploit the loophole.
As in IICor3:5,6Supreme Court
May 28, 2007 - 13:09 ET by botgAs in IICor3:5,6
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
If a book which tells the t
May 28, 2007 - 06:05 ET by Jack BauerIf a book which tells the truth about Hillary Clinton falls on the desk of a New York Times (or any MSM) editor, does it make a sound?
The book sound
May 28, 2007 - 06:08 ET by Cool ArrowNot so much a bang as a whimper.
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
lol
May 28, 2007 - 07:26 ET by dahliatraverslol
Jesuitical?!
May 28, 2007 - 10:36 ET by blackrain4xmasNICE....you have GOT to be kidding me! Flaming the Jesuits, and there's no outrage? This really Really REALLY ticks me off. A former political stooge and professional spinmeister suggests Jesuits set the stand for lying? What a hypocritcal son of a bitch!
These new books on the Hila
May 28, 2007 - 14:10 ET by daveinbocaThese new books on the Hilarious sequel to Billy Jeff are going to stick as talking points for a long time. Stephanopoulos is now a Clinton Inc. toady.
Billy Jeff's Jesuit education at Georgetown helped him figure out what the meaning of "is" is. I'm a Marquette grad myself and appreciated GS's reference to the famous [or infamous] ability of Jesuits to parse and split hairs and make mental reservations---although Hoya grads George Tenet and Doug Feith were the Repub responses to the Clinton Inc. Fr. Drinan crowd.
"Unflattering Books Caus
May 29, 2007 - 08:18 ET by Jerry"Unflattering Books Cause Barely a Ripple"
Isn't that like announcing "Invasion of Normandy Has No Effect on War", two weeks BEFORE D-Day?
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Yup.(We need to ask Stephanop
May 29, 2007 - 20:36 ET by dahliatraversYup.
(We need to ask Stephanopoulos if your tag line was Jesuitical lying by Bill Clinton.)