Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is hillary clinton's $8M "book advance" a Peter-Principle artifact?
National Review, The New York Times, The Actuarial Review | 11-20-01 | Mia T

Posted on 11/20/2001 11:00:10 AM PST by Mia T

Is hillary clinton's $8M "book advance" a Peter-Principle artifact?

For anyone who has wondered why Simon & Schuster would award an $8M "Book Advance" for the memoirs of someone whose prevarication and/or amnesia are exceeded only by her banality, I offer the following analysis:

Proposition: hillary clinton's interregnal $8M "book advance" is a Peter-Principle artifact.
Knowledge is Power.
Time is Money.
Work/Time = Power


Knowledge = Power -->
Knowledge = Work/Time -->
Knowledge = Work/Money -->
lim (Knowledge) as Money approaches infinity = 0 -->
The less you know, the more you make. -->
hillary clinton's interregnal $8M "book advance" is a Peter-Principle artifact.
ex libris
by Mia T
The teeth-gnashing on Monday when the news was out about Clinton's advance was mostly by people who
a) didn't think Clinton should monetize the kind of thing that made him infamous, and
b) felt it was yet one more affront on the public that the price was probably right.
That last isn't a learned exploration of the economics of publishing, it's just a hunch. Publishing economics -- unlike what it is that brings the public to buy a book -- is not inscrutable. The author's royalty is 15 percent.
If Clinton's book sells for $30, he makes $4.50 from every sale. Times
a thousand, that's $4,500. Times 100,000, that's $450,000. Say a
half-million, to round things up a bit. So he'd have to sell 24 x
100,000 to earn the advance. Well, that's not going to happen, but
great chunks can be got from foreign sales, magazines, book clubs,
paperback editions.
Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. is stretching it, but they're rich, rich Germans
own it, and a sister publisher already paid $8 million for Hillary -- why
not a little competition at the bookstore?
The extra-economic resentment has to do with a wobbly extension of the federal rule that you are not allowed to profit from a crime.

Wrong Way Corrigan Rides Again:

Adding up the Clinton book deal

William F. Buckley

National Review



So why did the Simon & Schuster gang shell out $20-plus million to two crooks whose prevarication and/or amnesia are exceeded only by their banality?

These "book advances" can be no less than payoffs, retroactive in one case, preemptive in the other. (As for the Gingrich precedent: That hillary clinton was 16 days short of taking office when the deal was consummated is quite irrelevant. Simon & Schuster is to CBS as Murdoch is to FOX.)
Because the deals give each clinton the largest advance ever for an elected official, because they are very large payments from a corporate favor-seeker--indeed, the SAME corporate favor-seeker, because the clintons demanded the $20-plus million up front, because the deal was negotiated by a First -- uh -- Lady in the White House, because in both cases it is the selling of the corrupting of the presidency, the clinton "book deals" fail the smell test not to mention the "usual and customary" test, a key phrase in Rule 36 of the Senate Ethics Manual that refers to publishing profits. The clinton "book deals" are sui generis; they are not "usual and customary."
1- A less wobbly extension of the federal rule that you are not allowed to profit from a crime: the clintons' profits belong to the clintons' victims -- us. Invoke that extension of the federal rule.
2- Boycott anything connected to the clintons or the Simon & Schuster group.
3- Remain alert to instances of future conflicts of interest that signal a quid pro quo. hillary clinton, for example, must recuse herself whenever a Simon & Schuster et al. matter comes before the Senate.

February 17, 2001
Senator Clinton's Book Deal
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is understandably pleased by the approval
she received on Wednesday from the Senate Ethics Committee for her $8
million deal to sell her memoirs. In finding that the transaction
passes muster under the Senate's rules governing book deals, the
committee essentially supported Mrs. Clinton's contention that both her
auction of the book to the highest bidder and the terms governing her
advance payments conformed to "usual and customary" publishing practice,
the Senate's standard for assessing members' book agreements.
According to a statement issued by her lawyer, Robert Barnett, Mrs.
Clinton has already received one-third of the $8 million advance. Under
the terms of the contract, the remaining payments will be spread out
over the next several years, presumably timed to coincide with various
milestones toward the manuscript's completion. Regrettably, Mrs.
Clinton still declines to reveal the full details of her contract or to
release her submission to the committee.
The positive finding by the Ethics Committee amounts to an assessment
that Mrs. Clinton's contract deal with Simon & Schuster, a publishing
company owned by the media giant Viacom, conforms to Senate rules. It
does not solve the underlying problem with the deal -- that it is utterly
inappropriate for a senator to enter into a multimillion-dollar business
transaction with a conglomerate that has a slew of issues coming before
Congress. If Mrs. Clinton were a member of the House her deal would be
prohibited. We continue to hope that the Senate will adopt the House
policy of restricting members' payments to royalties on books actually


