Type to search

‘The Hunting Of Hillary’ – A New E-Book From The National Memo

Memo Pad

‘The Hunting Of Hillary’ – A New E-Book From The National Memo


The National Memo is pleased to announce the publication of The Hunting of Hillary, a new e-book from Memo editor-in-chief Joe Conason and Gene Lyons.

The book is being made available today for free to subscribers of National Memo’s daily newsletter.

The Hunting of Hillary recounts the true history of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” — as Hillary Clinton herself once famously described it — that sought to bring her down along with her husband when he was president. Drawn from the pages of The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton, a national bestseller, this new e-book is focused on her ordeal and ultimate vindication.

The story begins, like so many American political narratives, on the front page of The New York Times, which publishes the very first article about the Whitewater real estate development during the heat of the 1992 presidential primaries. Lacking basic facts, let alone substance or proof, it soon fades away.

But that single example of skewed reporting eventually explodes into sustained national hysteria — and unscrupulous figures swiftly emerge from the swamps of Arkansas, the halls of Congress, the federal courts, and the nation’s most respected newsrooms to exploit the burgeoning “scandal.” A pioneering female attorney in a male-dominated profession, Hillary Clinton suddenly sees her hard-won achievements turned into a partisan weapon against her and her family.

While the Office of Independent Counsel seeks the means to prosecute her, and Republicans in Congress convene hearings to condemn her, a network of operatives known as the Arkansas Project secretly plots to influence the courts and the media against her, using millions of dollars — “dark money” — provided by a right-wing billionaire.

Withering attacks on her character proliferate across every platform, from talk-radio behemoth Rush Limbaugh’s insinuations blaming Hillary for the “murder” of her former law partner Vince Foster, to New York Times columnist William Safire’s repeated predictions that she is soon destined for conviction and imprisonment.

The names and details may be different, but the same machinery that defamed Hillary Clinton two decades ago is still grinding away. The parallels to the present are stunning — and the stakes are at least as high as in 1996.

The Hunting of Hillary includes a new introduction by authors Joe Conason and Gene Lyons, and a “Where Are They Now?” appendix about the story’s main characters.

The Hunting of Hillary is available free of charge to subscribers to The National Memo. Download your free copy here today.



  1. nebulafox May 9, 2015

    There was no conspiracy. Bill was just dumb enough to give people who loathed his guts a dagger.

    1. Theodora30 May 10, 2015

      Whitewater was not given to the media by Clinton, it came straight from right wingers to the NY Times. Vince Foster’s suicide was not Clinton’s fault. Yet these things were investigated by Ken Starr and Congress at great expense to us taxpayers long before Clinton’s big mistake, Monica, was discovered.

      1. nebulafox May 10, 2015

        I was referring to Monica. It was dumb and rather sleazy, certainly not criminal.

        1. Theodora30 May 10, 2015

          I realize that but my point is that there were serious allegations and investigations long before that that pressured Clinton to allow the appointment of an I dependent Counsel even though there had been two independent investigations led by Republicans that had cleared the Clintons of any wrongdoing. (Jay Sephens who investigated the Whitewater charges for the RTC and Special Counsel Robert Fiske who also cleared both Clintons. The MSN buried these facts and continued to hound Clinton until he gave in to an Independent Prosecutor. Ken Starr was appointed by Jesse Helms’ guys and Starr proceeded to look into every aspect of the Clintons’ private lives. Sure Bill was who do stupid to have an affair but there are few politicians who could have withstood that kind of scrutiny – and no others have been subjected to that, either. there are not many of us who could withstand that kind of scrutiny.

          1. nebulafox May 10, 2015

            Certainly. What I’m trying to get at is that Bill Clinton made the situation worse by swatting at every single challenge, thus alienating people who otherwise wouldn’t have particularly liked him, but would have respected the Presidency. Ken Starr being a classic case-he previously argued that Clinton had nothing to do with the death of Vincent Foster, and conducted Whitewater relatively fairly. His response to being attacked by the Clinton WH was inexcuable, but there wouldn’t have been a Lewinsky scandal if they didn’t preemptively treat him like an enemy. That’s what reminds me of Nixon, not the crimes themselves-the serious lack of restraint or common sense on both sides. Never did I see what was best for the nation. Starr went as far to deep-six evidence that would work against them, much like Cox and Company did, the White House was in overdrive paranoid mode, lashing out against enemies real and imagined. (Clinton and Nixon seriously strike me as being a lot alike sometimes-not the least because of the sheer *irrationality* of some of their haters besides background, ideology, etc).

            But the most important thing is this-the Watergate coverup was a massive power abuse, Lewinsky wasn’t. Yes, Clinton shouldn’t have gotten a BJ in his office from an intern young enough to be his daughter, especially with his past. He most certainly shouldn’t have lied about it under oath. But still, that’s hardly relevant to being President. Or Speaker, as Gingrich could well attest to.

