Hil for Prez? Poll says no way

Pres. Hillary and first man Bill?

NO FRICKING WAY!!

My records show she will be 66, not 65, on Election Day in 2012.

/PS/ Saddam Hussein will be 66 this coming March.

You must want to be a Chrysler as much as Kennedy wanted to be a sweet pastry!

In German, one isn't "ein" anything that ends in -er! One just is that thing, no ein.

Oh the delicious irony!
Clinton's self-glorifying book isn't even written and already it's obsolete.

Without criticism, without malicious intent, strictly by comparison, President Bush is defining the Clinton presidency.
Clinton's book might well be titled, "My Shriveling Legacy"

11 posted on 11/13/2002 10:31 AM EST by YaYa123

Q ERTY8 bump!
Do you think the Simon & Schuster gang will demand that the clintons return the $20-plus million???

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 lies are exceeded only by her banality, I offer the following analysis:

Proposition: hillary clinton's interregnal $8M "book advance" is a Peter-Principle artifact.

Given:

Knowledge is Power.

Time is Money.

Work/Time = Power

Proof:

Knowledge = Power -->
Knowledge = Work/Time -->
Knowledge = Work/Money -->
lim (Knowledge) as Money approaches infinity = 0 -->

The less you know, the more you make. -->

Conclusion:
hillary clinton's interregnal $8M "book advance" is a Peter-Principle artifact.

Q.E.D

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

COMMENT:
So why did the Simon & Schuster gang shell out $20-plus million to two self-serving crooks whose lies are exceeded only by their banality?

These "book advances" can be no less than payoffs, retroactive in one case, proactive 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."

SUGGESTIONS:

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.

NYTimes

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

sold.

The Times Reaps What It Sowed

December 22, 2000
The New York Times

Mrs. Clinton's Book Deal

rs. 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

12-18-00
Corporate Favor-Seeker, Simon & Schuster awards $8M "Book Advance" to Failed "Author"/Senator-elect hillary clinton
11-22-99
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.

8-1-99

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 doxy...at 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."

She is as good as her word...

There is a big Rat line-up at their favorite KFC.

She'll do anything to get elected...

My thoughts exactly.

With BillyBlob off bonking Demi, HRC will be free of a big dead weight. Scary!

She'll pony up with her kissing cousin...

While the true believers in American Freedom have the last laugh.

Let's hope so, anyway.

That was two month old sarcasm.

It was intended to be Hillary reciting a few of the mantra's of the democratic party in her own defense.

Sorry you didn't get the joke.

(although that might explain your knowledge of german,... this is another joke)

That's about the most positive report I have seen about the witch running for president. I think it is likely accurate, however, we must never underestimate her willingness and capacity for fraud, particularly in densely populated, RAT infested urban cesspools.

11-22-99 SNIP...You don't want to look like Martha Stewart...OHHH I guess they DID know wayyyy too much about the theif Martha Stewart...

What did Hillary know about Martha Stewart and WHEN????

BTW have you noticed WHO let that witch OFF an investigation? WELL it was Lott and Nickles...JUST proof...that those guys were/are worthless!

Mrs. Clinton's Book Deal