The Times Reaps What It Sowed

December 22, 2000
The New York Times

Mrs. Clinton's Book Deal


Mrs. Clinton's Book Deal

We are sorry to see Hillary Rodham Clinton start her Senate career by selling a memoir of her years as first lady to Simon & Schuster for a near- record advance of about $8 million. The deal may conceivably conform to the lax Senate rules on book sales, though even that is uncertain. But it would unquestionably violate the tougher, and better, House rules, and it is an affront to common sense. No lawmaker should accept a large, unearned sum from a publisher whose parent company, Viacom, is vitally interested in government policy on issues likely to come before Congress ó for example, copyright or broadcasting legislation.

Mrs. Clinton's staggering advance falls just below the $8.5 million received by Pope John Paul II in 1994. We wish as a matter of judgment that she had not sought an advance but had voluntarily limited her payments to royalties on actual book sales, as the House now requires of its members. That way there would be no worry that she had been given special treatment in an effort to curry political favor.

The Senate will judge Mrs. Clinton's deal in the context of outmoded rules that, regrettably, still permit members to accept advance payments for their books provided they fall within "usual and customary" industry patterns. Mrs. Clinton held an open auction for her book, so the $8 million advance emerged from a process that presumably represented the industry's consensus about what the book would be worth. But Mrs. Clinton has a duty to reveal the entire contents of her contract so that the public and members of the Senate Ethics Committee can judge for themselves whether its terms fulfill her pledge to comply with existing Senate rules, inadequate though they are.

As it is, Mrs. Clinton will enter the Senate as a business associate of a major company that has dealings before many regulatory agencies and interests in Congress. It would have been far better if she had avoided this entanglement. As she above all others should know, not every deal that is legally permissible is smart for a politician who wants and needs to inspire public trust.

Only a few years ago Newt Gingrich, at that time the House speaker, accepted an ethically dubious $4.5 million book deal with a publishing house owned by Rupert Murdoch, an aggressively political publisher seeking help with his problems with federal regulators. This was the issue that ultimately forced Mr. Gingrich to abandon his advance, and led the House to ban all advance payments for members' books.

That is the right approach, and it would be nice if Republican critics of Mrs. Clinton's deal now devoted real energy to persuading the Senate to adopt the House rules for the future. Both bodies need maximum protection against entangling alliances between lawmakers and government favor- seekers now that nearly all major publishing houses are owned by large corporations with a lot of business before Congress.

RE: Newt Gingrich's $4.5 million book deal:
JAMES CARVILLE: This is the first guy who tried to cash in before he was
sworn in.
BILL CLINTON: [I don't] even know how to think in these terms.
REP DAVID BONIER: This is an arrogant act for a man who's about to
assume one of the most powerful positions and offices in our land.
Before he gets to the public business, he's taking care of his own
private profits.
REP CARRIE MEEK: Exactly who does this speaker really work for? Is it
the American people or his New York publishing house?
REP CHARLES RANGEL: Why doesn't Newt end this by giving the $4.5 million
to Boys Town?
HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE: The committee strongly questions the
appropriateness of what some would describe as an attempt by you to
capitalize on your office.)
posted by Alex Mulkern
Corporate Favor-Seeker, Simon & Schuster awards $8M "Book Advance" to Failed "Author"/Senator-elect hillary clinton


Book Trouble
Newsweek, November 22, 1999

Hillary Clinton's latest book, on entertaining at the White House, is receiving withering scrutiny before it makes it to press. First the manuscript went into rewrite after aides judged it too airy for a senatorial candidate. "You don't want to look like Martha Stewart," says a publishing source. Now White House lawyers may derail a book tour, since it could be construed as campaigning. (Her tour for a picture book about First Pets Socks and Buddy was scotched by the Monica mess, and the book flopped.) Her next tome: a mini-memoir that'll serve as a campaign bio.



