Well, you know, we have amaazingly conflicting reports on the McGinniss book, and each from a usually reliable source. Garry Trudeau, who was given exclusive first leaked rights to it (and which has led to some pretty hot little Doonesburys ) says it was "meticulously reported."
Meanwhile, the Washpost reviewer Nick Gillespie called it an atrociously reported book.
So, you have some colliding views, each colored, perhaps, by what the reviwer was looking for. The book gave Trudeau some excellent days of strip, and I am guessing he saw it as I see it -- a bunch of gossip from insiders that presents Palin in a light that should make it impossible for Family Values enthusiasts to support her. A reasonable view. Many sources, named and unnamed, paint her as what we sort of expected her to be: a terrible, uninvolved mother, a petty and vindictive backstabber, an ingorant moron, etc. I mean, we KNEW these things, so the book is a treat, and we believe it.
To the Post guy, it sounds like a shoddy collection of gossip, much gleaned no doubt from her rivals. This is inimical to the idea of what an important political profile should be. Also probably correct. Sounds like McGinniss didn't go for " important," or spend much time worrying about "fairness."
Having not yet read the book, I can't really say what I think, except to note one delicious irony: The most repeated revelation -- that she had a one-night stand with Glen Rice when young and unmarried -- would probably bother no liberals at all. I mean, who cares? Good for both of them. Hope it was fun and that you used contraceptives. But (assuming they believe it) it would be the rock-ribbed Famval lobby-- opposed to fun and premarital sex, and likely uncomfortable with biracial sex -- who might be freaked. I like that irony.



