Hillary’s Hard Choices is a $10 Million Loss for Publisher

Image: Clinton Signs Copies of Hard Choices in Virginia

Paying Hillary Clinton a $14 million advance for a badly ghostwritten book about the time she did nothing as Secretary of State proved to be a really bad choice.

Publishing sources said that Clinton has sold 177,236 hardcovers. E-book sales aren’t available, but her numbers are very low, said the sources. Even at 200,000 total sales, simple math finds that for Simon & Schuster to cover the $14 million advance, each book would have had to sell for about $70. Amazon offers it for $20.94, about $14 off the $35 list price. It has dropped to 103rd in Amazon sales, compared to 10th for Blood Feud.

Of course authors don’t receive more than a fraction of their sales anyway. No matter what eBook sales are, publishers don’t currently make much money off them.

Hillary Clinton’s $14 million advance has to come out of book sales. Forget Amazon’s discounting of the books, let’s call it $7,000,000 in sales. Only a fraction of that goes to the author. Even assuming that Hillary has some crazy Stephen King, Grisham size royalties, that still means something between $1 and $2 million.

To make back her advance, Hard Choices would have to sell over two million copies. Living History, which was a success, only sold 1.1 million copies. And that was for an $8 million advance.

Hard Choices clearly won’t be going there. CBS made a bad bet by betting that a second biography by a politician would sell as well, if not better, than a first biography. Or they simply decided to give her a campaign contribution.

Obviously Hillary won’t be returning her advance. Considering the promotional costs of Hard Choices, CBS has lost more than $10 million on it, but we can safely peg it at that.

  • DogmaelJones1

    I hope we can take this dour news about her venture into publishing as an indication of her chances for winning the White House (or even the Democratic nomination). Perhaps she should have had it titled, “Dreams of my Blood Feud with America,” or “Throne of Dreams.”

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Or just rip off Neil Kinnock.

      It worked for Joe Biden. Maybe Hillary would have to rip off Thatcher.

      • DogmaelJones1

        You know, I really screwed up on one of those Hillary biography titles. It should’ve been, “Dreams of Thrones.”

        • truebearing

          There you go. Perfect.

    • truebearing

      Speaking of people who can’t stop writing autolieographies, Obama is rumored to be working on a sequel to “The Audacity of Hope.” It’s a surprisingly short, one might say truncated, work called: “Of Treason and Rope.” It’s a taut narrative with a snappy ending.

      • hiernonymous

        Speaking of writing questionable things, it’s been 3 days since you accused Americana of posting as Webb, and you were asked to provide some evidence or support or explanation. Nil heard so far!

        • truebearing

          Well, excuse me, hall monitor, but I haven’t been back on that thread because I have more important things to do than go back and check every comment I make to see if some nitwit is somehow disgruntled.

          I do remember seeing various exchanges between Webb, other commenters, and Americana, with one of those posts from the fake Webb replying to a comment addressed to Americana. The fake Webb responded in her inimitable style, replete with Americana’s trademark “OMG.” I notified Webb his name was being used and flagged both comments. If it wasn’t Americana, it was someone who had her hysterical, flighty style down pat.

          Excuse my poor manners. I didn’t know you had graduated from annoying troll to comment cop. I would congratulate you but I suspect that your “promotion” is just another of your delusions of being in control. Keep plugging away. Maybe you can work up to becoming a mall cop.

          • hiernonymous

            You accused a poster of impersonating another poster, and warned the latter of this. Quite apart from the irony of making such a post and then complaining about “hall monitors” or “comment cops,” it’s worth noting that you’ve challenged another’s integrity without so much as a shred of evidence.

            Can you link to the comment in question and explain how you concluded that it was a false account, and that Americana was behind it?

            Perhaps you value your own integrity so little that you do not recognize that an accusation of this sort should be something you are prepared to back up?

            “If it wasn’t Americana…”

            …then you owe her an apology, because you accused her by name of being the perpetrator in at least two separate posts. It’s a bit disturbing that you are this unsure of yourself, yet you were willing to make a public accusation.