by Mia T
Hillary Clinton's equal and inapposite reactions seem to be, at first blush, instances of the immutable First Law of The Betrayed and Humiliated Wife: Outdo the errant hubby's all cost.
Thus, Vanity Fair's glamorous Marilyn-Monroe spread of Monica's digitally reduced spread was answered by Vogue's lushly Elizabethan, gauzy-focus, hindquarter-cropped-pleated-and-flounced, Queen-Hillary-for-President cover.
And now we have Hillary Clinton doing a Martha Stewart, who herself, is purported to have been "done" by the aforementioned errant rogue (notwithstanding the plain fact that Martha is more well-known for her tarts than for being one).
Seems Hillary Clinton is now writing a book titled "An Invitation to the White House" in which she will follow the format of the Martha Stewart classic, "Entertaining", claim multifarious Martha-Stewart talents and wrap her indecorous and corrupt, backwoods, backroom style of White House "entertaining" in Martha-Stewart elegance and purity.
"The Clinton White House has been noted for the...innovation of its events," said Carolyn Reidy, president of Simon & Schuster's Trade Division, the book's publisher.
Hillary Clinton's spokeswoman, Marsha Berry, added that the book will focus on how the Clintons have "advanced the availability" of the White House by increasing the number and diversity of people; that it will "highlight the access that the Clintons have given to more people, more types of entertainment..."
It should be emphasized that it was without even a trace of irony or the slightest smirk that both women related the above.
On closer inspection, Hillary Clinton's bizarre behavior is more than simple Ivana Trump-eting. It is vulgar, compulsive, shameless, smarmy, contemptuous, demagogic, megalomaniacal, in-your-face naked clintonism.
It is one thing for the frumpy, chipmunk-cheek, huge-hindquarter fishwife to insinuate her image -- albeit Elizabethan-shrouded and low-res-clouded -- onto the cover of Vogue; but it is quite another for the corrupt harpy to trumpet White House access even as new charges emerge of the clintons' rapes and other predations, the clintons' corrupt quid-pro-quo arrangements with a menacing and motley assortment of drug dealers, gun runners and nuclear weapons makers.
For Hillary Clinton to vaunt White House access just as the clintons' China treason is becoming increasingly, patently manifest to all requires a certain level of contempt for the people and for the country that is uniquely clinton.
Thank heaven for small favors...
Or as the real Martha Stewart would say,

"That is a good thing."


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Extended News
KEYWORDS: clintonscandals; hillary

1 posted on 11/20/2001 11:00:10 AM PST by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mia T
What can I say but WOW!
2 posted on 11/20/2001 11:13:15 AM PST by Aria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
To Mia T,The Clinton book-deals are farcical.What will they write about?Neither of them could remember what they had for breakfast when they were under oath!As for increasing the "availability" of The White House,this contention is beyond question!!Since when was The People's House visited by felons,drug-smugglers,Chi-Com arms dealers!!!Yes, I would say that "Bonnie and Clyde"did indeed "increase the availability of The White House"!!!!
3 posted on 11/20/2001 11:15:16 AM PST by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
The book advance generated much more than $8M worth of publicity for Simon & Schuster who now doesn't care one whit whether Hilary writes even one word.
4 posted on 11/20/2001 11:17:02 AM PST by VA Voter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Knowledge = Work/Money -->
lim (Knowledge) as Money approaches infinity = 0

It's been a while since I've used that kind of math. Thanks for the refresher!

5 posted on 11/20/2001 11:22:53 AM PST by GenXFreedomFighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Newt Gingrich wrote a book, and the democrat "ethics" gurus made him give all the procedes to charity.
But, one set of rules for the Marxist elete , and one set of rules for the politically incorrect tax slaves.
BTW, the clintons books always show up in the $1 stores. I don't really think anyone buys them. The "book advances" are just up front dirty campaign contributions, and the American sheeple fall for the lie every time.
6 posted on 11/20/2001 12:37:08 PM PST by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VA Voter
This was merely a payoff from a bunch of hard core left wing liberals . They knew damned well they would never recoup their initial investment...and they don't care, either.
7 posted on 11/20/2001 12:44:30 PM PST by 1 FELLOW FREEPER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
PS...Simon and Shuster....Hmmmm......any forign connections with this company we may want to be concerned about? Someone trying to buy a senator??
8 posted on 11/20/2001 12:44:47 PM PST by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
I don't know about Hillary, but her husband's only principle centers around his Peter.
9 posted on 11/20/2001 1:03:19 PM PST by TrappedInLiberalHell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
-clintonism in one easy lesson--

The Holiday *Best* of Bill Clinton & his Friends!

