Can anyone enlighten this puzzled conservative as to what it is that makes Hillary such an attraction in the liberal world? To this day I cant fathom how she ever got elected to the Senate. And now that her book is out she's back in the limelight and being fawned over by the media.

Is the Democratic party so lacking in leadership that this woman is the best it has to offer? Is there any doubt that she's planning to run for Pres in '08?

I might as well toss in this question too since we're here. Why does she get so much support from women? Victim role?

I think a good many people over here (Europe) perceive her as being a fair but strong minded woman with a serious head on her and a lot of competance. She is quite popular and always was. The Lewinsky affair makes little difference to that.


I'd vote for her....

unless her opponent was better.

Whats not to like? Any woman who can turn $1,000 into $100,000 has got my vote. She is the epidimy of what it means to be an American Capitalist!

Two words: Rick Lazio I used to live in Chappqua, NY were the Clinton live. Chappqua is a real rich place but every single person is liberal. New York is really liberal. I'd vote for her because I think she is a smart and hardworking person not out of pity.

It's because she is the largest Democratic fund raiser the dems have right now.

--cheers

Hillary's ambition can be a bit overwhelming at times, but there's no doubt if she hadn't been there, Bill would never had made it to the White House. She's smart, tough and knows how to get what she wants.

She's a strong and independent woman. That makes her an object of derision and contempt for some and a source of admiration and respect to others.

But I have no interest in reading her book.

I'm curious, Passion, what makes you think she's only of interest in the "liberal world"? Is there something in particular which leads you to believe the interest and success of her book is purely rooted in the "liberal media" and liberal readership?

What does her book have to do with the Democratic party? To my knowledge they haven't been pushing her as a presidential candidate and they aren't the publishers of her book either. I think the first half of your questioning is rather unfounded and taken from a highly speculative position rooted in partisan politics.

As for attention from women I wouldn't be surprised if some of the attention comes from those relating to the victim role. Others -- both liberal and conservative -- may be interested simply because of the power this woman holds. I'm not sure she is of any more interest than other powerful women of the past ranging from Elizabeth Taylor to Princess Diana.

Both liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, fawned over the headlines during the whole scandal with Monica Lewinsky. Some people still harp on it today and this book is a way to find out more about it from a different perspective. I don't think liberals or Democrats have anything to do with the publication and success of it.

I've never been a big Clinton supporter - either Clinton. But I will say this - I think your question is coming completely from a partisan viewpoint. The question in your first paragraph, if you swiched "elected to the Senate" to "got a radio show," could well be asked by many liberals about someone like Rush Limbaugh.

Your second paragraph is identical to the question many liberals had about GW Bush when he first ran.

Perhaps you could present some of the reasons she is so vilified by people on the (far) right? That might help us understand the basis for why you think she is so completely unworthy of the attention she gets...

Surely you are being sarcastic? A drug dealer can do better than that.
And I would like to know just what it takes to be the epitome of capitalism. I am for capitalism, but not for the type we have had for so long. Unchecked greed at the expense of others is probably the biggest issue liberals have against capitalism, and just may be what gets Hillary or someone like her elected.
Recent events on Wall Street are going to be a very big issue next election, and you can bet that the democrats are watching this administration's every move. All they will have to do is show that GWB did very little to correct the abuses, and that they have a plan and support that will correct the abuses.
Hillary just may be a viable candidate in 2008.
I suppose some women like her because she isn't a man, and that just may be a good point based on our history.

I'm just as confused as you Passion. However, I do know that Hilary "Bill, he wouldn't cheat on me" Clinton, is using a horrible situation that all [or at least normal] women never want to happen to them, to her advantage. She was so "strong" during the "crisis" and now she is given a seat in the Senate for her "bravery". But what is she doing for NY? Well, there was that whole terrorist incident...wait no, that was Giuliani [Spelling?]. Well, she has raised taxes, and ummm, well she raised taxes. So I too am confused at why she is so well liked by some people. Some are even saying that if she wasn't a women critics wouldn't have a problem with her. Well, Elizabeth Dole is a women and she is well liked, must be part of the right-wing conspiracy.