          • truebearing

            There is no irony at all. Someone was using Webb’s screenname, and given my experience with people using the names of others, it is because they are irritated, dishonest, and immature, and always someone who is angry at the person they are impersonating. She was angry at Webb because she was losing the debate, as usual. The fact that it fit Americana’s writing style perfectly only reinforces my highly accurate conclusion. I owe her nothing, especially an apology.

            In your zeal to be important and exercise power you fail to recognize that you have no authority, especially moral. This is none of your business, since it had nothing to do with you, unless, of course, you sometimes post as “Americana.” Do you get all made up and put on heels when in that role?

            There is no irony here. The Webb impersonator was doing something wrong. I reported it. You butted your insufferable, petty ego into something that had nothing to do with you. Furthermore, I was right to flag the comments and inform Webb. I wasn’t wrong about the impersonator being Americana, and unless you can prove I am, you should button your officious lips. The irony here is that you are deciding I was wrong, without evidence, yet claiming you are right, without evidence. Not very logical of you, but supremely hypocritical.

            How many more times do you want to lose this exchange, monitor boy?

          • hiernonymous

            Strip out the emoting, and notice that you haven’t yet shown any evidence that American was posting as Webb.

            “The Webb impersonator was doing something wrong. I reported it. ”

            Assuming that there was a Webb impersonator – and you haven’t shown the post yet – and had flagging been the extent of your response, that would have been fine. But by accusing another of having made the post, without any evidence thereof, you’ve done something wrong, too. If doing something wrong needs to be corrected – and you plainly believe it should – then you need to correct the wrong you just did.

            You assert that this post was Americana’s “style?” Link to the post, and explain how you think that was so. If you’re as confident of your conclusion as you assert, it should withstand scrutiny.

            Bottom line: you’ve made an accusation, and you refuse to support it. That’s cowardly as well as simply wrong.

            “This is none of your business…”

            Of course it is. When someone makes a public accusation, it become’s everyone’s business. If you’d pm’d an accusation to Webb or Americana, it would be between you and the person you messaged – but you chose to make it public. You might also take note of the irony here, as well – by the schoolyard standard you’ve just provided, the alleged offense you wished to correct was properly between Webb and his “impersonator,” and had nothing to do with you.

            “I wasn’t wrong about the impersonator being Americana, and unless you can prove I am, you should button your officious lips.”

            The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You claimed that there was a post made by someone impersonating Webb, and you claimed that it was made by Americana. The claim is yours to prove, to retract, or, if you are an invertebrate, to leave hanging as another bit of cowardly innuendo. Your call.

            “The irony here is that you are deciding I was wrong…”

            Incorrect. I haven’t decided anything, as there’s nothing yet to decide. You’ve made an accusation, and accepting or rejecting the assertion awaits the evidence you provide. Certainly you’ve provided none as yet.

            “Not very logical of you, but supremely hypocritical.”

            It’s perfectly logical. When one accuses another of an offense, the burden is on the accuser to demonstrate the truth of his claim. How is it even possible that you do not understand that?

            “How many more times do you want to lose this exchange, Monitor Boy?”

            Those who have achieved victory rarely have to tell anyone they’ve done so. Instead of thinking of this as win or lose, why not think of it as an opportunity to showcase your analytical skills? If you’re as sure of yourself as you claim to be, there’s no need for all of the dodging and emoting – simply make your case. Perhaps you’re even right – we won’t know until you’ve shown your evidence, will we?

          • truebearing

            This is quite the pathetic attempt at salvaging a reputation that doesn’t exist. Americana impersonated Webb,and you have no evidence to prove she didn’t. Prove it, Monitor Boy.

          • hiernonymous

            “This is quite the pathetic attempt at salvaging a reputation that doesn’t exist. ”

            You show unwonted self-awareness. Well done.

            “Americana impersonated Webb,and you have no evidence to prove she didn’t. Prove it, Monitor Boy.”

            And then you blow it with this bit of craven dishonesty. Even you could not possibly be dim enough to believe that, logically or ethically, one establishes the truth of a proposition by making an assertion and crowing ‘it’s true unless you can prove it wrong!’

