Clintons on unauthorized bios: “Should neither be allowed nor enabled”

posted at 5:21 pm on July 31, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Thus do the Clintons move from thin-skinned to authoritarian. No one expected them to be happy with new biographies written by political opponents such as Ed Klein (Blood Feud) or Daniel Halper (Clinton Inc), given that the purpose of both was to rebut the anodyne, campaign-trail preparation of Hillary Clinton’s widely panned Hard Choices and the earlier memoirs from both herself and Bill Clinton. The genre of pre-election biographical critique/polemic has its controversies, but also a long history on both sides of the political divide. Candidates running for high political office, and presumed candidates who release books to get an edge on forming the narrative, know well that they will face these kinds of challenges, and have to either stand the heat or get out of the kitchen. None would go so far as to suggest that such political speech should somehow be shut down.

Well, almost none:

“Clinton Inc.,” which looks at the Clintons from the impeachment crisis in the late 1990s through today, hit the stands to underwhelming figures (though in a sign of the strength of the book industry and the summer slowdown, it’s still set to land at No. 10 on the Times best-seller list, according to his publisher.) The book, along with an upcoming one by Secret Service chronicler Ronald Kessler, includes rumors about infidelity by Bill Clinton. The Halper book also focuses on Chelsea Clinton’s rise within her family’s foundation.

Klein’s book, “Blood Feud,” claims to lay out the messy relationship between Barack and Michelle Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton, replete with quotes from alleged conversations between the first families. Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh has been among those who have questioned the material, saying he found some of the book’s dialogue “odd in the sense that I don’t know people who speak this way.”

Clinton’s team, and Media Matters, have moved to lump all three books — plus a fourth one, by WND writer Aaron Klein, about the Benghazi attacks, due in September — in the same bucket. Media Matters has taken specific issue with key pieces of Halper’s book, including the author’s reporting on speculation that Hillary Clinton’s health scare in December 2012 was a stroke, not a concussion.

“With Klein, Halper and [author Ronald] Kessler, we now have a Hat Trick of despicable actors concocting trashy nonsense for a quick buck, at the expense of anything even remotely resembling the truth,” a joint statement from spokesmen for Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton read. “It’s an insult to readers [and] authors, and should be reserved for the fiction bin, if not the trash.”

There’s nothing wrong with that response. Politicians and their supporters have free rein to criticize the critiques and to present as much of a rebuttal to specific allegations as they deem fit, although it does tend to bog candidates down if done too often. The adage warning politicians about punching down is particularly apt, as Team Obama eventually discovered when they went after Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, not just because it elevates opponents and lends them your own media access, but it eventually creates sympathy for them as well.

On the other hand, we have the Clintons issuing this as a prepared statement:

In a squeeze on mainstream media, the Clintons added of the authors: “Their behavior should neither be allowed nor enabled, and legitimate media outlets who know with every fiber of their being that this is complete crap should know not to get down in the gutter with them and spread their lies. But if anyone isn’t sure, let’s strap all three to a polygraph machine on live TV and let the needle tell the truth.”

Their behavior should not “be allowed“? What authority exists to bar these authors and their publishers (one of which is Regnery, like Hot Air a subsidiary of Salem Communications) from engaging in political speech? A better question: What authority do the Clintons propose to stop political speech?

This isn’t just an academic question or a poke at an off-the-cuff gaffe. Citizens United had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to be allowed to publish criticism of Hillary Clinton in the 2008 election cycle after having run afoul of absurd and unconstitutional campaign-finance regulations. Democrats howled at the Citizens United decision and promised to reverse it with more legislation, even after the Supreme Court pointed out that one outcome of the law could be to ban books like those from both Kleins, Harper, and Kessler. Barack Obama scolded the court during a State of the Union address for protecting free political speech.

Perhaps we should strap the Clintons to a polygraph machine and ask what they have in mind from their prepared statement that demands that authors not be allowed to write political books about public figures. It might be rather enlightening.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

“Suppress the Counter-revolutionary Kulaks and Industrial Wreckers!”

Must be hell for the Clintons, being so perfectly clean and honest & all, while elements of the proletariat dare question their perfection.

orangemtl on July 31, 2014 at 5:25 PM

Hillary more than enabled Bill Clinton’s personal war on women. For a time in the White House she was in charge of investigating and harassing the women who said they were abused by her husband. She knew the women were telling the truth. The same way she knew the truth when on the Today Show she blamed the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy for the rumors about Monica Lewinsky.

Christopher Hitchens, who was a hard leftist on everything except the Iraq war, concluded that Bill Clinton was guilty of raping Juanita Broaddrick.

A chapter in Hitchens’ book NO ONE LEFT TO LIE TO is titled IS THERE A RAPIST IN THE OVAL OFFICE?

