As NewsBuster John Stephenson reported Monday, a Politico column by Ben Smith revealed that the Clinton campaign apparently forced GQ magazine to not publish a negative piece about Hillary if they wanted future access to Bill.
As a result, Slate's Mickey Kaus asked Tuesday, "Is the GQ Man a Wuss?"
Kaus marvelously began (h/t Glenn Reynolds):
First rule of Today's GQ Man: Be a wuss! Josh Green is an excellent magazine writer, so his piece on Hillary campaign infighting is unlikely to have been killed by GQ magazine because it was bad. That leaves Politico reporter Ben Smith's explanation--that it was spiked by GQ's editor Jim Nelson because of pressure from the Clinton camp, in the form of threatened denial of access to Bill Clinton for an upcoming GQ cover story.
This led Kaus to ask another important question (emphasis added):
[I]s GQ not only spiking the piece but refusing to let Green place it elsewhere? That would be full-service journalism for the Clintons.
Frankly, this is indeed the scary part about this matter. After all, if the Clintons can use future access to Bill as leverage over media's reporting of Hill, we might as well just give them both the keys to the White House now, assuming they returned them in January 2001.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Maybe not a wuss, but
September 25, 2007 - 10:26 ET by vrwc13Maybe not a wuss, but definately a "girly-man".
v
You think this (Clinton MSM
September 25, 2007 - 10:36 ET by drillanwrYou think this (Clinton MSM control) is bad?
Just wait and see what it will/would be like IF she got in the White House ...
Us vrwc folks would need to
September 25, 2007 - 10:54 ET by vrwc13Us vrwc folks would need to run for cover...
Run for Cover?
September 25, 2007 - 11:35 ET by mattmHell no! We in the VRWC ought to be doing everything we can to stop her from getting there, or if we fail at that, do everything we can to sabotage her presidency they way the Left has been sabotaging Bush.
HRC is a criminal. She has already committed felonies in taking illegal campaign money. She should be prosecuted and jailed, thus preventing her from EVER becoming anything more than a political O.J.
These colors don't run.
Mattm: These colors don't run.
September 25, 2007 - 11:47 ET by vrwc13It was rather tongue-in-cheek about running for cover. Rest assured she'll be after us. And the ensueing battle would be a doosie!
Interesting (although hardly
September 25, 2007 - 11:07 ET by JimboInteresting (although hardly surprising), how the Clinton Control Machine is already driving to squash negative stories about their past, current and potential for future immoral, unethical and illegal behavior. If they are so paranoid about that sort of thing now, just imagine how they will ratchet up their control closer to the election.
Of course this leaves me to wonder, why are they so paranoid? Could it be the bulging door of the closet where they keep their skeletons?
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
more of a 3 car garage than a closet...
September 25, 2007 - 11:09 ET by vrwc13Could it be the bulging door of the closet where they keep their skeletons?
v
vrwc13,
September 25, 2007 - 11:16 ET by Dave RAhh, I thought it was a warehouse, as I'm sure the Clinton sleletons overflowed the closet years ago.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
...or a hanger at the Mena
September 25, 2007 - 11:20 ET by vrwc13...or a hanger at the Mena AR airport...hmmm.
v
Bowing to this kind of
September 25, 2007 - 11:12 ET by JohnMBowing to this kind of pressure rubs me the wrong way. First off, I don't like the principle in play here - blackmail. Second, I wonder how much they're giving up by not running this story. My guess is that they're going to lose far more than they'd gain.
Rather than spike the story, I would have thought that the editor-in-chief would have turned the threat into the cover story and blown the lid off its covert status. THEN, run the Hillary story as the second headline. Controversy, publicity, increased circulation, advertising rates go up... Then later, do a story on Bill anyway, and let him come back for another round of controversy...
I really don't appreciate intimidation tactics... So to answer the question: yes, I think GQ's lost some backbone.
JohnM, GQ x'ing the Clintons?
September 25, 2007 - 11:44 ET by Dave RI agree, but, given the history of what happens to those who cross the Clinton's, perhaps GQ is putting prudence ahead of valor here.
Just a thought.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Revealing photo!
September 25, 2007 - 11:23 ET by NortoBeliever
Re: the above pic,
"No, I did not have (any fun) with that woman"
Quite the finger pointer.
Carville and Begala are all over this campaign. Who is keeping tabs on them and their machinations?
<sarc>
September 25, 2007 - 11:35 ET by rx4musicAre they really that hard up to sell magazines that they would prostitue their integrity? Oops...Strike that...my bad.... </sarc>
}}---> We have no leverage here
September 26, 2007 - 02:57 ET by Cool ArrowAnybody here got a subscription to GQ? Didn't think so.
But it's looking up that those businesses that pander to Hill and Bill seem to get "ick" all over them that won't wash off.
Chunk them into the NYT has-been bin.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~