            You have just repeated your accusation: “Americana impersonated Webb.” What is your basis for your claim?

            I challenge you to show a post in which Web was impersonated, and your evidence for claiming that it was Americana who did so. If you do not, you stand branded as a coward and liar.

          • truebearing

            You can brand me anything you want. I have no respect for your pathetic grandiosity, or opinion, and never will.

            I challenge you to see a psychologist so you can be disabused of the notion you have the power to make people bend to your sick will.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Don’t waste time on Hiero.

            He’s a calculating troll

          • truebearing

            He is a waste of time. I just don’t like letting him bully people with impunity. At this point there probably aren’t too many on FPM that don’t see him for who he is, so continuing to respond is probably pointless.

          • hiernonymous

            Being asked to substantiate a public accusation is bullying?

            Poor truebearing. Accountability = oppression.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Troll = troll

          • hiernonymous

            If he’s wrong, prove him wrong. If he’s right, call him a troll. Because loyalty to the likeminded trumps truth – first law of group dynamics.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Poor Hiero, they call him a troll because he’s “right”.

            At least that’s the working theory in his mind as he trolls some more.

          • hiernonymous

            “They?” No, you. You want to support your supporter, but his actual position is untenable, so you find an alternate way of doing so. I’m not complaining – you’re not hurting my feelings by coming up empty.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            So much punctuation. So little point.

          • hiernonymous

            “So little point.”

            Good to see that you agree.

          • truebearing

            My position isn’t untenable. My warning Webb that someone was using his name was truthfull and considerate of him. Circumstantially, the motive for using his name fell to Americana or you, since you were the only angry, vindictive trolls on the thread.

            You’re not complaining, you’re whining and sniveling to cause trouble and to get revenge for all of the times you have been beaten in debates. This is your malignant narcissism rearing it’s ugly head, yet again.

          • hiernonymous

            “As far as I know, Daniel isn’t running for office, so the supporter stupidity is invalid.”

            When did the definition of “supporter” get narrowed to electoral politics? Daniel writes for FPM; you are reliably in the comment section, posting about how brilliant his latest is. That’s support – it’s interesting that you find that controversial.

            “My position isn’t untenable. My warning Webb that someone was using his name…”

            No, no, no. Let’s not be dishonest and revisionist about this. You didn’t warn Webb that “someone” was using his name. Here’s your post:

            truebearing Webb • 5 days ago

            Thanks.

            Don’t look now, but Americana is using your screenname.

            “… then run like a hall monitor to the teacher …”

            Eh? As near as I can tell, you’re the only person who has reported posts to the moderators. You appear to be projecting.

          • truebearing

            You’ll quibble about anything. As usual, you’re wrong. A supporter is someone who provides material or works for the benefit of an individual or group to support their success. My commenting does neither. Many other people have a high opinion of Daniel’s work, including Rush Limbaugh. Does that make him a “supporter?” Hardly. An admirer? a fan? yes, but not a supporter. I doubt Daniel’s work would change for the better or worse if I didn’t comment on his articles and express my positive opinion of them.

            I never denied that I thought American was the culprit. As far as I’m concerned, she still is. Why are you pretending to conduct an investigation where you have no jurisdiction or even a decent cause? That old OCD acting up? Or is it your auto-deluding ego that needs to find a way to pretend to have power?

            In all of the hours I have spent on the internet, I have never seen someone use one commenter’s name to demean a different commenter. It’s always follows the same pattern of the fraud saying purposely foolish, embarrasing things using the name of the person they were recently engaged with in a heated exchange. Your self-vaunted rationality is failing you once again when you attempt to characterize this episode as anything but you or American being the ones using Webb’s name. It makes no sense that anyone but Americana was doing it, despite her posturing mightily about her innocence. The more you obsess over this, however, the more it makes it look like you had a hand in it.

          • hiernonymous

            “You’ll quibble about anything.”

            Not quite. For example, I wouldn’t reflexively try to redefine “support.” Think about it.

