Today on Blogcritics
Home » Attack of the Drones

Attack of the Drones

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

It comes as no surprise that the controversial book, The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She’ll Go to Become President is filled with personal attacks on Senator Clinton. It seems to make it on a non-fiction bookshelf these days you have to write a radically partisan attack book that stimulates a brute, politically savage area of the brain.

Fine. If the markets decree that polarized attack books are what America wants, then I’ll search a little harder in the bookstore for semblances of objectivity. Or I’ll read fiction. But when these best sellers are riddled with inaccuracies and slander, as the new book on Clinton supposedly is, why are they allowed to be categorized as non-fiction? In my elementary school library, I was taught that one piece of fiction was enough to earn a book the fiction classification. But is that just a general guideline, with no real method of enforcement? I’m not advocating for a federal agency to oversee the publishing industry, but I would like to be able to pick a book off the non-fiction shelf and have a little confidence in the material.

(One example of the book’s content: the author claims Hillary was raped by her husband Bill, which resulted in the conception of Chelsea.)

The standard response to this problem is to let the market work out the problem. If a company publishes unverified garbage, they will eventually pay when consumers take their business to more reputable publishers. But the current political climate actually encourages publishers to find the most vile, unverifiable material and milk it for all it’s worth.

If you don’t think this book will make a difference, just wait. When it comes time for Hillary to run, even if this author has been discredited, his unsubstantiated rumors of Hillary’s lesbianism will be everywhere. The Swift Boat Veterans did the same thing to John Kerry last year. It may be dishonest, but it’s sound political strategy. If you make intelligent criticisms of a candidate’s policy decisions, you’ll be ignored. If you want to be heard by the media, be as contoversial as possible and be as offensive as possible.

If the Democrats really want to win in 2008, I suggest some of the party faithfuls start digging up all the dirt they can (whether true or not) on Rudy Giuliani, Jeb Bush, and Bill Frist. Seriously, just think of the most vile, shameful act you can imagine, and start accusing Republican hopefuls of doing it. You’ll become rich, famous, and you’ll probably change the political course of history. I would do it, I could certainly use the money, but my stomach, and my conscience, couldn’t handle it.

Powered by

About ablog

  • http://www.arcaneoracle.com Jimmy Jaz

    You linked to mediamatters.com, so I assume that for you biased attacks from the left are fine, but semi-substantiated rumors from the right are not?

    This kind of thing is one reason why the GOP should run Giuliani. His skeletons are already out of the closet, so the ammunition has been defused.

    JJ

  • http://cranialcavity.net/wordpress/index.php Marc

    Jimmy Jaz you should have also metioned this bit of nonsense: “The Swift Boat Veterans did the same thing to John Kerry last year.”

    Elyas, would you care to outline the “discredited” and “unsubstantiated rumors” the SBVT published?