Since Derb brought it up. Yeah, I read the Economist thing. And I’ve read the whacks at the Amazon description of my book elsewhere as well (Let’s see: The New Republic, Reason, various lefty blog sites, etc). I’ve chosen not to engage a debate about a book I have not finished based upon a description I did not write months before the book even comes out. I’ve kept my powder dry for a very long time. I can wait a little while longer. If folks think this is a sign of some sort of lack of confidence on my part, they might ask why I’m writing the book at all. The book is mostly a work of history and not primarily about Hillary Clinton. Beyond that, wait and see. Nobody will be claiming that they aren’t hearing enough about it when its time comes.

I will say one thing in response to the Economist’s Lexington piece, which was written by Adrian Wooldridge. He’s taken a some cheap shots at National Review (or his magazine has under his direction) ever since Ramesh panned his book in NR. I have nothing to do with any of that. Indeed, the last time I met Mr. Wooldridge it was at a small dinner-conference put on by the Hoover Institution and I joked with him about how I was going to maintain a Switzerland-esque neutrality on his disagreements with Ramesh. He laughed. Indeed, he seemed a very nice and intelligent fellow and we had a nice chat. And that’s the funny thing. During that chat I explained to him in broad brushstrokes what my book was about and he was very flattering about it and even offered a suggestion or two about contemporary examples I might use to bolster my thesis.

So my question is, did he think it was a contemptible project then and gamely offered some help with it anyway? Or does he merely say he thinks so now in print so he can once again take cheap shots at National Review, this time via me?