Bill Strikes Back

I think Bill Clinton makes some fair points in his intemperate rant against Todd Purdum. But in a lot of ways, the flaws in Purdum's article (lots of innuendos about illicit sex) serve to obscure the valid points (we know very little about the financing of Clinton's lifestyle and his foundation) and the notion that the publication of a a single article on this subject far too late to impact the process represents a vast pro-Obama conspiracy in the press is laughable.

It's GQ after all, that killed a critical story about Hillary Clinton because Bill threatened to freeze them out unless they did it. In general, coverage of Bill's post-presidency has been exceedingly respectful, even in the generally Obamaphilic Atlantic.

Comments

I'd be flattered to be linked to Eleanor Mondale. I only wish.

Posted by John Emerson | June 3, 2008 1:48 PM

Also, if you're trying to refute an article that says (among other things) that you're angrier and more irrational than you used to be, you should take special care to...you know. Not sound angry and irrational.

Posted by Persia | June 3, 2008 1:59 PM

I thought the article was actually pretty nice to Bill, all things considered. Clinton is overreacting so much that he kind of proved Purdom's point about being too angry these days.

It's an article in Vanity Fair. So what?

Posted by Helter | June 3, 2008 2:02 PM

It is very odd that Vanity Fair, which tries so hard to be au courant, would choose to run this article at the very end of the contest. Talk about being late to the party.

Posted by Dan Kervick | June 3, 2008 2:03 PM

Eh. The article was bad enough that I am sympathetic to the instinct to advance an explanation that, in the end, seems to overreach. It does seem likes something of a "Nice store you got there, mister; be a shame if something happened to it" article.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 3, 2008 2:05 PM

"In general, coverage of Bill's post-presidency has been exceedingly respectful"

In most ways, the greatest tragedy of Bill Clinton's life is that the good things he can do have always led people to ignore the flawed and negative aspects of his character. I wonder what more he could have accomplished if someone had not put up with his BS as a young man and kicked his ass a few times.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | June 3, 2008 2:15 PM

I appreciated Clinton's use of "slimy" and "scumbag" to accurately refer to folks like Purdum and Yglesias.

Posted by Petey | June 3, 2008 2:18 PM

We're all part of a vast centrist conspiracy now, in Bill's mind.

Posted by Deborah | June 3, 2008 2:21 PM

Thank God for Todd Purdum and Vanity Fair!!!

Bill and Hillary are the Democratic equivalents of Bush and Cheney and are two of the slimiest, sleaziest politicians in America.

Bill and Hillary are the king and queen of toxic sludge politics.

The White House is not a Bush Clinton timeshare. It's time to end the Bush Clinton kakistocracy.

Todd Purdum wrote the truth and Bill Clinton can't handle the truth.

Bill and Hillary and Bush and Cheney should all rot in Hell.

Posted by jerry | June 3, 2008 2:22 PM

I recommend David Remnick's Bill Clinton piece in The New Yorker, 'The Wanderer'.

It's got no 'Air Fuck One' but the same questions about Clinton's questionable associates and bits about his anger too. I don't blame the anger on complications from his health issues. Think what you will of Bill Clinton but the guy is a brilliant politician and I think he is haunted by his own missed opportunities and it comes out as anger. You can say he should get over it but few people in the history of mankind have had the opportunities to do well for his fellow man as Bill Clinton and what is his legacy -- the Earned Income Tax Credit and a bubble economy? I'd be angry all the time too if that was my legacy.

Posted by joejoejoe | June 3, 2008 2:25 PM

I didn't the article was that harsh. Obviously, VF couldn't come out and explicitly state the main point -- Bill Clinton is still a great big philanderer and is more open about it than ever -- because he's not being caught red-handed. But Purdum lays the circumstantial evidence out pretty well. Given that we're talking about Vanity Fair here, what's wrong with "lots of innuendos about illicit sex"? That's the part I wanted to read.

The non-sex parts were mostly things I knew already, but I never really knew that Ron Burkle pays Clinton huge sums of money basically just to hang out with him. That's a sad little arrangement. I'm sort of embarrassed for both of them.

Posted by too many steves | June 3, 2008 2:25 PM

I appreciated Clinton's use of "slimy" and "scumbag" to accurately refer to folks like Purdum and Yglesias.

Needs more trust fund.

Posted by southpaw | June 3, 2008 2:28 PM

I admire the Clintons and have no use for what has become the hysterical Clinton hatred whipped up by Yglesias.

Posted by Jennifer | June 3, 2008 2:30 PM

I'm disposed to believe the worst about Bill Clinton, especially after reading the NYT's investigative piece on his Kazakhstan adventure, but I did find Purdum's piece to be too full of innuendo and too short on sources to qualify as journalism.

For the country's sake, let's hope the worst about Clinton remains unsourced innuendo and doesn't become more ammo for the GOP to fire at progressives.

Tonight's the night for Bill's permanent vacation to commence....

Posted by Tom | June 3, 2008 2:36 PM

When did Petey become so bitter?

Posted by Don | June 3, 2008 2:38 PM

I haven't read the article, and have only seen bits on Clinton's response, but Democrats in general need to spend more time, not less, calling out the elite DC press corps/villagers for the scumbags they truly are.

Now that Obama is the nominee, things may get interesting, as a lot young journalists still on the way up the career ladder are going to have to point out some very powerful people are incredibly corrupt, lazy, fatcats (hello Mr. Buffalo!) who repeat GOP talking points/memes more often than even your average Republican. And point it out on virtually a daily basis for months.

And have no doubt, the anti-Obama shitstorm is coming. It will make us harken back to the Dem Primary as the "good old days" of genteel campaigning.

Posted by Andruw | June 3, 2008 2:43 PM

Also, reliable sources indicate Todd Purdham blows goats, for real, actual fucking goats. The man is disgusting.

