Klein's a liberal. He's not saying anything against her that would insult a fellow liberal. Think of it this way - let's say some conservative wrote a book about Bush and said he was a gun owner. And a liberal commented that allegations of gun ownership should be off the table because there were more fitting ways to take the man down. What the liberal wouldn't know is that gun ownership isn't a big "no no" among conservatives. And being a lesbian isn't a problem among liberals. Klein brings it up more as a way to explain the roots of her philosophical underpinnings. He doesn't imply that she has sex with other women - how would he know - but that radical lesbian thinking is part of who she is...
My point isn't that Klein should be restricted from this area of discussion. As I stated, he is free to alledge as he wishes. I consider this a battle between the Clintons & Klein.
I am stating I do not wish the GOP involved in that aspect. It is a road that will lead to backlash.
A Liberal can survive. A Conservative cannot.
Exactly right. That's precisely what he's saying. Therefore the negative reviews which dwell on this feature of the book are missing this big point which you, GOPJ, have now brilliantly revealed.
Klein isn't trying at all to be prurient or salacious (although it automatically has that effect, regardless of his intentions). He is illustrating her "radical lesbian thinking" which "is part of who she is." ....and by inference, this kind of thinking pattern is NOT what any serious American patriot would want in "the first female President of the United States!"
Frankly, after having studied Janice Rogers Brown much more deeply, I'm for a President Brown!
Thanks for such great comments!
Char :)