What's wrong with "polemic?"
Wasn't Peggy Noonan's little book on hillary a polemic?
And since when must a book be a magnum opus--or even well written--to contribute to the political discourse?
Noonan's reasoning is circular. She criticizes Klein for inoculating the clintons against 'legitimate' criticism by describing their outrageous and abnormal acts even as she concedes that the clintons have a natural immunity to exposure because they (and their acts) are inherently outrageous and abnormal.
Noonan's criticisms and criteria--many valid under ordinary circumstances--are rendered moot by the book's famously rabid, vengeful subject. For example, seeking sources who are willing to go on the record about missus clinton is an exercise in futility....
According to Ed Klein, not bill clinton. That Klein accuses bill of raping hillary is all clinton spin meant to discredit Klein. An excellent ploy, so it seems... See My review of "THE TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY" on Amazon.com: Notwithstanding the above, your question's converse is hanging out there begging to be asked: "Seriously, who in conversation would say to someone, 'I'm going home to rape my wife!' and mean it in a joking manner?" The clinton mindset, clinton proclivities, clinton dysfunction are revealed by clinton's own words. Short of catching the clintons in the act of rape, how much better can one do? Ironically, the Klein book also does that, i.e., catches them in the act of rape, (if only by inference).
See
|
Excellent review of Klein's book and Noonan's review, as well as commentary about Hannity and O'R.