            “Why are you pretending to conduct an investigation where you have no jurisdiction…”

            An investigation is nothing more or less than seeking the truth, and that doesn’t require “jurisdiction.” If you think that truth is of interest only to officers of the court, that might explain some of the claims you’ve been making over the past few days.

            “Your self-vaunted rationality is failing you once again when you attempt to characterize this episode as anything but you or American being the ones using Webb’s name.”

            You never actually showed that anyone was using Webb’s name. The time for you to be musing about why you think this or that was the several days that we could see that the post in question actually existed, could see what was written, and read your reasoning with the evidence in front of us. Now you assert that the mysterious post has disappeared, and you’re suddenly positively garrulous with vague but confident rationalizations.

            “The more you obsess over this, however, the more it makes it look like you had a hand in it.”

            Thanks for the warning.

          • truebearing

            You sure are good at making a mountain out of a molehill, especially since this is none of your business.

            BTW, I don’t feel oppressed by the likes of you. I’ve dealt with mentally ill leftists for years and the longer they engage me, the more they expose themselves and lose all effectiveness. As a matter of fact, you’re pretty well done on FPM because of your inablility to control your malice-filled ego. Drawing the opposition out and making them commit is an old but useful strategy, and one you fall for every time. You lead with your ego and it betrays you.

            As a troll outed, you should be smart enough to realize that people who read these exchanges are comparing the combatants against their experiences with each party. They are patterning behavior, and anyone who has been on FPM for any length of time knows that my approach is straight at the enemy, not using cowardly tricks to discredit those who will ultimately discredit themselves — much like you and Americana have done.

          • hiernonymous

            “As a matter of fact, you’re pretty well done on FPM …”

            Oh, dear.

          • truebearing

            You’re outed, Hall Monitor Troll. Debating you at length really brings out your worst, or maybe it’s your best, but it isn’t particularly attractive.

          • hiernonymous

            Ah, you find me unattractive.

            This should concern me because…?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            I don’t like it either.

            Hiero clearly targets commenters deliberately, stalks them and repeatedly harasses them.

            It’s nasty behavior even by troll standards.

          • Americana

            Daniel, Daniel, Daniel… You should demand more scrupulous behavior of your followers. You were nice enough to tell me before that in order to prevent people posting under my ‘Americana’ handle, I should register the name. You should have no qualms in telling those posting here to lay off the dissimulation of this sort of kind. There’s no need for it.

            There’s nothing to be gained by doing this sort of thing. Or perhaps there is, and I’m completely missing the point? In that case, enlighten me about the benefits of this sort of fifth-rate fifth columnist behavior. (Maybe I should change that to ‘FILTH columnist’ behavior.) I’m certainly not going to let such STUPIDITY pass. When I deny something, that should basically be the end of it.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            They’re not my followers. You’re confusing me with Mohammed.

            And I’m not in the mood for lectures on scrupulosity from a woman who gets her material from rabidly anti-Semitic sites.

          • truebearing

            Why don’t you take it up with the person who did it, who you will most likely find by looking in the mirror. As far as I can tell, you and Preparation H are the only two with the motive for imitating Webb.

          • truebearing

            He has some issues with obsessive-compulsive disorder, to go along with his pathological narcissism. It isn’t unusual for narcissists to have multiple personality disorders.

          • Americana

            You brand yourself, truebearing, every time you pull a cheapazz tactic like this. I’d make sure you keep your nose clean for a while since I’ve decided that after a few of the comments in this thread, it’s gone beyond me denying this on my own. You’re going to keep playing this role of effen’ righteous ready avenger and I’m BORED TO DEATH w/tactics of this kind. It’s like watching a 6-year old trying to one-up his teacher.

            I’ve notified disquis after this little exchange on this thread and we’ll see what the disquis forensics folks have to say about the matter. Since it’s an all too common tactic that’s used on certain sites, they ought to be interested in the issue. Let’s leave it in the hands of the experts who should know there are other **self-proclaimed** experts in dissimulation out there… We’ll see who’s that last person standing when disquis gets through w/us.

          • truebearing

            You should do the work of clearing your name. I’m not the one using other people’s screen names, so I don’t have to apologize for anything. If someone else was setting you up, they did a good job of imitating your inimitable airheadedness and self-righteous posturing.

