NY times bashes Clinton's book

[taxidriver]

just in case anyone here still thinks they NYT is lefty oriented, read this review. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/20/books/20CLIN.html?ei=5006&en=b1de08dbc243a997&ex=1088308800&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. Too bad Nixon didn't shut them down when he had the chance.

[Eric J in MN]

2. digressions about matters like zombies in Haiti and ruins in Pompeii

"pointless digressions about matters like zombies in Haiti and ruins in Pompeii."

Huh?

[I_like_chicken]

3. I think this article is critquing the way its written

it doesn't really bash any of clinton's policies. This does not disprove the NYTimes's liberal orinentation.

[stavka]

17. NYTime and The London Times are THE book reviewers

A negative review has nothing to do with the story...it has to do with the book, and if Pres. Clinton's book isn't a good book they both are going to say so.

They are not reviewing from a policy standpoint any more than a running books get reviewed for the choice of diet the author adheres to.

[lancdem]

18. Of course, any book review is subjective

[Pepperbelly]

30. the Times "liberal orientation" !!!!!

WTF is THAT supposed to mean?

Hmmmmmmm?

It was an ambush critique with her intentions clearly outlined as early as paragraph 4.

Whatever.

:eyes:

[Eric J in MN]

4. The reviewer ends by saying

The reviewer ends by saying:

"The nation's first baby-boomer president always seemed like an avatar of his generation, defined by the struggles of the 60's and Vietnam, comfortable in the use of touchy-feely language, and intent on demystifying his job. And yet the former president's account of his life, read in this post-9/11 day, feels strangely like an artifact from a distant, more innocent era.

Lies about sex and real estate, partisan rancor over "character issues" (not over weapons of mass destruction or pre-emptive war), psychobabble mea culpas, and tabloid wrangles over stained dresses all seem like pressing matters from another galaxy, far, far away."

-----------------------

Maybe that's because of the massive death and destruction and corruption of the Bush Administration.

[lancdem]

15. What lies about real estate?

Why does the press keep parroting the lien that the Clintons did anything wrong in Whitewater?

BTW, the reviewer acts like writing a book that defends one's reputation is self-serving. Well, duh, isn't that the point?

BTW, reveiwers trashed Hillary's book, which had no impact on sales whatsoever.

[chaumont58]

31. NY Times and WaPo have vested interest in perpetuating

lie about Whitewater. Howell Raines had to resign over Jason Blair, but Jeff Gerth still works for NYT. Len Downie, to this day, still believes some guilt on the part of one or both Clinton with regard to Whitewater. I used to send email regarding his pursuit of Bill Clinton and his lack of progress. I only got one reply. He was sure that when the final report by the OIC came out, there would be indictments over Whitewater. Needless to say, his disappointment continued. Inside the beltway is a strange place. Up is down, black is white, the truth doesn't matter, only appearance. A smirking chimp is SELECTED to be President, and he is hailed to be a combination of Lincoln, FDR, Ghandi, and now, even ole Raygun.
The NY Times and the WaPo are not liberal. There aren't many liberals left. Maybe part of the Nation, certainly nothing on the staff of The New Republic. On cable TV news shows, who would truly be considered liberal? Certainly not that cess pool, the Capitol Gang.
When you look at the control the Republicans have, their incompetance becomes truly amazing. They control the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judicial branch, and the press corps is made of outright wingnuts, or fellow travelors. In spite of all this control, John Kerry is even leading is some national polls. Kerry is not what anyone is going to call charismatic.

[Kat45]

38. The way I interpret that ending is this:

I think she's saying that all the shit that everyone made such a big deal about is nothing compared to all the shit going on today with bush. That the shit Clinton got lambasted on was really no big deal; it was not important in the greater scheme of things. Maybe I'm wrong--it's hard to judge when I haven't read the whole review--but that's how I interpret it, and in that way it isn't a slam on Clinton.

[rusty charly]

5. huh?

Lies about sex and real estate, partisan rancor over "character issues" ... seem like pressing matters from another galaxy...


not to the repukes they're not!

[clydefrand]

6. I can hardly wait

until next week to get my copy of his book!! And I'll be watching his interview with Dan Rather Sunday night on 60-Minutes AND I'll watch him on Larry King Live on Thursday night. And I wish like hell we could have him back as President! Sex lies and all the other warts... He still outshines anything in the present administration. At least he CAN read and write; that's more than the chimp can do. Why else do you think he was staying so long in that second-grade classroom on 9/11??

[lanparty]

28. Time to RECLAIM Clinton's legacy!!!!

We aren't on the defensive any more. ALL the allegations against the Clinton's were LIES!!!!!!!

Ken Star and Richard Mellon Scaife should be charged with RICO statutes for their treatment of Susan McDougle!!!!!

[DeepModem Mom]

7. Who is MICHIKO KAKUTANI, the reviewer?

The link doesn't identify him/her.

[flamingyouth]

8. She's their main book reviewer

Usually I like her reviews a lot. I'm desperately trying to not hate her guts right now.:grr:

[OKNancy]

11. I know!

She has bashed a lot of right-wing books...always thought she would be better than this. I'll get to write my own review for myself when I read the book!!

[Gildor Inglorion]

9. A silly, shallow, and useless review

by a nonentity anxious to demonstrate her own erudition. I hope the Times didn't waste any money paying her for writing it. I'll forget that I ever read the wretched thing and form my own judgment about Mr. Clinton's book after I've read it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. Michiko Kakutani has been writing book reviews for the NYT

for over twenty years, ever since she graduated from Yale. (She was an undergraduate writer for the Yale Daily News when I was a graduate student there.)