10 posted on 11/20/2001 1:47:15 PM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
Double-entendre noted and referenced below:



"'Al has a way of looking at you like his eyes are kind of burning,' said Nashville Tennessean reporter John Warnecke.You would get that when you mentioned his dad'.

Asked in a 1987 interview about relations between father and son, Tipper Gore said:'You remember Oedipus? She quickly added that she was kidding, sort of. 'You had a very powerful father - a hero to many people - and a son coming to maturity and learning to find his own dignity.'"

Inventing Al Gore by Bill Turque, p. 30




Mr. Clinton's penis was circumcised and seemed to me to be rather short and thin. I would describe its appearance as seeming to be five to five and one-half inches or less, in length and having a circumference of the approximate size of a quarter, or perhaps very slightly larger.The shaft of the penis was bent or "crooked" from Mr. Clinton's right to left, or from an observer's left to right if the observer is facing Mr. Clinton. In other words, the base of Mr. Clinton's penis, to an observer facing Mr. Clinton, would be further to the left of the observer than the head of the penis."

-------Paula Jones, deposition, Jones v. clinton


Robert Bennett swore to the press that physicians examined the Rapist and did not find any abnormality. FYI: Peyronie's disease is due to scar tissue of the shaft. It shows up when the vascular tissue expands but the scar tissue doesn't. Since physicians during a physical examine a non erect penis, unless the patient brought it up to the physician, it might be missed on a normal physical examination.
Therefore Bennett's claim is a "clintonesque" truth.

-- LadyDoc, Jeffery Toobin's 'Vast Conspiracy' document on-line now


...Now, as regards the wretched Cheapside brat,
And turmoil his concupiscence begat,
Methinks MacJeff's crook'd feelpolitik, the lasix death, his solipsistic sex
Thou must put in cold blood'd cardiovascular context.
The brain deviseth laws for the blood,
but the brain 'tself is ne'er understood.
The King's crook'dness flows from limp circulation.
Methinks the solution is swift amputation.
Thou place thy versifier in a quandary,
Redoubling thy most sharp-edged entendre.
The gist of they intent can I but gape on.
Dost thou propose the prez be made a capon?
In blood caught up these wretches play their role,
But this must not become Le Grand Guignol.
Lest those of delicate mien be made to faint,
'Twere better I should exercise restraint.
Mind you, Act I, scene 4 drips the odd bit of gore here and there.
Thy bard's excessive predilection metaphorical
confuseth redoubled sharp-edged entendre with one blunt oracle.
Forsooth, thy bard surely knowth,
Phallus on eunuch can't growth.
Plucking capon from hen's an impossibility,
Unless the cluck's hermaphroditic Hillary.
from On Neutered and Neutering


On Crookedness: Peyronie's Disease and the Rapist
The evaluation of the treatments for Peyronie's disease is difficult; the natural history is such that the plaque may resolve spontaneously. As recently as 1973, no treatment had been evaluated in a controlled clinical study.
Francois de LaPeyronie (1678-1747) notwithstanding, the origin of the eponym is vague and the disease remains an enigma. To this day, the treatment can be difficult. It is not surprising that so many treatments have been tried and so much dogma written.
Indeed, in 1903, William Johnson Walsham, the famous surgeon from St Bartholomew's Hospital in London, and author of the standard surgical text book of the day, wrote; "... if treatment of the plaque with iodides is unsuccessful ... or if the induration progresses ... then the whole penis must be promptly amputated." Would that Dr. Walsham had treated the Rapist.
The Rapist may have had penile surgery, nonetheless. To excise the inculpatory evidence in Jones v. clinton.
•Peyronie's disease occurs most frequently in middle-aged men, less frequently in older men and infrequently in younger men who have more elastic tissues.
•The acquired penile curvature of Peyronie's disease can result from certain sexual practices.
•Correction of congenital penile curvature -- or acquired penile curvature secondary to Peyronie's disease -- can be accomplished through a number of simple surgical techniques and medical treatments.
•Correction is difficult to detect but it is possible when done by an expert who is specifically looking for it.
•When the surgery is performed, the urologist's standard recommendation is that the patient USE CRUTCHES AND LATER A CANE to avoid irritating the area.
So the question hanging out there is this:
Was the Rapist the first U.S. President in history to obstruct justice by penile surgery?
The Rapist clearly knew that Jones v. clinton was on the docket.
Being the most brilliant president ever, the Rapist must have figured out that his crookedness would do him in.
Doubtless, the documented serial shredder and reflexive obstructor of justice would have thought nothing of a little evidentiary nip here and tuck there.
But how to explain the time out for the surgery and the post-op crutches?
Eureka! (Or I should say "Fore!"?) A knee injury--actual or feigned--would certainly turn the trick.