            Would you like to put your money where your big mouth is? Let’s say we agree to a wager. I’ll put $10,000 down that I didn’t impersonate you. Will you do the same that you didn’t impersonate Webb?

            If you actually contact Disqus, and if you can produce proof from them that it wasn’t you impersonating Webb, I will retract my accusation.

          • hiernonymous

            Again, you’re trying to reverse the burden of proof. Your claim, your burden to prove.

            And, by the way, you leveled an accusation at me today, claiming that I’d gone back to hack or delete the post in which you claimed I called for ‘interminable reparations.’ You went on about it at some length, discussing my military training and the lengths I’d go to in order to hide my tracks. It was quite stirring.

            You’ll notice that I found the thread in question and posted the link. You’ll also notice that the post, which you explicitly state that you went back to look for and found had been deleted, is sitting there in all of its glory, and no posts in that conversation were deleted.

            To be blunt, you lied. You didn’t just have a misty lapse of memory – you invented a story, with details – you went back to look, and it was gone! – and now the whole thing is shown up as a fabrication.

            Will you be retracting that one, too, or can we look forward to another day or two of indignant posts in which your new accusation becomes someone else’s fault, too?

          • truebearing

            No, the comments were not there. I looked through the entire thread more than once, liar. They were gone. Whether you hacked Disqus, or Disqus removed them, they were gone. I would certainly have been glad to share some of your opinions had I found them. if they are there, give me the link and I will check again. That is simple enough.

            You were uncharacteristically open about your opinions on slavery and how American slavery was somehow worse than the slavery that existed in nearly every country on earth. My favorite part was when you got to your theory on atonement and reparations. I remember it quite well. I pointed out that not all whites had slaves and not all Americans today had ancestors in America at the time, but that didn’t alter your theory on white atonement. You were banging the collective guilt drum for all you were worth…which admittedly isn’t much.

            The fake Webb comments disappearance is fairly easy to explain. Disqus doesn’t allow using someone elses screen name. To this day I can’t understand why those two exchanges between us disappeared, but no others in the chain.

            I won’t be retracting anything. After all of your ridiculous attempts as Monitor Boy and you still haven’t figured that out. To be perfectly honest, I think you are nuttier than a Christmas fruitcake.

          • hiernonymous

            Doubling down again, eh?

            Sorry, it won’t fly. There is plainly exactly one deleted post in the comment section to the article, and that one post’s author is identifiable by the surviving responses below it. Equally plainly, that is the exchange in question, the source of your later attempts to mischaracterize my comments.

            I’m not sure if you have trouble separating events in your memory, whether your imagination is so vivid that you experience it as memory, or if you are simply so dishonest and cynical that you invent accusations as needed, but this time, you’ve been exposed.

            “The fake Webb comments disappearance is fairly easy to explain. Disqus doesn’t allow using someone elses screen name. To this day I can’t understand why those two exchanges between us disappeared, but no others in the chain.”

            It’s not clear how something that was never there can properly be said to have “disappeared.” You described the exchange in sufficient detail to identify it, and the conversation as it actually occurred is there for everyone’s inspection.

            “I won’t be retracting anything.”

            Of course you won’t. If you possessed the character to do so, you’d not invent these things to begin with.

            “After all of your ridiculous attempts as Monitor Boy and you still haven’t figured that out. To be perfectly honest, I think you are nuttier than a Christmas fruitcake.”

            Let’s see. You claimed that Americana was making mysterious posts as Webb, but when asked to show us the posts, you wouldn’t, and when asked to show evidence that the alleged posts were hers, you wouldn’t. After several days of avoidance and dodging, you announced that the posts in question had suddenly disappeared, so sorry. Then you described the exchange in which you claimed I had called for atonement for slavery and interminable reparations, and insisted that I had used my military ninja skills and connections to make those posts disappear. When you were shown the original exchange, demonstrably intact, you rememberedt that there was another initial exchange on the topic just like the one I posted except that in it, I wrote what you described, and it subsequently disappeared, a fact that has mystified and puzzled you so much that you first brought it up … now.

