usually, it goes like this:

My Very Important Book, by Hillary Clinton

with Mary Nobody

But she left off Mary! Hey, where's that gender solidarity? Not to mention just following normal practices for a ghostwritten book.

AKA Smith: "Do you really think the ghostwriter could have written the book without Clinton's input and cooperation? It's a partnership. That is what you can't seem to understand."

You say "it's a partnership," but what you're conveniently forgetting is that Hillary Clinton's "partner" felt that she was given the shaft after Clinton moved to have her name removed from all the credits of the book.

Whatever your ultimate judgment on this controversy, such as it is, there is little denying that the ghost writer complained about how she was treated afterward.

It seems to be a pattern:

(1) Hillary Clinton does something questionable

(2) Many of Clinton's supporters leap to her defense without having much principle behind their arguments

(3) The conventional wisdom becomes that Clinton's questionable action was, indeed, questionable

(4) Clinton's supporters, having defended her, are left flailing

Examples:

-- Clinton uses an Obama statement calling Republicans "the party of ideas" during the Reagan era to brand Obama as having praised Reagan. The statement is out-of-context, though, and anybody who reads the Obama statement can easily see that Obama was not praising Reagan at all. Still, Clinton's supporters jump to her defense, using whatever means they can to defend her attack. Even if the attack is not defensible, they say things like, "This is nothing compared to what the right-wing smear machine will come up with!," not realizing that this creates an association between Clinton's tactics and right-wing tactics. Later, Clinton herself pulls the ad and backs away from its charges. Clinton supporters who worked so hard to defend her are silent.

-- A report is released that suggests Hillary Clinton plans to target the pledged delegates and get them to reverse their votes, since nothing in the Democratic Party's rules says they have to follow through on their pledges. Some of Clinton's supporters defend this, saying that the pledged delegates are fair game and that Clinton is well within her right to take advantage of rule technicalities, since that proves she's a fighter and will do "whatever necessary" to fight for our country as well. Later, Clinton's campaign puts out a statement denying the charges, and saying it will honor the pledged delegates and not try to influence them. All of the Clinton supporters who argued on behalf of the false report are left silent. (Note: This happened in the War Room; scroll through the articles and read that one's comments if you don't believe me.)

-- Clinton goes on attack against Obama's "plagiarism" for using three sentences in a speech that one of his friends gave to him. She plays it up to the hilt, suggesting that it's "change you can Xerox." The quip draws mostly boos and silence from the audience, and is mostly regarded to have been a negative for Clinton, not a positive. Some YouTube videos are released that very pointedly show Clinton copying other people's rhetorical phrases during that same debate! Though not "word for word," the similarities are so striking that they can't possibly be coincidence, especially in the case of the Bill/Hillary comparison. This so effectively deflates Clinton's attack that she never uses that attack again. Within one day, Hillary has dropped the charge and moved on to new charges against some mailings or something. Meanwhile, Clinton's supporters, who have bent over backwards to defend the "plagiarism" charge any which way they can, are left flailing about.

Anybody notice a pattern here?

Anybody NOT notice a similar pattern among Obama supporters?

Choosing who to vote for is like choosing a car to drive across the country. You want to travel safely, comfortably, smoothly, but with good gas mileage and a solid experience.

Obama is like a brand-new Toyota Prius. The gas mileage is excellent. The amenities are modern. The reliability is solid.

Hillary Clinton is like a 1998 Hyundai. The gas mileage is pretty good. The reliability is, well, mostly OK, with a few kinks here and there thanks to overseas manufacturing problems. The amenities are all right, though sometimes there are problems with vision (due to faulty wipers and such).

John McCain is like a mid-1970s green Gremlin or Pinto. You're not sure if things will even get started. The ride is bumpy and a little scary. The style is old-fashioned and the colors are military in hue. If hit the wrong way, there's the possibility of everything blowing up.

From today's Wall Street Journal, more hypocrisy!

"Earlier today at a rally at the Cincinnati State Technical Community College, Mrs. Clinton compared the candidacy of Mr. Obama to that of President Bush in his 2000 presidential run.

"Do you think people voting in 2000 knew what they were getting? People thought they were getting a 'compassionate conservative,' and it turns out he was neither. And we have lived with the consequences," she said.

"[Bush] promised change as a compassionate conservative and the American people got shafted and we're going to have to make up for it now. So, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

"In response to the comparison between Sen. Obama and President Bush, the Obama campaign sent out a December article that quotes Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson saying that "comparing another Democrat to George Bush" is the "worst kind of tactical political maneuvering."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120379560300088481.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

How many times do I have to tell you that the ghostwriter's name doesn't go on the book if it isn't in the contract that it does. That is why they are called ghostwriters. You don't see them. Get it?

If the ghostwriter's contract was violated, why didn't she sue and collect?

The point is that Hillary has said she "wrote" the book. In fact, she said she wrote the entire thing in LONGHAND, like she was Laura Ingalls Wilder or something.

I know plenty of people have ghostwriters, but she has said that she handwrote every word of the book. How is that not a lie?