NOTE: I would normally favor the former option--a real knee injury, as it would require one less doctor to be in on the felony obstruction (i.e., the urologist and not the orthopedic surgeon); but in this case we are dealing with a quintessential coward (one who is especially cowardly about things physical notwithstanding the rapes), so I will have to go with the latter option, a feigned bum knee... Unless...unless the penile surgery was done "in-house" on an "outpatient" basis, i.e.,unless the penile surgery in fact preceded "the accident," and the urologist was instructed to give the Rapist's knee the requisite whack whilst the coward was anesthetized and would feel no pain.

Cowardly Rapist in Africa
Either scenario--real or feigned injury--is consistent with the Rapist's convenient "accident" at the estate of pro golfer, Greg Norman where, you may recall, the Rapist injured his "knee," required emergency surgery on said "knee" and used crutches and then a cane for an extended period post-op.
The happy couple:
"Mission Accomplished"
Hauling First Rapist
onto Air Force One
Lame FDR Impression


11 posted on 11/20/2001 1:55:10 PM PST by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Simon & Schuster bought themselves a New York senator. They could care less whether the book is ever written. Hillary has them in her pocket because of VIACOM. $8 Million is cheap for a New York lawyer and senator.
12 posted on 11/22/2001 2:24:57 AM PST by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: yoe
klintoon klepto-bribery BUMP!
Sen. Clinton made another assertion - one that is equally misleading.

She contends she was not obliged to report the first Leiber bag she received "because it was received before the Clintons entered the White House."

But this bag, valued at $3,500, was received after the election and during the transition and therefore obviously was related to the Clinton presidency.



But he said the Socks purse was given to Clinton during the transition in late 1992, before her husband took office...

TRANSLATION: An earlier example of the clinton post-election/pre-swearing-in klepto-bribery scheme...





Chair Lift
Among the gifts that former president Bill Clinton says he is keeping as
personal presents he accepted last year are $28,000 worth of furnishings
that documents and interviews indicate were given to the National Park
Service in 1993 as part of the permanent White House collection...
Two of the furniture makers whose donations Clinton took with him on
leaving the White House last month say they gave them to the White House
as part of a widely publicized, $396,000 redecoration of the executive
mansion and not to Clinton personally.
"When we've been asked to donate, it was always hyphenated with the
words, " 'White House,' " New York manufacturer Steve Mittman said of
his family-owned business, which gave two sofas, an easy chair and an
ottoman, worth $19,900 and listed by Clinton as part of the gifts he
took with him. "To us, it was not a donation to a particular person."

Gifts Were Not Meant for Clintons, Some Donors Say

When I created
the following metaphoric musing
a year before the clintons "moved,"
I never imagined
that she would--
that they would--
in real life--
in real time--
actually swipe the sofa.
Smaller objects
neatly tuck-able
in nuncupative deals &
unnumbered Swiss accounts,
without question--


Jan. 1, 2000
hillary's "interior" design scheme
(an animated how-to)

by Mia T

copyright Mia T 2000

13 posted on 11/22/2001 4:17:43 AM PST by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Mia T, your graphics are marvelous! The whole thread is a gold mine of links into the Clinton history, more aptly put, their legacy. Have book marked it and will refer to it often. It is me humble opinion that our collective memories are the best weapon should those two ever try for the presidency again! And perhaps keep the little ms. from gaining a second term to the senate!

Keep up the good work! Wishing you a Happy Thanksgiving! yoe

14 posted on 11/22/2001 6:58:26 AM PST by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GenXFreedomFighter
"Office Space" dittos!
15 posted on 01/27/2002 5:45:56 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mia T;clintonscandals;Hillary
To find all articles tagged or indexed using Hillary, click below:
  click here >>> Hillary <<< click here  
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)


To find all articles tagged or indexed using clintonscandals, click below:
  click here >>> clintonscandals <<< click here  
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

Hodgepodge O' Hillary

The Holiday *Best* of Bill Clinton & his Friends!

16 posted on 01/27/2002 5:59:12 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson