By now any reader on this site has surely seen the news about the "hit piece" against Hillary Clinton, published by right wing author Peter Schweitzer - "Clinton Cash".
And I'm sure most everyone here has seen how the NY Times and other major publications have entered into an agreement with the author to investigate, while publishing extremely uncritical articles based on the book. And of course we have a lot of evidence that Schweitzer has a long history of lying in support of his cause. And of course, it didn't take long to find lies in "Clinton Cash", even before it has been published.
But even so, the furor continues in the news media, and the Clintons are responding. But is it enough? Let's explore a bit below the Symbol Of Interwoven Threads.
Go over to Google News right now and the top trending news story is "Clinton Cash". Yep - a week later, and it's still the top news item. In fact, Google News reports that week-old Times article as "Trending".
We have anti-Clinton articles and editorials from New York Magazine, Washington Times, the San Jose Mercury News, even Huffington Post.
And then we have a single item from ABC: Chelsea Clinton Defends Family's Foundation Against 'Clinton Cash' Book Allegations. What does it say?
[Chelsea Clinton says that] despite all the questions, the Clinton Foundation does “important” work and is “among the most transparent” of foundations.
What? "Despite all the questions"? That's more than a bit weak. How about "the allegations we have seen so far from the book are all unfounded"?
The article then spends a lot of time going over the reporting done on the book and how Republicans are using it to attack Clinton before coming back (briefly) to cover the Clinton defense against the book's claims...
The Clinton campaign has brushed off these allegations, saying in a statement released to ABC News earlier this week that the book is part of the Republicans’ “coordinated attack strategy” against the Clintons.
Hillary Clinton also dismissed the book’s claims, telling reporters at a campaign stop in New Hampshire this week that the allegations are simply a “distraction” from her presidential campaign.
Far be it from me to advise a Presidential campaign and an experienced national candidate who has been through more scandal-mongering than almost anyone else in the country's history, but these are the kind of statements we heard from John Kerry when the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth (ha!) came out with their allegations. They were weak and did little to nip the controversy in the bud, leading to a cascading problem for Kerry that he never really recovered from. So maybe I should give some advice to the Clintons: give a simple example of a problem with the book - there are already holes to exploit - and be direct in attacking the allegations by pointing out that problem; list some of those past lies propagated by Schweitzer - ask directly if the book has any credibility whatsoever.
I don't want another swift-boating, I don't think the Clinton Foundation deserves this grief, and I don't want to spend another X years distracted from having a real conversation about the nation's problems because the HRC campaign can't manage to destroy the credibility of what appears to be an incredibly shaky book offering.
Now, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this is the devil HRC knows - or wants to know. Maybe it's a setup. But in today's Internet society if I were in her position I wouldn't count on the world to wait for such a strategic gamble; things can get out of control quickly with social media...