Hitchens concludes the chapter this way:

“What are the chances that three socially and personally respectable women, all three of them political supporters of Mr. Clinton and none of them known to each other, would confect or invent almost identical experience which they did not desire to make public. And how possible would it be for a network of anti-Clinton rumor-mongers to create, let alone ventilate, such a coincidence? The odds that any of these ladies is lying seem to me to approach zero; their reasons for reticence are all perfectly intelligible.”

After covering up for her husband, harassing the women he abused, Hillary is just as guilty as he is.

hepcat on July 31, 2014 at 5:26 PM

I guess we know where she stands on the Democrats push to repeal the 1st Amendment. I know, it’s only 46 Senators, and it takes more than that. But this is only the beginning of their effort.

Fenris on July 31, 2014 at 5:26 PM

unauthorized bios: “Should neither be allowed nor enabled”

Is she talking about the unauthorized bios of Bill’s sex victims?

faraway on July 31, 2014 at 5:29 PM

Viva la VRWC!

22044 on July 31, 2014 at 5:31 PM

But if anyone isn’t sure, let’s strap all three to a polygraph machine on live TV and let the needle tell the truth.”

Sounds great; let’s get Hillary strapped up on national television while we’re at it, hmm?

Midas on July 31, 2014 at 5:31 PM

This is why there is a First Amendment. I’m beginning to think that as bad as King Barky the Liar is, Hillary might just be worse.

jukin3 on July 31, 2014 at 5:32 PM

Should we be surprised?

The left still hyperventilates over Citizens v United as destroying democracy – which is a case were SCOTUS decided that you can indeed exercise your first amendment rights and make a movie about the Clintons during an election.

gwelf on July 31, 2014 at 5:33 PM

Didn’t she lose her faith in polygraphs when she got the child rapist off charges?

hazchic on July 31, 2014 at 5:33 PM

But if anyone isn’t sure, let’s strap all three to a polygraph machine on live TV and let the needle tell the truth.”

Sounds great; let’s get Hillary strapped up on national television while we’re at it, hmm?

Midas on July 31, 2014 at 5:31 PM

Except that lie detectors are quackery (there’s a reason they can’t be used in court). They’re just an intimidation tool. Hillary would probably pass and that would be used as evidence of her righteousness.

Fenris on July 31, 2014 at 5:35 PM

But if anyone isn’t sure, let’s strap all three to a polygraph machine on live TV and let the needle tell the truth.”

That’s a great idea.

But first lets to it to Hillary and ask her a whole host of questions, from cattle futures to Benghazi.

Another authoritarian streak. Both Clintons can appear before Congress and plead “I don’t recall” and “at this point what difference does it make” but when the serfs get uppity it’s time to strap them to truth telling machines.

gwelf on July 31, 2014 at 5:35 PM

NYT editors sense something about “not be allowed”…..but can’t quite put their finger on it……

“Ah…..its probably nothing. Now, where’s that latest Palin story?”

BobMbx on July 31, 2014 at 5:37 PM

Didn’t she lose her faith in polygraphs when she got the child rapist off charges?

hazchic on July 31, 2014 at 5:33 PM

Thread winner.

gwelf on July 31, 2014 at 5:37 PM

Hillary would probably pass and that would be used as evidence of her righteousness.

Fenris on July 31, 2014 at 5:35 PM

Since the Clintons are pathological liars, yes, she would pass. She’d even score perfect on a test of “what happened in Tuzla”, while watching a video loop of that very moment.

BobMbx on July 31, 2014 at 5:39 PM

OK Hillary, if the authors need to be polygraphed, then you and Bill and Obama can also be polygraphed if you want to refute any points in the books. Sound good?

kooly on July 31, 2014 at 5:43 PM

“Their behavior should neither be allowed nor enabled, and legitimate media outlets who know with every fiber of their being that this is complete crap should know not to get down in the gutter with them and spread their lies. But if anyone isn’t sure, let’s strap all three to a polygraph machine on live TV and let the needle tell the truth.”

For starters as everyone knows, Hillary has zero faith in Polygraphs. An extremely poor turn of phrase for her which possibly might come back and haunt her if she decides to run in 2016.

Secondly, this upcoming book must be a doozy!

Johnnyreb on July 31, 2014 at 5:45 PM

“…we now have a Hat Trick of despicable actors concocting trashy nonsense for a quick buck, at the expense of anything even remotely resembling the truth,” a joint statement from spokesmen for Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton read. “It’s an insult to readers [and] authors, and should be reserved for the fiction bin, if not the trash.”

now that right there was some definite bull shit. Considering the “victims”.

arnold ziffel on July 31, 2014 at 5:49 PM

When you are a sociopath liar like Killary Klinton, you have to control every word said about you lest people learn the truth and your lies no longer sway anyone. Harry Reid and Killary Klinton call conservatives and Tea Party Americans terrorists, what American in their right mind would or even could be anything other than disgusted with Reid and Klinton after watching ISIS in action and seeing what real terrorists are like?

oscarwilde on July 31, 2014 at 5:49 PM

“Perhaps we should strap the Clintons to a polygraph machine and ask…”

Where’s the money…?

State Department Misplaced $6B Under Hillary Clinton

Seven Percent Solution on July 31, 2014 at 5:50 PM

I think Hillary should have a public burning for these horrible horrible books.

katy the mean old lady on July 31, 2014 at 5:54 PM

Their behavior should not “be allowed“?

The troll Trotsky just got a woodie the size of Montana.

CurtZHP on July 31, 2014 at 5:54 PM

It depends on what the definition of a bio is…is.

albill on July 31, 2014 at 5:54 PM

But if anyone isn’t sure, let’s strap all three to a polygraph machine on live TV and let the needle tell the truth.”

Goose. Gander.Popcorn.

CW on July 31, 2014 at 5:55 PM

Unless they were saying nice things about the whore of course. Anything negative about any liberal progressive pig should be strictly outlawed. Only conservatives should ever be plotted against, lied about, investigated, etc.

Isn’t that in the commie DNC platform?

Diluculo on July 31, 2014 at 5:56 PM

She needs to go on every news channel to say that this sort of thing will not be allowed when she is Madam POTUS.

katy the mean old lady on July 31, 2014 at 5:57 PM

“Their behavior should neither be allowed nor enabled,

LOL.

They just can’t stifle their natural fascist impulses, can they?

Bill & Hillary: No one should be allowed to write about a politician’s life except the politician. The only book about Hitler that anybody should be allowed to read is Mein Kampf!

AZCoyote on July 31, 2014 at 5:58 PM

Perhaps a public reading? She could highlight the false points?

katy the mean old lady on July 31, 2014 at 5:59 PM

I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”

aquaviva on July 31, 2014 at 6:00 PM

Hillary has declared herself an “America Progressive” in the manner, one supposes of Woodrow Wilson, who was also no fan of free speech.

Scratch a progressive, find a fascist. And I am not engaging in hyperbole.

rbj on July 31, 2014 at 6:03 PM

And don’t miss the implied threat to media outlets. Give any credence to these authors and feel the wrath of Clinton Inc.

rbj on July 31, 2014 at 6:05 PM

Unfortunately, Hillary is odds on favorite to be the next president; she is still way ahead in the polls after many missteps, and a horrible term as secretary of state.

We need to get super unified behind whomever wins the nomination or she is a sure winner. That means the most liberal Republican, such as Mike Castle or the most hard line conservative, Ted Cruz, et al.

cimbri on July 31, 2014 at 6:08 PM

I think Hillary should have a public burning for these horrible horrible books.

katy the mean old lady on July 31, 2014 at 5:54 PM

She knows she doesn’t have to do that. Her media lapdogs will sufficiently squelch them. Meanwhile I was surprised that the late Joe McGinniss didn’t win a Pulitzer a few years back.

ddrintn on July 31, 2014 at 6:10 PM

Unfortunately, Hillary is odds on favorite to be the next president; she is still way ahead in the polls after many missteps, and a horrible term as secretary of state.

We need to get super unified behind whomever wins the nomination or she is a sure winner. That means the most liberal Republican, such as Mike Castle or the most hard line conservative, Ted Cruz, et al.

cimbri on July 31, 2014 at 6:08 PM

Thanks, Moby D!ick.

katy the mean old lady on July 31, 2014 at 6:10 PM

…let’s strap all three to a polygraph machine on live TV and let the needle tell the truth.”

The Clintons or anyone associated with them would be wise to never talk about strapping people to a polygraph machine on live TV looking for lies.

RJL on July 31, 2014 at 6:13 PM

Bill must be sweating this.It could hurt his chances of being president again.

docflash on July 31, 2014 at 6:14 PM

strap Cankles to the lie detector and see what happens when we ask about $1000 cattle investments, Benghazi, and open marriages…

burserker on July 31, 2014 at 6:15 PM

These clowns actually believe they are royalty. Hildebeast screwed up her chance in 2008 and she will never be POTUS. Nobody cares anymore.

Southernblogger on July 31, 2014 at 6:16 PM

Sounds great; let’s get Hillary strapped up on national television while we’re at it, hmm?

Midas on July 31, 2014 at 5:31 PM

Don’t tease me!