            I’m sorry, you were saying something about nuts and a fruitcake?

          • truebearing

            I don’t have to prove anything to you. You aren’t a judge and I’m not on trial. You don’t tell me what to do. Your delusions of having power to conduct trials on comment sections is yet more evidence of your deeply disturbed personality.

            My guess is that the comments were deleted, as is customary when someone uses another person’s screen name. It is a violation of the terms of use, after all. That may not have ocurred to you, but more likely it did, and in your typical warped way, you see it as an opportunity to discredit me by insisting I produce something that was rightly deleted. Regardless, you will sit there impotently because I won’t play your childish, idiotic games. Americana was using Webb’s name, or Disqus was malfunctioning, but I’ll go with the most likely explanation. It fits her hissy fit mentality.

          • hiernonymous

            “Americana was using Webb’s name, or Disqus was malfunctioning…”

            Oh, did that just now occur to you?

          • Americana

            Oh no? You say you weren’t wrong, truebearing, even though you WERE WRONG…(truebearing) “I wasn’t wrong about the impersonator being Americana, and unless you can prove I am, you should button your officious lips.”

            Your cheapazz tactic is overused by people like yourself. But it’s not a tactic that is feasible any longer in its ORIGINAL FORM — where someone playing ‘Americana’ for a few posts wasn’t me — and I called them on it. Thankfully, Daniel Greenfield had the guts to tell me to register the BB handle w/disquis so this particular tactic couldn’t be done time after time. So, since that original opportunity to mess w/me was removed, you simply opted for ANOTHER VARIANT of the tactic — make me out to be playing another poster. Only trouble, I’d NEVER bother to pretend to be another poster, certainly not Webb. It’s simply not done.

            **Same lame tactic, different format.**

          • truebearing

            Are you accusing me of imitating your ditzty writing style, then calling my “Webb” to get you in trouble? Not my style, americana. I have been the recipient of that stuff from the Left several times, and despise that tactic. It always happened when the lefty was losing the debate and frothing in frustration, kinf of like you were.

            The circumstantial evidence convinced me you were the likely culprit, for reasons I’ve already stated. It’s possible that I was wrong, but it is at least as likely you are lying. leftist lie like it is second nature, posturing notwithstanding.

          • Webb

            Here is my apology for Americana: “Fcuk Americana!” Sick old sow, anyway. Are you her husband? Sounds like it. Hopefully she is beautiful, but probably not, since you like Hillyery.

          • hiernonymous

            You see, truebearing said the same thing, but he tried to dress it up in an accusation. You didn’t try to disguise your inanity.

          • truebearing

            No I didn’t, liar. What I said is public record, and so is this comment of yours, which was rather stupid on your part because it shows the depths you will sink to in an effort to smear an opponent. Typical narcissistic nutjob leftist.

          • hiernonymous

            When you invented your story of Americana impersonating another poster, it was just an elaborate way of saying “Fcuk Americana.” There wasn’t anything more substantive behind it than that.

            Here’s one of the posts in which you made the accusation: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/fp-mag/the_myth_of_israeli_collective_punishment#comment-1475874398 – “Why are you calling yourself “Webb,” Americana?”

            Here’s the list of posts in which you actually showed her posting as Webb: _____.

            You smeared yourself when you decided that your dislike of someone justified making baseless accusations.

          • truebearing

            You’re making baseless allegations, a-hole, and if American follows through with her research with Disqus, you will have to apologize to me. The fake Webb comments were there, but aren’t now. I can only assume that Disqus deleted them, but maybe you did. I remember another debate several months back where you exposed your thinking on a number of issues, including stating that white Americans need to “atone” for slavery and then you went on to make a case for interminable reparations. When I went back a day later to quote you, the comments were deleted. The interesting thing about that was that my comment didn’t get the moderation graphic after posting it, and yours had been up for awhile, suggesting it passed moderation. Do you have your leftist buddies hacking Disqus to erase those moments when you out your evil agenda? is that the kind of underhanded stuff you learned in the military, that you now use to avoid losing a debate? It wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

          • hiernonymous

            “You’re making baseless allegations, a-hole…”

            Why, no, I’m not. And, unlike you, I’ve made the basis of my comment crystal clear. You made a post (more than one, actually, but one example suffices) claiming that Americana was posting as Webb; I’ve linked directly to the post and quoted it, so we agree that there is no question that I am misstating, misquoting, or misrepresenting what you said. I then asked you to link to the post in question and explain your evidence; you refused to do so, and offered a series of rationales and justifications for not doing so.