Recent graduates of Yale and Harvard often end up on the staffs of major urban newspapers.

[kaitykaity]

10. He's a Democrat, so of course the book has to be bad.

I wonder if she reviewed "Bush at War" or "The Right Man"
or any of the pro-Bush tracts with this same venomous
attitude.

Nah. I didn't think so.

:puke:

[OKNancy]

12. Yes she did - review them, that is

she liked "Plan of Attack" was lukewarm for Bush at War.

[kaitykaity]

13. But was she venomous and nasty?

Because this Clinton review is just corrosive.

[LandOLincoln]

20. I don't think it was that bad (the review, not the book). Sounds like he

just needed a really good, tough but sympathetic editor. I thought the same thing after reading Wes Clark's Waging Modern War.

[lancdem]

23. I just reread it

and it's not as negative as I first thought. She noted that Clinton was writing for his legacy and not to hurt Hillary's career, so those are factors to be considered. She also did cite passages she liked. Dan Rather also said he liked the first part of the book best.

[demgrrrll]

21. O K. Here is some insight on the reviewer. Known as famously reclusive

When she interviewed Gore Vidal her first question was
"You hate the American people, don't you. His response was
No, I hate the NY Times, you will be amazed to learn that they are not one and the same." Seems like Ms K has a bit of an agenda. On edit, a bit of an agenda across the board. Apparently she likes the word limn and uses the word a lot in her reviews. She likes certain
things and appears to have strong dislikes for certain things across the board right or left.

[Rose Siding]

35. What a great anecdote about Vidal!

The "lies about real estate" remark is awfully telling of her depth of knowledge.

The rest reminds me of the critique in Amedeus; "the piece has too many notes"

[librechik]

39. She's like Mo Dowd: she hates everybody

this time it's Clinton

[MikeG]

14. She hates celebrity authors. She hated Hillary's book

She's widely regarded as an asshole.

She likes shit no one else would ever read.

[lancdem]

16. LOL

This review will have no effect on the book's sales. I'll be curious to see what other reviewers say. I suspect huge numbers of people will watch his interview tomorrow on "60 minutes."

[Flubadubya]

19. Dan Rather says Clinton is an extraordinary writer...

Said he read the complete manuscript (not just the book) and marvels at what an awesome writer Clinton is. Says that it is incredible in terms of style AND content... calls it a very deep work.

Wonder if these people at NYT even bothered to actually read the book from cover to cover or have they just cherry-picked it? I wouldn't be at all surprised, given the corrupt state of the media today.

I know it's heresy to quote *, but here goes to the NYT... "Who cares what you think!"

[lancdem]

24. I was curious about that, too

If the Times just got the book, she would've had to rush through it.

[AngryAmish]

26. To get past 950 pages, you have to be an extraordinary writer

Must have extraordinary stamina.

[sleepystudent]

41. or...

you have a wimpy editor that isn't doing his or her job. I can totally believe that this book is rambling and unfocused-Clinton has been like this before ( and I adore him). And if I was writing the memoir of my life, especially if I had as extraordinary a life as him, I would go on and on myself. But to make a cohesive narrative, which is what a good memoir should be, you have to pare and prune and the book should have a thrust. I think that's what Kakutani is saying-what's political about that? She's won a Pulitzer, she knows her stuff. And she's not saying don't buy the book;she's saying she didn't like it, it's not good, and here is why. She isn't working for Richard Mellon Scaife and some people need to get outside, take a walk and get some fresh air and calm down. Not everything is a personal attack or a hatchet job, believe it or not.

[AngryAmish]

25. Typical NYT RW hit piece

Probably bribed by Bush and company.

[lanparty]

27. Terri Gross vs Bill OReilly rematch

I want to hear Bill O'Reilly tell Terry how the Times' review of Clintons book is so "positive"!!!!!

[Pepperbelly]

29. She tips her hand in the 4th paragraph when she wrote ...

"In many ways, the book is a mirror of Mr. Clinton's presidency: lack of discipline leading to squandered opportunities; high expectations, undermined by self-indulgence and scattered concentration."

So she is giving a thumbs-down to arguably the best 8 years EVER for the U.S.A?

:eyes:

Whatever.

Who needs peace and prosperity when we can have war and recession?

:crazy:

[kaitykaity]

34. Let's have a contest and count the unrebutted RW talking

points in this hit piece.

That paragraph you quoted has at least three.

[peacefreak]

32. I don't think reviews are going to have that much impact.

I noodled around at work (I work at an independent book store) & checked with the distributors. One had 107,000 on order for one warehouse alone. Others 50,000 here and 75,000 there. The numbers are huge. It's like Harry Potter for adults. People are coming in already looking for it.
I suggested that we wear blue dresses for the release on Tuesday. That didn't fly very well:evilgrin:

[Narraback]

33. I will still pay for the Big Dog's book.

NT

[KittyWampus]

36. Yup! It'll Be A Pleasure

:thumbsup:

[Kat45]

37. The book has already been pre-ordered by so many customers

that it already tops the best-seller list (I think--I heard something like that on the news yesterday.) More copies than usual are being printed in this run; stores have ordered more copies than usual; and their customers have already bought the book by placing their orders. They expect this book to top Hilary's, which is currently the best-selling memoir ever.

[Democat]

40. This is the exact opposite of how the media treats Reagan

The media will rarely ever say a bad word about Reagan, who had serious scandals, and they rarely say anything good about Clinton, who had no real scandals other than one about sex that the right wing spent millions to create.