CP

Abs, do you deny that she is a strong attraction in the liberal world? Do you think she's not a liberal herself? Do you think its the conservatives who support and fawn over her? Isn't she a Dem? A leading Dem at that? Do you not believe she's positioning herself for an '08 Presidential run?

Quark, noone's talking about Rush. Or Bush. The question was about Hillary, and only asked because her book has just come out and she's all over the news as a result (even though all the critics so far say there's nothing newsworthy in it).

I'd also like to add to this debate another question. Do you think she actually wrote this book? Or was it written by 3 people she hired and then reviewed/edited by her as has been widely reported?

As for the question about partisanship, well let me put it this way. It was asked by a somewhat conservative Republican about a very liberal Democrat. So what's your point??

CP:


Senator Clinton was actually elected, for the various reasons politicians get elected.



Does she have some special power I don't know about? Is she now part of New York's state legislature? Please describe specifically how she is raising taxes in New York.

I don't like President Bush's policies, but I can understand why conservatives, for example, really like him.



CP, it's your beloved capitalism at work. It's all about the market, baby!

PS: an aside, here: CP, I don't want you to think I've been stalking your every post today, seems like we've been butting heads in a lot of threads recently. I'll still respect you in the morning, darling.

Sorry, what I meant, and what I thought I said was, she fought to raise taxes, as in Congress. As for the capitalism part, I don't think capitalism means screwing others over so you can achieve power, it is work hard for what you earn. And as for taking it easy tommorow...please! No mercy

CP

I don't know how liberal the world is, Passion. Nor do I know how strong of an attraction she might be in those parts of the world viewed as liberal. I don't know her particular position either. I'm typically viewed as a liberal, from what I've gathered here and in other conversations, but I could personally care less about Hillary. I also have heard very little about her since her husband served as commander in chief. And while she may be a Democrat -- a leading one at that -- and she may be positioning herself for a '08 Presidential run (is there anything to openly suggest this?), what does any of this have to do with the publication and success of her book?

Could it be that people just like to read about celebrities? Michael J. Fox's book hit the bestseller list immediately. I'm sure any comprehensive book about the life of Princess Dianna has or would hit the bestseller list immediately as well. You presume that the only reason her book was published and appears to be successful is because you perceive her to be a liberal and because she is a Democrat. Do you have anything to suggest that either of these are reasons for the book's success? Do you have anything to show that she isn't enjoying similar readership among conservative or Republican readers?

You haven't shown anything to support the notion that her book's success is rooted solely in being liberal or a Democrat, or that the media fawns over her simply because she is a liberal or leading Democrat. For all you or anybody else knows it could be simply because she's a woman of high profile, regardless of political positions, or the common interest American readers tend to show for celebrity authors, be they written by the actual person or a ghostwriter.

I believe Quark and I both brought up the partisan politics because you seem automatically to assume it is only because she is a liberal or a Democrat or a "victim" that her book is enjoying any success. The point was that you seem only to be attacking the success of the book based on what you disagree with, totally neglecting to consider the very possible alternatives.

Edited to add:
Barnes and Noble bestselling celebrity memoirs of 2002
Publishers up the ante with celebrity deals
Bill O'Reilly, bestsellers

Celebrities, political figures and other media darlings typically enjoy bestselling ventures into the writing world. That they are Republican, Democrat, liberal or conservative seems to be of little importance to either the media or the American public.

In answer to your posted question, let's see:

1) She has been silent about her eight years in the White House with Bill until now, and people have wondered how/why she put up with everything.
2) She is intelligent
3) She is articulate
4) She is ambitious
5) She subscribes to ideologies that are held by large numbers of the population who do not share the same priorities as G.W. Bush.

Works for me.

(I am a liberal. As far as considering her for a higher office, my only question is: does she consistently represent the wishes of her New York constituency in her role as Senator? This is also an important consideration, especially if her aspirations include a run for the White House. And incidentally, I do not have plans to read the book now.
I plan to wait until it comes out in paperback.)

I am editing this post because someone asked if she, Hillary, wrote the book, or if 3 people employed by her did. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF SHE HAS SIGNED HER NAME TO IT AND SHE PAID THE PEOPLE WHO HELPED HER?

