"Since the book was first published in 1996, though, Hillary has repeatedly insisted she wrote the book herself. Boasting that she had "written a 320-page book in longhand." and that it took her "six months" to complete, Clinton has steadfastly refused to credit the actual writer, Barbara Feinman Todd. And this refusal to admit that small truth is odd since even long time Clinton flak, The New York Times, contradicts her claims. On April 22nd, 1995, as the book was in the planning stages, The New York Times reported that it was Feinman who was to do the heavy lifting for the project. In their ’95 piece the Times then said,

"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."

http://www.therant.us/staff/huston/2007/12042007.htm

I'm surprised she didn't say she wrote it by scraping coal on the back of a shovel, a la Abe Lincoln.

Since neither of us seems to have a copy of the contract, I'll assume that the ghostwriter was NOT supposed to be given credit.

Clinton still talked about the book as if she wrote it completely herself. In fact, she made a particular point of saying this explicitly. In my OPINION, this reflects in a NEGATIVE way on her as a PERSON.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?

Dear Hutman,

I am just passing by, and indeed - it seems not worth the time to try to reason with you anyway.

For the rudimentary premise of all your arguments is this:

If Obama does it is good.

If the Clintons do it is bad.

So if Hillary gets a record-breaking advance for writing a book, according to you, it's somehow 'bad,' or suspect.

But if Barack got one, I bet you would think it was good.

If Bill gets paid for being asked to speak, it's implied that he's 'making money off public life' in some kind of indecent way.

But I bet if Barack got paid, you would think it was great.

If Barack uses someone else's words, identically in a speech, it's ok, if Hillary any thing at all even remotely near that, it's bad.

If I support Hillary, I must be 'getting paid,' or part of the campaign or it's 'so weird' that my posts support Hillary.

But if all your post support Barack, that doesn't mean there's any such conspiracy on your side is there? You are a Barack supporter.

I don't think you're working for the Obama campaign.

You see? I think you're thinking will always lead you this way, no matter what the real truth or validity is.

So, it's kind of pointless to debate with you.

That's why people stop.

It's not because you're right.

It's because there's no point.

John Anderson,

How do you know who wrote the book in the end?

Were you there?

How can you presume any such thing?

That New York Times quote was before the fact.

You have no right or basis to assert anything, or pass any

judgement.

State Package for Hillary Clinton

You may write me down in history

With your bitter, twisted lies,

You may tread me in the very dirt

But still, like dust, I'll rise.

This is not the first time you have seen Hillary Clinton seemingly at her wits' end, but she has always risen, always risen, don't forget she has always risen, much to the dismay of her adversaries and the delight of her friends.

Hillary Clinton will not give up on you and all she asks of you is that you do not give up on her.

There is a world of difference between being a woman and being an old female. If you're born a girl, grow up, and live long enough, you can become an old female. But to become a woman is a serious matter. A woman takes responsibility for the time she takes up and the space she occupies. Hillary Clinton is a woman. She has been there and done that and has still risen. She is in this race for the long haul. She intends to make a difference in our country. Hillary Clinton intends to help our country to be what it can become.

She declares she wants to see more smiles in the family, more courtesies between men and women, more honesty in the marketplace. She is the prayer of every woman and man who longs for fair play, healthy families, good schools, and a balanced economy.

She means to rise.

Don't give up on Hillary. In fact, if you help her to rise, you will rise with her and help her make this country the wonderful, wonderful place where every man and every woman can live freely without sanctimonious piety and without crippling fear.

Rise, Hillary.

Rise.

If she essentially ditched what was written by the ghostwriter, she could correctly claim to have written it all herself. We can't really know as you seem not able to provide more than speculation. You want to speculate she did something wrong because you do not like her and because you support Obama and it serves your purpose to make it seem she has done something dishonorable to take the curse off Obama's plagiarism.

Now, I shall reply no more to you on this issue. You have your candidate and I have mine.

DeeperTruth: "For the rudimentary premise of all your arguments is this: If Obama does it is good. If the Clintons do it is bad."

Then you must not be reading what I've written. My argument is much more complex than that.

DeeperTruth: "So if Hillary gets a record-breaking advance for writing a book, according to you, it's somehow 'bad,' or suspect."

Why are you putting the word "bad" in quotes? I never used the word "bad." In fact, I never ascribed any value judgment to Hillary's book deal. I pointed it out in response to the assertion that Bill Clinton's speeches were the main source of income.

DeeperTruth: "If Bill gets paid for being asked to speak, it's implied that he's 'making money off public life' in some kind of indecent way."

Actually I didn't say anything about this subject at all. You are either confusing me with somebody else, or you're completely making things up. I defy you to find a message where I discussed Bill Clinton's speeches as if there were anything wrong.

DeeperTruth: "If Barack uses someone else's words, identically in a speech, it's ok, if Hillary any thing at all even remotely near that, it's bad."

Again, you are completely off here. You are completely avoiding a discussion of the hypocrisy of Hillary making this into an attack issue. That is the basis for the entire discussion.

DeeperTruth: "If I support Hillary, I must be 'getting paid,' or part of the campaign or it's 'so weird' that my posts support Hillary."

I backed away from any accusation that you worked for Hillary. However, I still think it is unusual that this is the only subject that you've ever commented on. Do you read the other articles on Salon? Movie reviews? Cary Tennis's advice? Glenn Greenwald? Broadsheet? Video Dog? Garrison Keillor? Camille Paglia? Etc.

DeeperTruth: "But if all your post support Barack, that doesn't mean there's any such conspiracy on your side is there?"

But all my posts are not on that subject. And I already pointed out that I've taken a pro-Obama poster to task as well.