If Halperin and Heilemann's book is just a stew of lies and gossip,

[cali]

why aren't we hearing denials from the principals? And Harry Reid certainly didn't contest their version of what he said.

From what I've read, this book holds the potential to do real damage to Palin, and I'm fine with that.

[tammywammy]

1. The only denials are coming from Palin

And I believe basically she only said she dealt with the issues in her "book".

I hope this finally sinks the Palin boat. I mean we all knew she was batshit crazy, I just hope her "fans" finally figure it out too.

[tishaLA]

4. Lizzie Cheney also denied that her daddy didn't like the Palin pick

But come on....who believes that? Darth is a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them. I'm sure he saw through Caribou Barbie at least as well as Noonan did.

[tammywammy]

8. Yeah I wouldn't believe that Cheney was a big Palin fan

I don't like the man, but even I would think he'd know Palin was dumber than a rock. But then I also don't believe anything that comes out of Liz Cheney's mouth. :)

[Tempest]

5. Actually, the "denial" came from her mouthpiece Stapletongue

And you're right, it wasn't a denial.

Her fans will close ranks around her and deny everything. Just like dumb animals who engage in herd mentality.

[Tempest]

2. According to the rightwingers

The book tells the truth about the Democrats, but is lying about the Republicans.

I know, but that's just the way a rightwinger's mind works.

[tammywammy]

3. And I would gather many think just the opposite here

Truth against Republicans and lying filth about Democrats.

[Tempest]

6. I haven't seen anyone dispute what was said about Democrats

Biden's admission pretty much says the book is factual.

[tammywammy]

7. I just mean some posters on here

There's a lot of "discussion" about how Halperin is a RW troll, which I gather means everything written about democrats is suspect. But then it seems everyone's gleefully latching on to the Palin excerpts.

For reference, check out the NY Mag Edwards thread and compare it to any Palin thread. :)

[retread]

9. So when you ask if I'm still beating my wife and I ignore you, that means I am?? n/t

[cali]

12. not a very good comparison, and again, Reid apologized for what they reported he said

[retread]

13. "Reid apologized for what they reported he said" Even a blind pig, etc. n/t

[stray cat]

18. Reid apologized ruining your argument

[retread]

25. Reid apologized; therefore EVERY claim made in the book is true unless denied???

Is that the premise?

[blues90]

10. Just another damn book for a few freaks to get rich off of

Even if there is truth in it no one will ever know. On the other hand the book may expose that EVERY politician is a lair and freak all sitting there in the big club behind closed doors acting in public like they are the special ones like some americn idol.

[Think82]

11. I'm guessing they took real conflicts and then exaggerated and sensationalized them

... typical of the media, as "The Daily Show" so often points out.

[Arkana]

14. That's a faulty line of reasoning.

In this vein, I could publicly accuse Sean Hannity of raping goats, and because he wouldn't give me the time of day to deny it therefore it's true.

[cali]

15. again, that's hardly the same. And again, Reids admission that the authors

quoted him correctly lends credence to the book. Furthermore, books like this one are pretty well vetted by legal departments within publishing houses- for obvious reasons.

[tishaLA]

16. I'm not bothered by the "is it true or lies and gossip" part of this...

but by the fact that the media is actively pushing the book's narratives--even the most salacious of which are minor, really--to the fore. Why are they doing this? Because those narratives are easier than dealing with policy, for one thing. And, I think just as importantly, because the book was written by Halperin, who is one of the kool kids in the beltway journalism establishment. More publicity=more sales=more wealth for one of their friends.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

17. I have been somewhat perplexed that

the same guy that reported that Candidate Obama was "flirting" with women on his campaign stops, that Dick Lugar was going to be Obama's VP choice, and published a photo shopped photo of Mary Landrieu with semen in her hair is now all of a sudden considered to be a credible reporter.

Obviously the Reid story was true, and I am sure there are other things in the book that are true, I just will take it all with a gigantic grain of salt.

[cali]

19. You know Halperin isn't the sole author of this book. Heilemann is

a good reporter.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

24. I know he is

it makes me wonder why he worked with him.

[monmouth]

21. McCain's staff thinking Palin was mentally unstable rings true to me.

Has the msm even mentioned this????

[spiritual_gunfighter]

23. Yes they have n/t

[Mass]

20. There have been denials from all parties but Reid. In addition, we should be bothered by the fact

the media are pushing only the Democratic negatives (not that it is surprising, though).

[izzybeans]

22. I think the problem is that on most of accounts I've seen "Who gives

a shit?" applies to most.

As far as seminal works go, this one's a steaming pile of who gives a shit. Yes these people are jerks, so are many of us.

meanwhile there is business at hand. So IMO as far as meaningful political reporting goes, there is little meaningful contribution being made by this book. It is pure distraction. Maybe it wasn't intentional, but its a huge waste of time.