A Perennial Press Opera

From Wikipedia:

Clinton has been criticized for not giving credit to a ghostwriter in connection with It Takes a Village. The majority of the book was reportedly written by ghostwriter Barbara Feinman. When the book was first announced in April 1995, The New York Times reported publisher Simon & Schuster as saying ???The book will actually be written by Barbara Feinman, a journalism professor at Georgetown University in Washington. Ms. Feinman will conduct a series of interviews with Mrs. Clinton, who will help edit the resulting text.???

Feinman spent seven months on the project and was paid $120,000 for her work. Feinman, however, was not mentioned anywhere in the book???.

During her promotional tour for the book, Clinton said, ???I actually wrote the book ??? I had to write my own book because I want to stand by every word.??? Clinton stated that Feinman assisted in interviews and did some editorial drafting of ???connecting paragraphs???, while Clinton herself wrote the final manuscript in longhand.

This led Feinman to complain at the time to Capitol Style magazine over the lack of acknowledgement.[12] In 2001, The Wall Street Journal reported that ???New York literary circles are buzzing with vitriol over Sen. Clinton???s refusal, so far, to share credit with any writer who helps on her book.???

Later, in a 2002 article for The Writer???s Chronicle, Barbara Feinman Todd (now using her married name) related that the project with Clinton had gone smoothly, producing drafts in a round-robin style. Feinman agrees that Clinton was involved with the project, but also states that, ???Like any first lady, Mrs. Clinton had an extremely hectic schedule and writing a book without assistance would have been logistically impossible.???

Feinman reiterates that her only objection to the whole process was the lack of any acknowledgement. A 2005 Georgetown University web page bio for Barbara Feinman Todd states that It Takes a Village was one of ???several high-profile books??? that she has ???assisted, as editor, writer and researcher.???

Obama is a creature built by the media. He is too naive and at the same time a dreamer that want to bring us hope. For how long we are going to keep hoping? We don't need hope what we need is a solution. If you want to continue hoping without result vote for Obama if you real changes and solutions vote for Hillary

This line about Obama being all speeches and no substance is the biggest farce of this campaign. Like I said earlier, 1) she even concedes that their plans are about 95% the same on the issues which would have to mean that 95% of her proposed solutions are also non-existent and 2) she herself hasn't solved anything or accomplished anything in her own Political career. She talks about Obama borrowing her ideas, Obama is the one to introduce the idea of tax incentives for companies who invest in research and development in America and that keep the newly create jobs right here, yet Clinton has recently picked up on this idea. Number one, that shows that Obama really DOES have substance and also, it's an example of her actually borrowing HIS ideas. I've read that Obama and Clinton actually worked on part of their respective Economic plans together in the Senate, so it's highly deceptive of her to come along and claim that he is "borrowing" her ideas.

everybody wants to blame somebody when things are going badly. no way is this the fault of the clintons and their past scandalous behavior. if the clintons were not involved with so many scandals they would not be getting so much negative press. people need to stop crying and complaining of some sort of unfairness. They brought it on themselves!! The media could be a lot worst, they never brought up whitewater, filegate, travelgate, ron brown, ken starr, military being reduced by 500,000, an absent foreign policy, and Rwanda in which 800,000 people were killed in three months. no other candidate has so much negative history, even john mccain who is a political dinosaur has kept a cleaner image. This is why america is in such bad shape, nobody want to take responsibility for their actions.

I am deeply disturbed by those affiliated with the Obama campaign have stated in the press recently. On Face The Nation, Mayor Wilder stated that if Obama does not win, there will rioting in the streets which will make the 1968 Convention and Watts riots look mild in comparison. Is this the man who claims to be bringing the nation together but blackmailing and using fearmongering..... Also, to date, Senator Obama has dished out nearly a million dollars in funds to buy the votes from Superdelegates. So, let me get this straight, if he can't win on his own merits, he's threatening violence or buying the election. After all, we know he can not speak for himself. Unless something was said by someone else, he's impotent.

As for the media, you guys are pathetic. You're supposed to informing the American people. To date, all you have is provided a one sided, biased and flagrant annointing of this "man who walks on water". You should be ashamed of yourselves.

I look forward to the day that it's revealed that your phrophet has developed feet of clay. I only hope it's before he brings this nation to it's knees.

As for Senator Clinton, I aske that she does not give up. Millions of people are supporting her and her campaign.

I'm wondering why very little has been reported by the press about the recent findings of the New York elections. According to a tiny article buried in my local paper, several precincts in New York, many of which were made up of largely black population, recorded not even one vote for Obama. The election committee are apparently examining the electronic voting machines, but the results could take weeks. WEEKS?! I think this is a much bigger deal than trivial accusations of plagiarism.

Another thing, no one is looking at past efforts to control the media through intimidation and manipulation. There was a story about strife in the Clinton campaign back in September that Hillary Clinton got buried by saying that she would cut off all access to Bill Clinton if (I believe) ABC ran the story. It seems pretty hypocritial for her to be complaining about press coverage when she herself doesn't seem to believe in freedom of the press. Maybe that's why there's acrimony towards the Clintons.

I noticed this site has scrubbed clean all posts referring to Obama's drug use and infidelity (allegedly) during his time as State Senator. We're not talking marijuana here, we're talking crack. This needs to be looked into, but probably won't because it doesn't fit with the fictionaly saintly image the media has created for St. Obama. I'm not buying it, sorry.

Obama has received a free ride from the media because of the fear of being perceived as being racist. Where are the tough questions? Everytime someone questions anything about his primary wins (South Carolina comparison to Jesse Jackson) they start crying the media is unfair. No one asks Obama about his past use of cocaine. He's bi-racial not black. The African-American population at first was critical that he wasn't "black enough". Do you think the Republicans won't ask these questions. He's a cheerleader not a leader. He'll never survive the heat of the General Election campaign and then people will comment "I didn't vote for him". Wake up!

I am from Ill. and I feel that the media is electing Mr . Obama .If someone says or does something good for Hillary Clinton it last 5min. in the media . But if something that is out of sorts the media plays it for days .Endorsements is another thing. John Glen endorsed Hillary Clinton you could not find hardly any coverage on it . Kenedy endorsed Obama it is still in play . I'll leave the rest to your thoughts on the if Obama is a media elected candidate

You people bringing up the Rezko thing do realize that the owner who sold Obama the house has come out and said that Obama simply offered the best deal at the time and there was nothing at all shady or underhanded about the transaction right?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a_9sOMpy91Js&refer=us

I know that the Clintons are trying their best to dig up dirt (as is their usual slimy approach to politics) but so much for the Rezko thing. Sorry.

Dee Dee Myers (Former Press Secretary for President Clinton) speaks in a PBS Interview about Mrs. Clinton. Search: PBS, Clinton Years. There are alot of Clinton Staffers who speak about her and the former President. Once you read this ... You may not want Mrs. Clinton for President after all.

Q: Were people afraid of her? Were people afraid to speak out against her?

A: Yeah. And I think because not only would she sort of humiliate you in front of your colleagues or whoever happened to be around. It wasn't like she did it every day. I found that she wasn't the most direct person. Although that was very direct, that to me was the exception rather than the rule. Hillary tended to kind of campaign against people behind their back, and that was certainly my experience. She was not happy with me, but she never confronted me. She never had a conversation with me about it. She would go call Leon in and yell at him and then he'd have to call me in and say, "Mrs. Clinton is really upset about X. You said Y, and she disagrees with that, and you know, she wants you to fix it," or whatever. As opposed to her picking up the phone and calling me. Sometimes it's appropriate, I think, to go through the chief of staff because it's the chain of command. Maybe she's talking to him about six things and one of them is me. But there were times when I thought she should have dealt with me directly and she didn't.

...I didn't respect that. If you have a problem with me or anybody else, it doesn't mean she shouldn't try achieve whatever outcome she wanted to achieve. But I think there is a certain grace and I just think it's a bit better politics and personnel management to be direct

Does American really know Mrs. Clinton? DEE DEE Myers Does (Former President Clinton Press Secretary) Does. Read What She Says in the PBS Interview. Just Google: PBS Clinton Years. There Are Numerous Interviews With Many Clinton Staffers. Read It For Yourself and See If This is the Person You Really Want in the White House.


Q: Were people afraid of her? Were people afraid to speak out against her?

A: Yeah. And I think because not only would she sort of humiliate you in front of your colleagues or whoever happened to be around. It wasn't like she did it every day. I found that she wasn't the most direct person. Although that was very direct, that to me was the exception rather than the rule. Hillary tended to kind of campaign against people behind their back, and that was certainly my experience. She was not happy with me, but she never confronted me. She never had a conversation with me about it. She would go call Leon in and yell at him and then he'd have to call me in and say, "Mrs. Clinton is really upset about X. You said Y, and she disagrees with that, and you know, she wants you to fix it," or whatever. As opposed to her picking up the phone and calling me. Sometimes it's appropriate, I think, to go through the chief of staff because it's the chain of command. Maybe she's talking to him about six things and one of them is me. But there were times when I thought she should have dealt with me directly and she didn't.

...I didn't respect that. If you have a problem with me or anybody else, it doesn't mean she shouldn't try achieve whatever outcome she wanted to achieve. But I think there is a certain grace and I just think it's a bit better politics and personnel management to be direct