They Can Dish It Out
by digby
I really don't want to write another word about Sarah Palin, but unfortunately people keep saying such stupid things there's no escaping it. Take this for instance from Jonah Goldberg, for example:
I'm getting a lot of indignant left-wing e-mail for my statement yesterday re Palin: "It certainly is true that nobody in public life in recent memory has been as shabbily treated as she has."
The gist of the complaints is that some right-wingers said mean things about Hillary Clinton or Janet Reno or some such. And it's true, some mean and unfair things were said about those folks. But I think a lot of these lefties seem oblivious to the fact that the New York Times, the news networks (minus Fox), David Letterman, et al aren't supposed to be scored as partisan outlets, but they are. And they've gone after Palin and her family in ways that I think are particularly egregious. Complaining about Richard Mellon Scaife's treatment of the Clintons is perfectly fair. But comparing it to the mainstream and "respectable" assaults on Palin is not persuasive.
It's mind boggling, isn't it? First, there's the absolutely insane assertion that the mainstream press was easier on Clinton than they've been on Palin, closely followed by his admission that Fox is a partisan outfit but that the New York Times isn't, which has to have Brent Bozell looking for pistol right about now.
But let's set those two astonishing assertions aside and just look at one outlet, shall we? And we won't even go back to the 90s when Clinton was regularly excoriated by the right wing as a murderer while the mainstream merely portrayed her a corrupt, manipulative harpy who refused to behave like a proper woman.
We'll just go back to last year instead:
National Review Online: In a sentence, what is "the truth about Hillary"?
Edward Klein:Hillary is not a victim (not of sexism, not of her husband, and certainly not of this book); she’s not a moderate (despite her effort to re-brand herself in the Senate). Even my sources on the left admit she’s positioning herself as a victim and moderate in order to win the White House.
NRO: Matt Drudge has highlighted the "rape" claim in your book. Which, to be upfront here, I thought was a terrible story to be highlighting, about a child and her parents. Why on earth would you put such a terrible story in your book? — that looks to be flimsily sourced at that. But even if it wasn’t — why tell it?
Klein: Let's set the record straight here. Actually, I don't make that claim in the book. I included the story about their 1979 trip to Bermuda because Hillary herself brings it up and spins it in her own book as an example of their supposedly romantic marriage. The point of the story is that my source, who was with the Clintons in Bermuda and quoted Bill’s boastful remarks to me, was stunned when Bill phoned him a few months later and told him he just learned of Hillary's pregnancy by reading about it in the newspaper! Those who read the book will see this is hardly a “rape story” — rather it's yet another example of a bizarre political union where a pregnancy is leaked to the largest newspaper in the state and treated as political gain rather than shared privately as a couple.
NRO: You do relay Bill Clinton claiming he was going off to rape his wife, however — and then a morning-after report that suggests that might, in fact, have happened. Surely you see how that would become the "rape chapter" of the book — and maybe the most obvious headline from the book? Might it have been more trouble than it was worth simply to relay that the Clintons have a "bizarre" relationship? Surely there are more polite examples.
Klein: Here's why it's not a rape claim: I don’t imply the source was in the room with the Clintons, for all my source knows they could have had a massive fight and then reconciled. My source doesn’t speculate, I don’t speculate. This whole story, "the rape story" as it’s being called by others, speaks more to how the Clintons communicate, their bizarre relationship. And, of course, the whole point of the story is how she leaked her pregnancy to the press — didn't talk about it with her husband first.
NRO: Do you think more is being made out of some of the "dirt" — the more salacious gossipy stuff in your book — than should be?
Klein: The Truth About Hillary is a comprehensive biography, encompassing both her personal and political life. Vanity Fair chose to excerpt a part of the book about political life, while other news sources have chosen to focus on the personal. My book is much broader than any representation that has appeared in the media so far.
NRO: How many times do you use the word "lesbian" in your book? Why point out she had friends who were lesbians? Do we need to go there?
Klein: Hillary’s politics were shaped by the culture of radical feminism and lesbianism at Wellesley College in the 1960s. This is paramount in exploring the political life of Hillary Clinton.
How could someone write a comprehensive biography of Hillary Clinton without investigating the rumors that have long circulated about her? I've gone further than any other journalist in exploring the question of her sexuality, which is often the first thing people wonder about her: Is she misrepresenting herself as a doting wife to Bill Clinton? How can she stand his chronic infidelity?
As for the number of times the word appears in the book, I don't know. But I'm sure there are some in the Clinton campaign counting right now.
NRO: One more sex thing. You write: "Hillary Clinton only had herself to blame for the talk about her sex life." Can there ever really be a good reason for this, never mind in her case?
Klein: The Clintons themselves made sex an integral part of our national political discourse at the turn of the century. There’s no way of getting around sex when it comes to the Clintons.
My favorite thing about that interview is that all this dirt came out in the very first questions, as the interviewer (Kathryn Lopez) pretended to be "troubled" by it all. It's such a stereotypical "Clinton story" you almost have to laugh.
Palin has certainly had her share of unfair stories written and said about her, some of it based on gender. But the idea that Hillary got off easily compared to her is totally absurd --- Clinton has been the target of the mainstream press and the right wing noise machine for almost two decades and the things that have been said about her so vile and so outrageous that it's a testament to her guts and her stamina that she managed to become one of the most important politicians in American life in spite of it. Even her legions of enemies have to give her grudging respect at this point. Palin has a long, long way to go before she can claim to be in the same league --- in more ways than one.
.