            Politics is a dirty game. All White Houses generally have their things to hide, and if you get the right leaks, the right everything, the right conditions, you can take anybody for a ride.

            I’m not arguing with you on that it was partisan politics, or that Starr I’m just arguing that he could have handled it way better, and it certainly wasn’t a conspiracy on the level that Hillary implies. That disingenuous. He gave people who hated him a sword. That’s not the same thing.

  2. Theodora30 May 10, 2015

    If you think this is not happening now, Politco has posted an article that openly admits the MSM is still out to get Hillary.
    “…..the national media have never been more primed to take down Hillary Clinton (and, by the same token, elevate a Republican candidate.”

    The innocuous title of the article says it is Hillary’s to lose but the point of the article is that the media is against her and could bring her down (which is made explicit in the link above). Politico is very influential among the Beltway Insiders so for it to make such an open admission should be big news at least on liberal sites but so far it is being ignored.

    1. nebulafox May 10, 2015

      The media are sharks. I do not think of them as liberal or conservative, as I do not think most reporters are intellectually deep enough to think beyond platitudes. They are basically non-ideological in the general, with exceptions of course. But they will happily do whatever it takes to get money and fame. Whenever they smell blood, it doesn’t matter who it comes from.

      Hillary better watch herself, for her own sake and the country’s. I’ll happily prefer corruption to fanaticism.

      1. Theodora30 May 11, 2015

        I agree that the media is not acting out of ideological beliefs, liberal or conservative. But I do not agree that they will go after anyone if they smell blood in the water. If that were true they would have crucified George HW Bush when it became clear he had been lying about his deep involvement in the illegal, clearly unconstitutional Iran Contra operations. Yet when Dan Rather tried to question him about it and Poppy attacked Rather to avoid answering the media sided with Bush. Even after Bush pardoned Cap Weinberger, which prevented the evidence of Bush’s involvement from coming out at Cap’s trial, the media shrugged it off. The highly respected Republican Independent Counsel, Lawrence Walsh, was furious with Bush. His final report makes it clear that Bush was not coming clean – and it also says that Colin Powell lied to his investigators, something else the media chose to ignore. Speaking (writing) of Powell I watched the very liberal David Corn express his deep concern about Hillary’s lost emails not because she is running for President but because of the importance of the public’s and historian’s right to know. This was after Powell had said he had all his emails as Sec State – work and personal – destroyed but Corn was only upset about Hillary having her personal emails erased. Apparently history and the public do not need to know what the Sec State was writing during the dishonest selling of the Iraq War. Powell is untouchable because he is revered but Hillary married a usurping hick from Arkansas so she is held to a different standard.

        Then there was the MSM’s clear preference for the clearly unqualified George W. Over boring ol’Al Gore – more fun to have a beer with is apparently a more important than intelligence and experience.

        I have been watching this closely since Reagan was allowed to get away with lying about tax cuts not adding to our debt because he was seen as glamorous and inspirational by our adolescent media. You are right that this is not based on principle but it is based on an obsession with personality. The Bushes are aristocrats, Reagan was a glamour movie star (they felt the same way about Fred Thompson!). Carter and Clinton were disdained as rubes from flyover land and never qualified to be one of the Kool Kids at Beltway High. They loved Obama because he is one cool guy. It is all a contest for prom king (not queen) in their eyes.

        Our media “pros” are shallow, egotistical, emotional adolescents who believe they – not “we the people” – should be the ones to decide who is qualified to be President. Down not so deep they do not believe in democracy.

        1. nebulafox May 11, 2015

          I am a serious fan of George Bush Senior (the last class act we’ve had in office) and my opinion of Dan Rather is pretty low, but I’ve never bought that he didn’t know about Iran Contra.

          Otherwise, I couldn’t agree more. The contempt for the masses is palpable, and to some extent, I don’t think they believe in democracy. Their treatment of Obama borders on obsequious, in part because he represents their ideal American. And no doubt the irrational hatred that many feel for him is based on their nightmares. No contempt is more resented than cultural contempt.

          Look at what LBJ took after Saint Kennedy passed away. The guy did what they *fantasized* about doing on Civil Rights and liberalism, and their response was to crucify him for a war they enthusiastically supported at first. When he passed the Voting Rights Act, the WaPo’s response was to print a crude cartoon of him carrying a whip over Congress and spitting tobacco with a Southern accent.

          And we forgot the fate of the ultimate disdained rube, the man who was literally their worst nightmare:

          “Reagan will survive because when all is said and done, he can get up and say “I am an idiot and therefore can’t be blamed”, and everyone will agree. I never had that option.”

          Richard Nixon to John Sears on Iran Contra.

          (Say what you will about Watergate, it didn’t involve selling arms to terrorists).


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.