Walters then assaulted her with the reverse idea, that she could have "saved" Monica Lewinsky from ridicule if she'd talked about it in the 1990s. But mostly, Walters insisted the book "did not have to be written" and "You could have let it go!" This was breathtakingly hypocritical for Walters, who in her own 2008 memoir, "Audition," joyfully wrote endless details about her sleazy affairs with several (married) men and made endless buckets of money, too.
Walters wasn't the only woman to trash Alford for daring to speak up and ruin the pretty Jack and Jackie pictures, which everyone knows are phony. Janet Maslin, book reviewer of The New York Times, clearly thought this book should have been aborted. "There is much to tsk-tsk about Ms. Alford's account of her wide-eyed innocence and the president's particular brand of cruelty toward her. But there's not a lot of news, so the fuss should soon die down." When it does, Maslin insisted, it would show "Ms. Alford seems to have little idea how badly her stories reflect on herself."
As we know from our liberal media, sleazy White House affairs with interns are never meant to make the president look sleazy. These rotten-to-the-core husbands are lauded for their heroism and their "magnetism" and "electricity" for all posterity. Instead, we demean their coquettish "conquests" for daring to write about it from their viewpoint.
On "The Chris Matthews Show," the entire panel of journalists dismissed Alford's memoir as having zero impact on Kennedy's image in the history books. CNNs Gloria Borger attempted to find some of the Alford stories "despicable" and "disgusting," but Kathleen Parker, television's favorite faux-family-values-conservative added, "And delicious." When Matthews asked her viewpoint as a woman, she theatrically yawned. Would she react that way if the husband in question were her own?
Chris Matthews was delighted at the unanimous verdict against Alford. "I wrote a much more comprehensive book about Jack Kennedy. I got to tell you, it's all a part of the picture. You can't defend it. He's still a hero."
Matthews titled his rehash of a book "Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero." That's the problem. There is nothing constructive or appealing about the promotion of Alford's ugly story. I'm happy everyone wants it ignored. On the other hand, it's time to stop this dishonest rewrite about the Kennedy White House. It wasn't Camelot. It was a sewer. It's time for them to stop ignoring that.
NYT Journalist Wonders: "Free Speech Aside" Why Would Anyone Hold A Contest to Draw Muhammed? | Katie Pavlich