But… ‘Hard Choices’ is a political campaign book. They’re ALWAYS bad.

Why is it news that Hillary’s book is awful?

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton’s new memoir “Hard Choices” officially launches Tuesday morning, but it’s already being savaged by critics for being overly cautious and, as a result, uninteresting.

Candidates don’t write these books to be interesting. They write them because:

  1. Everybody else does.
  2. It’s considered proof that the writer is actually literate in English.
  3. It’s a great way to legally launder contributions into personal income.
  4. Ego.

Oh, I’m sure that there is the odd – adjective picked deliberately – political memoir/policy statement that isn’t actually dull as dishwater. But the chaff-to-wheat ratio is usually pretty weighted in favor of the chaff. And that’s actually not really even the politicians’ fault: most of them don’t really know how to write well.  It’s a skill like any other, and people who actually have it tend not to get into the hurly-burly of actual political campaigning. And that’s because knowing how to write well doesn’t make you more likely to be good at politics, either.  And also alas.

So I’m not really shocked here.  And neither should anybody else.  I mean, it’s not like people really read these things*.

Moe Lane

*No, not even Obama’s.  As somebody noted to me on Twitter last night: if more people had really read Barack Obama’s books they might have noticed that the man admitted to eating a dog.

12 thoughts on “But… ‘Hard Choices’ is a political campaign book. They’re ALWAYS bad.”

  1. In the event that I *ever* have to write one of these things, I’m gonna see how much of a bribe (erm, payment) I have to give Larry Correia to get him to do the ghost-writing.
    .
    Mew
    .
    .
    p.s. Who? http://monsterhunternation.com/ Seriously, go read stuff.

  2. Achievement Unlocked: mention in the *portion in a Moe Lane blog post! Granted, not named, but I will take it anyway.

  3. I’ve never thought of the ‘eaten a dog’ thing as a big deal. Dogs are considered food in large swaths of the globe. If offered, I would certainly try it. It’s more just something to needle Democtrats about rather than an actual issue that anybody cares about. There’s nobody that really cares about that, is there?
    —
    Hey, funny story. Our company was hosting some Chinese buisnessmen because we were doing some business over there. We were out to a Chisese resturaunt and I ordered General Tso’s (which they apparently also have in China, but not made with chicken). The Chinese guy sitting next to me hears my order and looks at me surprised and says “I did not know they served cat in America”. I turned with a smile and said “Yes, but you have to ask for it special”.

    1. The stink got made about it during the second campaign, when his adherents were trying to make hay of Romney carrying the family dog in a dog carrier strapped to the roof of a car.

  4. I always assumed that #3 was the primary reason, for the Democrats at least. There’s simply no way that a book like this is going to earn out a seven figure advance. The unearned part should probably count as a campaign contribution.

    1. Oh, I don’t know. Its the sort of book you give as a gift (if you’re a Democrat) or have on displayed on the self. A publisher doesn’t really care how many people read a book, its about how many people BUY a book.

      1. Ummm, you’re mixing book stores and book publishers. The latter care how many they can stuff into the wholesale channel, the latter care how many actually sell.
        .
        Mew

        1. A fair point. Although there is undoubtedly some crosstalk there. You can’t screw over your downstream chain too badly, consistently.

          1. The point is that with a $35 ‘retail’ that no one, anywhere, will pay, the royalty on the hardback will be about five bucks. So let’s say that the advance was $2m, and it actually sells a couple of hundred thousand copies (which I think is _really_ generous). That would leave it a million bucks short of earning out the advance, which means it would be, in essence, a completely unregulated million dollar campaign contribution to the Hillary campaign. Made by the extremely liberal publisher.

Comments are closed.