Posted by Andruw | June 3, 2008 2:52 PM

The sex is fully licit. It's just not respectable.

Posted by bjk | June 3, 2008 2:53 PM

"When did Petey become so bitter?"

Early March, back when it became apparent that supposedly "progressive" bloggers like trust-fund Yglesias were willing to lie through their bared teeth to ally with Marty Peretz and General Electric against the working class.

Posted by Petey | June 3, 2008 3:22 PM

Early March, back when it became apparent that supposedly "progressive" bloggers like trust-fund Yglesias were willing to lie through their bared teeth to ally with Marty Peretz and General Electric against the working class.

Oh posh, Petey. As far as the working class goes, there is barely any difference between Clinton and Obama, and certainly nothing sufficient to justify your personal venom toward Matt.

You know as well as we do what is going on. You invested yourself in Edwards and he lost. Then you invested in Clinton, and she lost. Now you're just feeling like a wounded two-time loser who has been demoted from canny political seer to MY's bitch.

Man up, crybaby, and get over it. And if not, try at least to think of something interesting to say while you complain. We have already heard your very short list of personal insults for Matt. Let's see, there is "scumbag" and ... umm ... "scumbag". Bring something else to the table.

Posted by Dan Kervick | June 3, 2008 3:41 PM

I was talking to my wife about the VF article last night, and my comments were "Why did Purdum spend nine pages of a fifteen page article making sniggering, baseless allegations about Bill Clinton's sex life, when the man is facilitating huge business deals with some of the worst dictators on the planet, enriching himself to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars for doing little or no actual work, and running a multi-billion dollar, completely undisclosed slush fund, all while drawing the largest government pension in American history."

There's grounds for plenty of legitimate criticism of Bill Clinton in that article. Just nothing to do with irresponsible sexual behavior.

I'm pretty sure that, as frail as Bill looks, hot sex would kill the man at this point anyway.

Posted by brewmn | June 3, 2008 4:30 PM

Matt's post is useless. He cites Politico as a source, for one thing! And what is he saying -- that because VF has been nice to Clinton for the most part, it's fine for Purdum to snigger away?

It's no wonder that both Clintons are mad as hell at the media. It's one thing to criticize them for things they actually do and say that are actually offensive or unethical or dumb. It's another thing to hack away at them personally (in the comments here or, more importantly, in the MSM).

As for the pro-Obama slant in the press, it's not hard to see. (Usual caveat: I didn't vote for either Obama or Clinton in the primary; if I'd had to choose between the two of them I'd have gone for Obama.) It has been explicitly acknowledged by more than a few pundits, in fact. But that doesn't necessarily mean McCain won't continue to get great coverage, often at Obama's expense. In other words, I agree with Andruw.

Posted by mary | June 3, 2008 4:44 PM

How about the fact that Clinton completely and baselessly smeared the Democratic Party nominee in a rant supposedly about a fashion mag.

And we're supposed to accept him as Second Lad? Oh, sorry, unless Obama picks Hillary as VP, Obama's not interestd in unity. And, per my Congresswoman, uninterested in Latino votes.

Posted by David B. | June 3, 2008 6:25 PM

My contacts have also told me that Todd Purdham blows goats. They also say that Matt, if not blowing, breathes heavily on them. That was one inexcusably slimy piece. And I am very far from being a Clinton fan.

Posted by Patrick | June 3, 2008 7:41 PM

Clinton has morphed into the "Mr. Haney" of politics, only a dull, evil, splenetic, lying Haney. He's nonsensical, warped, hateful, greedy, and cadaverous. He belongs in an old-age home somewhere near Suffern (N.Y.) where he can impress the alta cockas with his charismatic brilliance. Say goodnight, motherfucker - you're done.

Posted by Trevor | June 3, 2008 7:45 PM

Nice to see dumb shit Trevor take another shot at the Jews ("impress the alta cockas.")

Trev', of course, thinks using anachronistic Yiddish terms to mock Jews is both daring and witty. And, yes, any chance to rant about the Hebrews no matter how irrelevant is embraced by our gloriously bigoted jerkoff.

Now just unbuckle your pants, Trevor, pull down your underwear and stagger around the floor some more spitting out fury while telling us all about your career in Hollywood, how you could've gotten into an Ivy League College (but, um, somehow didn't) or your Nixon judge daddy.

Oh, we never tire of your shamelessly exploiting a twenty-six-year-old's blog to rant at the Hebrews or drone on about your pathetic life!

You're our assclown Trevor!

Never you forget it: you're our assclown!

But, alas, we've missed the pathetic personal revelations of late. Bring them on, you glorious, pathetic, ranting, affected assclown! Work your life into more posts, you fucking fool! (You can still be a sorry bigot obsessed with Jews. Have no fear.) We all love your stuff, you big gorgeous assclown of a man!

Petey, of course, remains the usual class act.

Well then . . .

Congratulations to Matthew Ygelisias on the unflushed toilet of a comments section he's got going. Petey and Trevor as constant floating turds to greet his readers, progressive or otherwise. Oh, must be very proud.

Posted by Trevor Appreciation Society | June 3, 2008 9:17 PM

Highlights from the comments:

Petey: since March? more like years and occassionally with good reason
southpaw: funny
brewmn: pretends he has a wife
Kervick: ironically calls for manliness and interesting comments
too many steves: enjoys sexual innuendo but finds others sad

Posted by highlights | June 4, 2008 1:17 AM

"Congratulations to Matthew Ygelisias on the unflushed toilet of a comments section he's got going."

What else has Yglesias got to offer? His opinions?

On what? Sports?

What else? Snark he learned from Josh Marshall?

The Atlantic is paying this guy to jerk off here, so why can't we?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 4, 2008 1:38 AM