            When you make a claim, and then are unable to show a basis in reality for that claim, that claim cannot be described as anything but “invented.”

            I remember another debate several months back where you exposed your thinking on a number of issues, including stating that white Americans need to “atone” for slavery and then you went on to make a case for interminable reparations. When I went back a day later to quote you, the comments were deleted.

            Isn’t that interesting? Because, as I recall, the only time I used the term “atone” was in response to a poster who had brought up the issue herself, claiming that the wrongs of slavery had been paid for with Northern blood. My rejoinder was that the blood shed by civil war soldiers hardly atoned for Plessy v Ferguson or Jim Crow – the wrongs didn’t stop happening in 1865. Kikorid asked how one would atone for that, and my response was quite clear:

            I don’t know how we could; nor am I suggesting that ‘atonement’ is the objective. The objective is to reverse theeffects of Plessy v Ferguson.

            I sort of stumbled into this conversation without having tried to come up with the solution; I sense that it has to do with making a major overhaul in our educational system, but I don’t have a plan to submit for evaluation, I’m afraid.

            So let’s look at the impressive number of falsehoods you managed to fit into your post just now:

            1. “…stating that white Americans need to “atone” for slavery”

            - Not true. I noted that the deaths of Union soldiers, which had been offered as an example of expiation for slavery, did not atone for post-slavery wrongs. I did not suggest any “need” for anything except acknowledging the need to fix our society, and, in fact, explicitly rejected the idea that ‘atonement’ was the objective when asked for clarification. The link to the entire conversation is pasted below, but here is the relevant portion:

            Sussexgirl: “What is known is that reparations have already been paid, were paid 150 years ago in the blood of northern white boys that soaked into the soil of fields all across the South. It’s enough already. No one in this country owes anyone else anything. It’s time for everyone to put their big boy and girl panties on and get over themselves.”

            Hiernonymous: “That’s not “known,” that’s your spin. Big difference. A more reasoned point of view might be that “it’s enough already” when someone arriving in the United States would be unable to tell that blacks were once the victims of sustained oppression. Nor is slavery all we have to answer for; your Union lads may have died to help end slavery, but they didn’t atone for Jim Crow, did they? For Plessy v Ferguson? Your formulation is self-serving and simplistic. How about we all pull up our big boy and girl panties and really fix our society, instead of weaseling around on the internet explaining why “it’s not my problem.”

            Kikorid: “Please explain how we, or anybody, could or would “atone” for plessy v. Fergussen?”

            Hiernonymous: “I don’t know how we could; nor am I suggesting that ‘atonement’ is the objective. The objective is to reverse the effects of Plessy v Ferguson. I sort of stumbled into this conversation without having tried to come up with the solution; I sense that it has to do with making a major overhaul in our educational system, but I don’t have a plan to submit for evaluation, I’m afraid.”

            2. “…and then you went on to make a case for interminable reparations.”

            - Not true. As you can see from the excerpt above, which quotes my response to Kikorid in its entirety, I didn’t ‘make a case’ for any course of action, but suggested that it would probably involve reform of the educational system. You’ll note that that was not a case for interminable reparations.

            3. “When I went back a day later to quote you, the comments were deleted.”

            - Demonstrably false. The thread still stands; there are no posts deleted from our part of the conversation, and only a single post was deleted from the page: it was identifiably from uptownsteve, based on Drakken’s response to it immediately below it.

