At the time of this posting, Senator Clinton's book is actually #7, not #8 as reported by WND. I don't dispute that it was #8 at the time they checked, of course, any more than I dispute that Beyond Iraq must have been somewhere on the list during the hour they checked out that tidbit.

Of course, right now the $10 paperback Beyond Iraq is #383 on the list, while Senator Clinton's book is still #17 and still holding strong in sales.

We'll see how Ann Coulter is holding up on July 12, shall we?

I love it. WND is guilty of ideological drivel, and Hillary Clinton is not?

Bryan - yep, you doooo understand. Good.

I'm not to sure what WND is - but would if I'd checked the link - but if they did stories on all the other books that "shot" back down the best-sellers list then they'd ber more worthy of any consideration.

Oh, I understand alright. I understand that Hillary clinton's book is pure ideological drivel, spun through a blender and spoon fed to saps who think she really has their best interests at heart. Sort of a "compassionate liberalism." :-)

Hillary's book is just full of bad writing. The first sentence is "I wasn't born a First Lady or a Senator." No kidding!

That Hillary Clinton's book sucks or that she herself may be satan's step-daughter is irrelevant. If either of those is true, then those are opinions, suitable for the opinion section. For WND to pretend to be a news source and then twist Amazon's rankings to misrepresent the market in order to make a politicial statement is just ridiculous.

Put another way, people expect Hillary Clinton and Ann Coulter to be ideologues, and their books to be filled with unanswered biases. WND, however, claims to be a source of "news".

Phillip,

WND is essentially a place where right-wing ideologues and Christian bigots go to have their myths confirmed. It is no more a source of "news" than BuzzFlash, its mirror image, whose newsfeed I used to have on my blog, until they trumpeted the trumped-up Wolfowitz "admission" (Iraq war was "about oil") as if it were fact, and I just got sick of their bullshit.

In the paranoid, delusional WND world, Hillary Clinton is universally reviled, Darwin was wrong, homosexuals have an organized movement to recruit and corrupt small children, and, of course, Harry Potter is a danger to our children.

While a trip through worldnetdaily.com is worthwhile as a study of a bizarre, cult-like subculture, crticizing WND for bias and deceit is like criticizing Michael Moore for the same, or criticizing a skunk for its foul smell.

Do tell about Mike Moore's deceit, please! (His bias is obvious.)

Despite those who loathe Hillary Rodham Clinton and critical journos such as Bill Safire who (amusingly, IMO; I am a fan of neither the Clintons nor Safire) described her as a "congenital liar," the junior senator from New York is enormously popular. For that matter, GW Shrub, who fits my definition of "terrorist," has fans from coast to coast. So Hill sells a lot of books. So what? She still has a lot of attorneys to pay, so perhaps Ann "Nuke' Em, Then Convert 'Em" Coulter will end up making more moolah in the long run. Then again, she'll probably spend her ill-gotten gains on Christian singles-group memberships, fishnet stockings, bleach, Manolo Blahniks, and political contributions.

Whatever happens, neither Rodham Clinton nor Coulter will outsell the Boy Wizard. And that should make us all happy -- more people will use their pennies to buy worthwhile fiction.

Natalie,

As much as I want to like Michael Moore (and, I admit, I look forward to everything he does, was proud of his Oscar moment), when he plays "journalist" he doesn't play fair.

Some evidence.

Not any worse than what his counterparts on the right do, but I don't have much respect for them, either.

I am a fan of Mike's activism and projects such as "The Awful Truth" and "TV Nation." I love his bookstore lectures (and yes, I try to doublecheck his facts, because I know he has a tendency to go all over the place when he is speaking extemporaneously). He is a nice guy (I used to see him here and there at a Manhattan Starbucks I used to visit regularly and we've corresponded via email a couple of times). But as a journalist, seeing the info on Bowling for Columbine, I am personally offended by what he passes off as "reporting." Willful deception is wrong for any person at any time and in any situation, but a journalist has a special obligation to report the facts and present them truthfully, as they happened. Seeing the depths to which Mike stooped is really disappointing to me, because BFC could have made its cogent points (and many fantastic, worthwhile points were made) without resorting to lies and manipulations of the message audiences received. And yes -- though it is unfair -- I am more pissed when lefties sabotage the profession I've been in for 23 years because I expect the Right to do the wrong thing. Like Mike, I've spent a lot of time in the alternative press, but apparently we left with differing opinions of how journalism and advocacy journalism are properly and responsibly practiced. But as you say, big-paycheck journo stars on both sides of the aisle don't practice the craft much better.

That said, I thought Mike's Oscar speech was the best thing on TV all year -- save, perhaps, Hugh Jackman singing "Oh, What a Beautiful Morning" from Oklahoma on the Tony Awards a couple of weeks ago.

If I get a chance to see Mr. Moore again, I am going to ask him about this directly and tell him what I think. (E-mail, I don't think, would be as effective as a F2F.) I anticipate being back in NYC in September and no doubt will grab a chai latte at my Village Starbucks while there. Let's hope the opportunity arises. I really want to hear what he has to say.