You might be interested to know that in Christopher Hitchens's Atlantic Monthly review of Sidney Blumenthal's The Clinton Wars, the word "I" or some form of it ("I've," "I'd") appears a rather remarkable 91 times.

Yes, I know: Hitchens figures prominently in Blumenthal's book. But doesn't that mean he shouldn't be reviewing the book for The Atlantic? When did it become acceptable to assign reviews to writers with a vested interest in the failure of the book under review?

If Hitchens can review The Clinton Wars for The Atlantic, and Joseph Lelyveld can review it for The New York Review of Books, shouldn't some publication hire Bill Clinton to review Ann Coulter's next book? Shouldn't Howell Raines get to review the next volume by Andrew Sullivan? Should David Denby and Anthony Lane step aside at The New Yoker while Mia Farrow reviews the next Woody Allen movie? Should The Source assign DMX to review Ja Rule's latest CD?

Or is hiring a reviewer with an axe to grind acceptable only when the target of the axe is connected with the Clinton administration?