            The thread can be found here: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/salons-professor-crunk-claims-white-on-black-murder-wave-in-florida/

            Do you have your leftist buddies hacking Disqus to erase those moments when you out your evil agenda? is that the kind of underhanded stuff you learned in the military, that you now use to avoid losing a debate? It wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

            The real question is whether you have any capacity for embarrassment whatever. You do realize that you made an accusation of deletion, hacking, and military-trained skulduggery that is demonstrably false? To be blunt, you lied.

            That’s two such inventions this week – you need help.

          • Americana

            Your comment is a matter of public record. As is my denial of having done what you accused me of. Since a similar thing was done once before except it was my BB handle being used to post as me to me, there are many interesting instances where you’ve been found to be playing around in the nature of the BB discussions in ways that don’t reflect well on you. Just FYI, I don’t lay down when it comes to this sort of silliness. You’re either playing the game at a mature level or you’re playing the game at the level of a 6-year old in the sandbox. I guess that’s appropriate since the term “sandbox” is used around here so frequently…

          • truebearing

            My comments are a matter of public record, so why would I make them if there wasn’t a good reason? I flagged both of the fake Webb comments, which could explain their disappearance, or perhaps someone with the ability to hack Disqus removed them. I think I’ll contact Disqus myself since I trust you as far as I can throw you.

        • Webb

          Hernio! I have found love project for you! Maybe if Hillyery would add a centerfold exposing her nude cankles the remaining books would be swept off the shelves. You can be hero and suggest this to prop up her sagging, uh, book campaign. You’d like to see those things, wouldn’t you? Yum yum. Beats anything Hernio has ever had, eh? What a grim charge you have leveled against truebearing. You are a great crusader. I know where you can get job. They are hiring human shields in Gaza right now. On the job training! No more being keyboard warrior. Defend the people of your love!

          • hiernonymous

            ” No more being keyboard warrior. Defend the people of your love!”

            I did that irl for well over 20 years. Thanks for the advice, though.

      • Areminder

        Doubtlessly to be “GHOST WRITTEN”!!!

        • Carl Mason

          written by the ghosts of Benghazi

  • http://banliberals.com/ Ban Liberals

    GREAT NEWS! Imagine the fury emanating from this evil hag in private! Her personality absolutely cannot withstand either criticism or failure, and I LOVE IT!

  • Elizabeth Cape Cod

    Even the left is bored with her. That’s encouraging.

  • winstons

    The publisher’s fee to Hillary was just a payment to a possible US President. If she wins, they can expect to collect on their investment.

  • fpm

    Hillary’s famous line, 10 million profit or 10 million loss, what difference does it make at this moment? (off mic while talking to Hussein) I don’t care for the loss of four American lives, why do they think I care for their profit? Ha Ha Ha. (echo) Ha Ha Ha (from her audience).

  • Nabukuduriuzhur

    Given the standard practice of rich people buying up part or all of the first print run in order to get it on the Best Seller list, one wonders how many of those that “sold” were bought by Hillary to get on the list and make sure there was a second run.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      probably in the thousands, maybe the tens of thousands

      don’t forget the libraries, various lib cultural institutions

  • Borchardt

    “they simply decided to give her a campaign contribution.”

    Winner!

    • dr44

      Yes. To paraphrase Ben Stein, it was a campaign contribution lightly disguised as a book advance.

  • Areminder

    Maybe the Publisher can claim it as a Campaign Contribution and not be obligated to make another. I’m sure Campaign Finance Laws don’t apply to hillary anyway, and the IRS and holder will help her make it all go away.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Not unless the money went to a Hillary PAC

  • carpe diem 36

    you cannot give this book to me free!! when I had finished reading all the good books on my list then maybe i will read this “book”

    • Daniel Greenfield

      use it for mulch

  • Wolfthatknowsall

    Of course, Hollywood and the networks will do their part. There’s a series coming on CBS (the Commie Broadcasting System), this Fall, called Madame Secretary, which will center on a female Secretary of State (played Tea Leoni). Morgan Freeman is one of the producers of the show, and will probably play the “President”.

    They never miss a trick, but I’d be willing to bet that this show … no matter how dismal the ratings … will be on until Hitlery is out of the running, or is defeated, in 2016.