Tuesday, September 23, 2003

Nigel Bites

In today's New York Times, Michiko Kakutani reviews the latest anti-Clinton screed, this one written by bitter limey Nigel Hamilton and published by the once respected Random House.

Whenever I see the Times take issue with irresponsible, unsourced Clinton-bashing, I get the feeling that the Times is trying to deflect criticism from its own flawed anti-Clinton coverage.

Highlights of the review:

Though Mr. Hamilton repeatedly suggests that Bill and Hillary Clinton had a "marital understanding" about his philandering � "She would not expect Bill to be sexually faithful in their partnership, but she would expect him to observe reasonable discretion" � he does not offer any credible evidence of such an agreement.

Surely Andy Sullivan has a cause of action against Nigel for plagiarism on this theory.

Drawing upon sources like Mr. Evans-Pritchard's irresponsible book, Mr. Hamilton resurrects some of the most heinous and uncorroborated accusations made by Clinton haters, writing that "the list of beatings, suicides, and even murders of people connected with Bill Clinton would, over the years, become alarmingly long." A host of articles and books, Mr. Hamilton asserts, attest that Gennifer Flowers was not alone in worrying about the dangers of crossing Bill Clinton. "People were not only threatened," he portentously intones, "but could wind up � like the man falsely accused of raping a Clinton cousin � without testicles and in prison, or even dead, if they stepped out of line."
If Nigel's talking about this scumbag, imprisonment, genital mutilation and death are too good for him.

Kakutani acknowledges that these tales are bullshit. But her concluding paragraph is quite strange.

In the end, however, it is perhaps fitting that the prose in these pages is so melodramatic, reductive and foolish; after all, those are the very qualities embodied by this entire unfortunate book.

Huh? Is she saying: "It is perhaps fitting that these pages of the book are crap, because the entire book is crap." Wouldn't it be easier to say: "the rest of the book is just as crappy" or just "this book is crap."

No comments: