Sen. Clinton’s ‘Living History’

What’s going on with Hillary Clinton’s forthcoming book, “Living History”? I don’t mean what tell-alls, tattles and tittles it might contain – those will be analyzed and deconstructed to a fare-thee-well. Rather, what’s really going on with the criticism – most of it coming from the right-wing – about this book? I’d like to take a moment to analyze and deconstruct some of that.

First we hear the right-wing whining that Hillary Clinton’s book is ghostwritten – that she didn’t write every single word, do the spell-check herself and personally make certain that the punctuation was in line with the “Chicago Manual of Style.”

Well, duh! For those shocked – shocked, that a politician, movie star or sports idol used ghostwriting assistance in preparing their memoirs – here’s another newsflash: Lee Surrenders to Grant at Appomattox! Do you know the title of the last book that was actually written from start to finish by a TFP (Truly Famous Person) author? It was probably John Milton’s poem, “Paradise Lost,” and that was published in 1667.

So what’s really going on here?

It’s simple – the right-wing is using the issue of ghostwriting in order to question Sen. Clinton’s sincerity. And they’re doing it so they can keep writing about a few ghosts of their own, namely, the ghosts of Whitewater, Travelgate and Monica Lewinsky. And the reason they’re doing that is to attempt to derail any influence Sen. Clinton might have on the presidential election of ’04 and perhaps even as a candidate in the election of ’08.

Second, we hear the right-wing whine that Hillary’s reaction to her husband’s infidelity wasn’t strong enough, or that she should have done the Republicans’ job for them and divorced him, or that by staying married to Bill Clinton, she only proved how calculating and bloodless she was. Early reviews have inexplicably focused on her account of the Lewinsky affair – who-knew-what-when-where-why-how-time-of-day-who-was-in-the-room-and-who-was-in-the-next-room-wearing-what-cologne type questions.

Newsflash: 99.9 percent of the Lewinsky saga is already known. So why are right-wing critics spending 99.9 percent of their time focused on the .01 percent of the Lewinsky story that might not be known?

The reason is to keep that deeply embarrassing story alive and a thorn in the side of Sen. Clinton. Why? Professional pollsters will say that it will contribute to her negatives. But I can be more specific than this. By demeaning Sen. Clinton as a woman in her role as a wife and mother, Republicans are cleverly seeking to drive a wedge between her, the foremost woman of the Democratic Party, and American women, a constituency with whom Republicans have fallen short for years.

The Republican gambit here is actually a simple one – attempt to re-spin Hillary Clinton so that women around the country look at her and say, “Oh, how could she (check one): 1. stay married to that guy?; 2. work while trying to raise a family?; 3. even dream of having her own life?

The truth is that these tactics will probably backfire on the conservatives using them. American women aren’t going to follow their script because these same women no longer live as the script demands. Questioning how Hillary – or any woman – deals with the pain of infidelity, the juggling of job, husband and children, the frustration of trying to even keep a family where both spouses work, is one of the major social issues of modern American life. By suggesting that there is one answer – Hillary should have divorced Bill, or should have gone public with her complaints, or should have given up her own political convictions for other choices – the right-wing not only demeans women, but, I would guess, demeans many right-wing women.

If some of Hillary’s critics would introspect just a bit, I’m willing to bet that they would find plenty of good Republican, Christian, neo-conservative and paleo-conservative families where moms have made precisely the same difficult and sometimes cruel choices as Hillary Clinton.

I haven’t read the book because it hasn’t been released yet. But the pre-publication hysteria whipped up by the right-wing reminds me that, as wrong as it is to judge a book by its cover, it’s even worse to review it without having read it.

I think conservatives need to consider that judging the senator’s book without having read the book and understanding the context of the story the senator is telling is just another swing at Hilary Clinton – the same swing that propelled her into the Senate.