« Turning up the heat on the global warming theory | Main | Obama's eulogy at West Point »

November 30, 2009


Derek Kirk

I think what you mean to say is "Palin's one-week sales topped Clinton's one-week sales". Clinton's first-month sales (at 1 million) beat Palin's (700,000). Clinton's total sales are in the 1.2 million range. Palin's got a long way to go yet.

"In national politics, some feel that big Business is always opposed to the Little Guy. Some people seem to think that a profit motive is inherently greedy and evil, and that what's good for business is bad for people. (That's what Karl Marx thought, too.)"

'Story' aside, that's a beautiful piece of ad hominem.

chris corwin

> Palin's story is one of the reasons why her book outsold
> Hillary Clinton's autorbiography in just one week

another reason is that palin writes at a 5th grade reading level, which is just about perfect for her target audience.


Well, I guess I'll just have to take that as a compliment I reckon (since I apparently fall into that category). Not all of us conservatives have been blessed with the wit and wisdom of our liberal friends. ;)

For someone who is no longer even in public service, the power of Palin is as strong as ever. Case in point: I find it interesting that both of the comments here have focused on an inconsequential side item in the above post and not on the actual point of the post itself--namely, the need for Obama to reframe the stories that are coming to define him and his presidency. That seems much more relevant to the American public at this point than the content and audience of Palin's book. But then again, what do I know? I'm just a hillbilly born and breed in Martintucky! :)

Derek Kirk

seems strange that the original post would include an 'inconsequential' point. Why bother?

The reason I commented on the book-sales 'side item' is that it was the only substantive bit of information in the entire post. Everything else was vague and unverifiable. When the only fact in an entire post is indisputably wrong, I think it's worth mentioning.

But then again, what do I know? I'm just a granola-crunching socialist living in the Third World!

Resident Atheist

Chris, I'd rather be reading like a 5th grader than acting like one. Grow up.


Palin's book hasn't even been out for a month, so I don't think it's fair to compare Hillary's first-month sales to Palin's two-week sales. Besides, Palin has sold 1,000,000 in two weeks, not the '700,000 in a month' figure that Derek posted.

And really even if Palin fails to outsell Hillary, wouldn't we expect a former First Lady, NY Senator, and Presidential hopeful that has been in the public eye since 1992 to outsell someone that no one had even heard of 18 months ago?


Derek, I used the word "inconsequential" to simply suggest that the Palin reference was secondary to the main point of the post. In fact, the Palin connection is/was to emphasize my contention that her story connects with people. The tie is merely intended to support the similar idea that the stories about Obama connect with people (no matter how "vague and unverifiable" they may seem to be). And with Palin's book sales having surpassed the 1 million copy threshold, it seems that more and more people are finding something to connect with in her story. Sorry for the confusion if that reference seems to have dismissed the validity of the post in your mind.

Derek Kirk

Well I clearly spoke too soon. Looks like Harper Collins bumped their figure to the 1 million mark a few hours before my initial comment. It would be nitpicking to point out that the original post is still incorrect, and that it's a weird sort of hyperbole. She's poised to outsell Clinton's book, but she hasn't done it yet. And she certainly didn't do it in one week. In any event, my figures were wrong even before I posted them.

John, sometimes you embrace the derailment of your original posts.

I'm a little nervous that I'll come out of this looking like a Hillary's-book fan. I think the real issue for me is the compulsion to use book sales figures to show that people are connecting with a story, and then tying that into a political agenda. There's no question that this is politically rooted, right? We're not having this discussion about sports figures, artists or American Idol contestants.


Derek, I'm curious why John's error is such a big deal to you. You say that Hillary has sold 1.2 million book total. I haven't verified that, but I'll take your word for it. Her book came out in 2003. Palin has sold a million in two week and will probably eclipse Hillary's book before it's even a month old. Whether Palin's brand new book outsold Hillary's 6-1/2 year-old book in a week or a month, his point remains the same: People connect with stories.

And it wasn't the mention of Palin's book sales that politicized that point. In fact, you could take out the Palin reference totally and the point is unchanged. You made sure to emphasize that you didn't want to seem like a fan of Hillary's book, yet you've bent over backwards seemingly in defense of it's honor. So either you're a closet Hillary fan, or you're just another Palin critic. If the latter is true, then you've also been disingenuous about your motives for correcting John's mistake and hypocritical in taking him to task for being too political.

Derek Kirk

You're right to imply the error is not a big deal, and my own error was right alongside it, anyway. I explained my reason for bringing it up two comments ago, so I'll just reference that rather than taking up more space.

As for back-bending, I haven't said anything in defense of Hillary's (or her book's) honor, except to state accurate sales figures.

As for being 'just another Palin critic', I have no reason to criticize her. She's an Alaskan woman with a popular book and says she doesn't intend to run for president. There's nothing to oppose or support.

Anyway, sorry to have drug us down this dark alley. I think I've done the blog equivalent of pulling up in a windowless van, throwing hoods over everyone's heads and pulling them inside for a joyride. I'll save my future scrutiny for issues where I have a position I'd like to advocate.



The last part of your most recent comment had me laughing out loud. Love the analogy. :) No worries. You and I may not always agree on things, but I always respect someone who is willing to try to set the record straight (even, and especially, at their own expense). I really appreciate that, and will try to do the same where needed.

For my own part, I clearly needed to articulate that particular Palin part of the post more clearly. As you pointed out originally, my intent was not to suggest that Palin had outsold in one week Hillary's total book sales figure. It sounds nice, especially for those who support Palin, but it is hardly accurate. I went back and reread it and can see where it seems as though that was my intent. So, sorry for the confusion. (In that respect, I may have had a hand in driving the windowless van. :) Thanks again!


For the power of story in keeping with the
"holiday festivities," try Oh Holy Night: The Peace of 1914

see here http://www.christmastruce.co.uk/

The comments to this entry are closed.