Are Presidential speeches any less those of the President because he has speechwriters to craft his speeches?

Please. If you want to discredit Hillary, go ahead. But don't try to do it on the basis that she might/might not have had people helping her!

Amazon.com: Monica's Story
Amazon.com: The Starr Report
Monica Lewinsky and Mr. Personality

Other books associated with Clinton and the scandal surrounding him and Monica Lewinsky have enjoyed bestseller success as well. Monica even managed to move forward with a line of merchandise and was granted her own television show by Fox.

With Hillary having remained silent throughout, it's possible that there are readers still curious about her perspective of those events. Another alternative to the idea that liberals and Democrats are the only ones to attribute the book's success to.

Hillary's book has the Rush Limbaugh factor working for it as well. Her audience will be both supporters *and* detractors looking to pin somethng on her, catch her in a lie or just reinvigorate their hatred by reading her story.

Cable news pundits for example(the conservatives at least) have been *poring* over her book looking for fault. Amuses me to no end to imagine her as president, the conservatives would simply go nuts.

I almost wonder if they arent trying some primate signalling to her by their reaction to her book. Sort of, 'ooh ooh ooh, grunt, if you thought we went after Bill, wait till you get elected, ooh ooh". May be a subtle effort to scare her off. heh.

Yep, I wouldn't assume high viewership on the Baba Wawa interview or high book sales means high support. I'd guess more likely just high curiosity. Btw, there are some signs that those book sales haven't been as high as claimed: Lucianne Goldberg: Hillary's Book Sales 'Way Below 200,000'

Well, the Amazon sales rank is #2 and the book has already gotten 147 reader reviews.

Having been published on June 9, 2003, I'd say this is a pretty darn good start.

Amazon 06/15/03

Don't know if I'll ever read the book, but I suspect it's more historically important than books about family pets.

Just a comment on ghost writing: This is done through interviews, so the grist is from Hillary. The wordsmithing is from others. You'd be surprised at how many books are done this way, but ghost writing in no way detracts from content.

So, it may be interesting to examine from a writer's perspective. Has voice been consistently maintained throughout, and is it Hillary's tone? Good ghosters can pull this off.

I'm getting a kick out of how conservatives are trying to manipulate the Amazon page. Check out the alternative titles. Think I'll go through and mark what reviews are and are not helpful

I ask you guys, would Hilary "Little Ol' me, no I would never run for President [cough, vote for me]"Clinton wasn't a celebrity would anyone read her book...no. So, why is she writing it, because she knows that people will read it because she's famous, thereby making her more popular and powerful. But no, she isn't doing this for selfish reasons. If that's true, then simply, why is she writing the book?

CP

That is pretty much true for the vast majority of biographical writings. Hillary is an individual who draws a great deal of interest, some positive some negative, an ideal candidate for a book. I don't believe book sales are any scientific measure of popularity. I think Hillary has too high a negative rating to ever be President at this time. The book is most likely an attempt to reduce that negative rating. Appearing with Barbara Walters and answering all the softballs thrown to her was another.

Sales and popularity of the book may have nothing to do with it as far as Hillary is concerned. Just for agreeing to write the book she received an advance of $8 million. I believe I could sit down and write a book without presidential aspirations or some misguided hope to save the Democratic party for a check that big. Both Bill and Hillary are raking in millions for their books and appearances. And while the subjects they talk about may be political, their reasons for doing so may have nothing at all to do with politics.

Conservpat,



What's your point here? That writers are supposed to write books out of some feeling of generosity? To not promote viewpoints or self? Who is saying this?

Big names sell lots of books, and most of those books are ghost written. If the American public is unaware of this fact of life, then they need to get smart. Or not. Maybe it doesn't matter as long as the books are well-written.

Little names can get big--witness J.K. Rowling and Harry Potter.

Anyway, I don't think you can deride the Clintons for making tons of money off their names. They put up with nasty politics for many years to make those names, and so it goes. I suppose you could get on their cases if they did tax fraud.

I think this goes to the straw man liberal argument. Liberals are supposed to be against making tons of money, right? Eh, that's never true. So the only time you can get on a liberal's case is for avoiding the payment of legal taxes, and that just isn't the case here.