Hillary Clinton's book is selling, and conservatives just can't stand it. No one's more upset than Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online -- he posted this yesterday to NRO's blog The Corner, then posted a link to this, from blogger Donald Sensing.

Let me try to sort out the stupidity from the nonsense. First, Goldberg:

The "leak" to the Associated Press was bogus and almost certainly came from Simon and Schuster. It helped book sales, generated buzz and was timed perfectly. The idea that they were angry didn't pass the laugh test.

OK, Jonah probably gets one right -- but so what? The controlled leak is a common practice in publishing, the movie biz, the music biz....

Simon and Schuster claims they printed 1 million copies. People I've talked to say this is probably a lie.

Maybe, maybe not -- but if not, it looks as if S&S should have.

Simon and Schuster claimed yesterday that they sold 20 percent or 200,000 copies of the book on its first day. Not only do I think this is impossible, given purely anecdotal information, I'm confident it is impossible that Simon and Schuster could actually know if they sold that many books. Such numbers are notoriously difficult to collect months after the fact. The idea that S&S got same-day data strikes me as bizarre. How come we've never gotten same day info like this before? Will we ever get it again? I don't think so.

Even Goldberg's blog-mate, Richard Brookhiser, knows this is nonsense. Publishers can get continually updated information from the major chains and "the clubs" (e.g., Sam's Club at Wal-Mart), as well as from national distributors. Publishers also know that X% of a typical book's total sales (I don't know the exact percentage, but it's widely known in the book biz) will take place at Barnes & Noble -- and can estimate total sales from that.

What baffles me about this is that Goldberg's mother, Lucianne, has been in the book business, as an agent and writer, for decades. Why isn't he able to glean this information?

If they really printed 1 million copies, why does S&S need to order another 300,000 copies? Why is it saying that they're making another reprint order next week on top of that? Surely, they don't think the 800,000 books remaining on the shelves constitutes a low supply?

Books aren't blogs -- they don't generate new copies automatically. It takes a while to print, bind, and ship books. S&S now is anticipating inventory shortfalls a couple of weeks from now.

Now, Sensing:

I predicted this morning that Hillary Clinton's book, Living History, set for June 9 release, will wind up in the remainder bins at bookstores by the end of June.

Sensing updated this, citing "a book-industry insider." His insider said,

I don't disagree with the spirit of your prediction, but I think the end of June timeframe is aggressive [for the book to start being remaindered].

I'll say. Even bomb books don't hit the remainder tables until about a year (or more) after publication. Some books are "remaindered in place" (alternate name: "shared markdown") -- these are newer books that are selling slowly. Publisher and bookseller agree to each take less money per copy, and the book stays on the new-book shelf, but at a significantly reduced price (usually 50% off). A true reminder is marked down much lower -- well under $10.00 (Hillary's book at 50% off list price would be $14).

In the book business, a first run of 100,000 is considered the benchmark for a large run. It is common for the number of first-run books actually printed to be very much smaller than the hype-ridden number first announced.

Sensing's insider also updates this:

BTW, in regard to first print runs, of course for a Harry Potter, or John Grisham, where the publisher doesn't need to hype, you can take those initial printrun numbers literally.

And it looks as if Hillary Clinton -- like, say, Colin Powell a decade ago -- may be in that category.

It's also common for the list price of major-hype books to be inflated so that they can immediately be discounted by retailers, with the result that the actual sale price is what the publisher wants to charge to begin with. Example: J. K. Rowling's next Harry Potter book, due out June 21, lists at $29.99; Amazon is pre-selling it for $17.99. Amazon does not list Living History, but Barnesandnoble.com does, list price given as $28, preselling for $19.60.

Yes, but if you buy Living History six months from now, you'll probably pay full price for it -- and even today you might pay full price at an independent bookshop. What is Sensing saying? That people who bought the book at discount didn't "really" buy it?

The book is selling. Deal with it.