- Mrs. Anthony Weiner

pain train on July 31, 2014 at 6:20 PM

This is why there is a First Amendment. I’m beginning to think that as bad as King Barky the Liar is, Hillary might just be worse.

jukin3 on July 31, 2014 at 5:32 PM

It’s kinda like a choice between Stalin and Mao as to whom’s worse.

non-nonpartisan on July 31, 2014 at 6:25 PM

pain train on July 31, 2014 at 6:20 PM

This is prime evidence of why no one should be cruising the internet while eating. This one in particular gives a double whammy.

1. Its funny as hell and initiates the choking event
2. 1.8 seconds after you start choking, the suggested image, in full color, enters your head.

Then you realize that may be the last thing you see before choking to death.

BobMbx on July 31, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Willie benefited from the same kind of media saving his flabby ass as the Choom Gang.

Now it’s just getting harder to keep all the sludge under wraps.

Bill must be sweating this.It could hurt his chances of being president again.

docflash on July 31, 2014 at 6:14 PM

Doubtless, he always saw himself as the cornpone JFK.

formwiz on July 31, 2014 at 6:27 PM

Scratch a progressive, find a fascist.

Hey Killary, so we have no right to debate and disagree with this administration (which you were part of)?

Expiration dates.

ConstantineXI on July 31, 2014 at 6:33 PM

Clintons on unauthorized bios: “Should neither be allowed nor enabled”
posted at 5:21 pm on July 31, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Déjà vu…

Thugs for life: Dems threaten ABC’s broadcast license over “Path to 9/11″ Update: Stolen Honor redux?
posted at 8:42 pm on September 7, 2006 by Allahpundit

Audio: Are the Clintons suppressing Path to 9-11′s DVD release?
posted at 2:15 pm on September 5, 2007 by Bryan

Shareholder to Disney: Sell me the rights to “Path to 9/11″ so I can put it on DVD
posted at 4:30 pm on March 22, 2008 by Allahpundit

ITguy on July 31, 2014 at 6:33 PM

ITguy on July 31, 2014 at 6:33 PM

Once upon a time Hot Air didn’t pull their punches… Sigh… good times, good times…

oscarwilde on July 31, 2014 at 6:37 PM

This is why there is a First Amendment. I’m beginning to think that as bad as King Barky the Liar is, Hillary might just be worse.

jukin3 on July 31, 2014 at 5:32 PM

Obama is motivated a bit more by Marxist thought than the Clintons, which makes him more dangerous in some ways, but the Clintons are greedy SOBs and have important connections that Obama doesn’t. Bill wasn’t as bad as Obama, but Hillary will have a more powerful executive position thanks to Obama’s actions and the fact that no one stood up to him.

DisneyFan on July 31, 2014 at 6:38 PM

“The Path to 9/11″: The scene the Clintons didn’t want you to see

As shown on Hannity… After the clip, writer Cyrus Nowrasteh speaks about a CIA agent who was in the field and says the movie was accurate. This agent says 13 opportunities to “get” Osama bin Laden were passed.

What the Clintons are trying to do now, in terms of censorship, is what they pretty successfully did already in censoring “The Path to 9/11″. Please watch this:

Blocking the Path to 9/11″

ITguy on July 31, 2014 at 6:45 PM

This is why there is a First Amendment. I’m beginning to think that as bad as King Barky the Liar is, Hillary might just be worse.

jukin3 on July 31, 2014 at 5:32 PM

what has obama done that h clinton wasn’t trying to do during her terms as potus in the 90′s?

dmacleo on July 31, 2014 at 6:59 PM

Unfortunately, Hillary is odds on favorite to be the next president; she is still way ahead in the polls after many missteps, and a horrible term as secretary of state.

We need to get super unified behind whomever wins the nomination or she is a sure winner. That means the most liberal Republican, such as Mike Castle or the most hard line conservative, Ted Cruz, et al.

cimbri on July 31, 2014 at 6:08 PM

Wasn’t she the odd on favorite in 2008?

whbates on July 31, 2014 at 7:09 PM

Back in Hillary’s early Senate days, she and Feinstein were seriously discussing limits on the First Amendment because they disdained alternative media, talk radio in particular.

onlineanalyst on July 31, 2014 at 7:20 PM

who know with every fiber of their being

Who talks like this? Seriously.

Patriot Vet on July 31, 2014 at 7:23 PM

Wasn’t she the odd on favorite in 2008?

whbates on July 31, 2014 at 7:09 PM

She did get the most votes, so it’s not like she got destroyed.

cimbri on July 31, 2014 at 7:26 PM

Wasn’t she the odd on favorite in 2008?

whbates on July 31, 2014 at 7:09 PM

.
She did get the most votes, so it’s not like she got destroyed.

cimbri on July 31, 2014 at 7:26 PM

.
That primary was stolen from her by the Super Delegates.

listens2glenn on July 31, 2014 at 9:09 PM