The Klein "Smear" Makes the Usual Rounds

Let's all be honest about this: can anybody really be surprised that an "unauthorized" biography of Hillary Clinton, authored by an Extreme Media hack (and, to indulge in a little in-their-faces irony, a member in good standing of the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy), that is transparently being marketed to the right-hand side of the political spectrum, has now been played up big-time by the New York Times as the latest manifestation of her fabled "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy"?

Republican and conservative activists are behind a vigorous campaign to promote a controversial new biography about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, with some even suggesting that the book will help dash any presidential aspirations she might have....

The publisher, Sentinel, an imprint of Penguin Group (USA) that focuses on conservative views, has added to the atmosphere surrounding the publication. In a catalog sent to bookstores, the publisher, part of Pearson Plc., compared the book with the campaign by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group that attacked the Vietnam record of Senator John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race.

In addition, the financing for a conservative Web site that is promoting the book comes partly from Richard Mellon Scaife, a longtime foe of the Clintons who tapped his fortune in the 1990's to finance a project at The American Spectator magazine to dig up damaging information about the couple.

First of all, if this book is typified by the "Bill raped Hillary in 1979" claim, then I think I can be forgiven for wondering how it would have the slightest negative bearing on her presidential bid in 2008, even if the "anecdote" were true. Indeed, if those Bermuda "hijinx" did happen, I would think that would help Mrs. Clinton, if anything.

As to the remainder, it sounds like the Times has secretly contracted to help promote Mr. Klein's book, judging from Cap'n Ed's observations that writer Raymond Hernandez talks up "Richard Mellon Scaife, talk radio, Swift Boat vets (really!), and the supposedly lock-step Internet sites," and....

Hernandez also neglects to mention the pedigree of its author, Ed Klein. Klein's name doesn't come up, oddly, until the eleventh paragraph of the article. In fact, ernandez quotes David Brock in criticizing the VRWC conspiracy to sell the book three paragraphs before his readers find out that the author used to be the editor for New York Times Magazine. Hernandez never gets around to mentioning that Klein also worked as the editor in chief for Newsweek, hardly a bastion of conservative thought, especially these days.

Seems to me that if the Times didn't want this Hilliagraphy to sell, they might have mentioned its author's pedigree a bit more prominently.

Morrissey's primary bone of contention is that Hernandez' article biasedly portrays the center-right as universally receptive and enthusiastically supportive of Klien's tome. But I am constrained to point out that I predicted this (or at least the trend line) a week ago:

[T]ossing this (alleged) excerpt out there in advance of the book's release sounds like SHP (standard hyping procedure) to me. And now a megablog has taken the bait. Mission accomplished.

The "Grey Lady" has simply followed suit in predictable fashion. And the self-consciously heroic defense of Hillary's "honor" by the Cap'n, QandO, and others didn't prevent the Times from lumping them in with the rest of us "mouth-foamers," now did it? Maybe Ed, AJ Strata, and Jon Henke would care to explain to us again how their bipartisan prostrations have enhanced their "credibility" with people whose criteria for judging such things is vastly different from our own.

Morrissey says he "won't spend a cent" on this book, and predicts that it will "drop like a thud in the marketplace." I concur with both. It is "Kitty Kelly-like trash." My only contention - for which I took a great deal of heat - was that it should be allowed to "drop like a thud" on its own without any craven "Oh, we'd better denounce this so they won't associate us with it" hysterics. All I said (in addition to citing the practical impossibility of "smearing" the Clintons) was that the latter would have no effect upon the performance of the book or the other side's templated reaction to it. I think that this NYT piece leaves me in the accustomed position of vindication once again.

Complain all you want about "biased hack job paints a highly incomplete picture of conservative attitudes towards Ed Klein and his new gossip tome," guys. But don't say nobody warned you.