Known Unknowns

It seems a bit weird to me that Todd Purdum's big Vanity Fair Bill Clinton profile is only coming out now, but as Kathy G. remarks it's a great refutation of the theory that since Bill and Hillary Clinton were so scrutinized in the 1990s there was nothing more that could have come out against the Clintons to make them look bad were Hillary to secure the nomination.

It's hard for me to tell how much of the sleazy behavior that Purdum hints at here is actually true. Based on the record, it wouldn't at all be unlike Clinton for some of it to be true. And based on the record, it wouldn't at all be unlike the press to run with some of it even if it isn't true. But either way, the point is that if there really is such a thing as the candidate with no new skeletons to be chewed over by the right-wing (and I'm skeptical there is) Hillary Clinton isn't it, any more than Barack Obama is.

Comments

Hillary's strategy right now is "Sometimes a 46 year old man suffers a fatal heart attack or gets hit by a speeding bus".

Posted by steve duncan | June 2, 2008 1:58 PM

I hear he fellated a Puerto Rican goat.

Posted by Bill | June 2, 2008 1:59 PM

I have to say that it seems like a pretty shoddy article.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 2, 2008 2:09 PM

No, Hillary's strategy is "We all know he has no chance to beat McCain and the GOP attack machine - By the Power of Grayskull...I have the power!"

Posted by Tiparillo | June 2, 2008 2:13 PM

Bill Clinton hangs around with rich people. I don't see this as a big deal.

Posted by Lemmy Caution | June 2, 2008 2:15 PM

I'd agree with SCMT, except for the various anecdotes on his business interests (esp. Kazakhstan, but that was done much better by the Times), which, if Clinton was to win the nomination, will be (and would deserve to be) scrutinized.

Posted by Joe | June 2, 2008 2:16 PM

I don't particularly like Bill Clinton -- as people who've seen my past posts will agree.

But the Vanity Fair article is a bunch of greatly inflated, unsubstantiated bullshit.

One of Bill's friends is a rich guy who likes to date beautiful 19 year old girls? Yeah like every male out there will agree that that's a crime.

While I'm inclined to agree with Voltaire that behind every great fortune there's a great crime, the Vanity Fair article doesn't exactly point out the crime behind Bill and Hillary's $109 Million windfall.

While I myself think that $50+ million in speakers fees is probably a creative payoff (I've heard Bill Clinton speak), I don't see how one can prove anything.

Posted by Don Williams | June 2, 2008 2:21 PM

"if Clinton was to win the nomination, will be (and would deserve to be) scrutinized. "

Except there's no "if" to it. They deserve to be scrutinized now. Not to mention there's never been any real electoral fanning of the flames over the pardons fiasco.

I also don't see why Republicans and their enablers wouldn't enjoy just GOING OVER AGAIN the same issues they brought up in the past. It's not like they really have moral qualms with treading old dirt.

It was amazing that Hillary went all of 2007 without the 2001-2007 era Clinton's getting more press. This probably had to do with multiple Democrats not wanting to go negative. And it doesn't seem Obama's style to harsh on that, which is why we didn't go over it in early 2008. But if this had lead to HRC winning the nod, that would have been hugely unfortunate, because we'll never stop hearing these corruption claims for the next 8 years.

Posted by Shock Mouse | June 2, 2008 2:22 PM

Also… it’s Vanity Fair. They write overwrought articles about the superficial aspects of celebrities. It is what they do. They are not the go to source for political information. This was not the Wash Post or NYT Op Ed page.

What’s potentially trivial is all the op-eds and other articles being written ABOUT the Vanity Fair piece, as if it was politically relevant. They made it relevant that way, and they were helped along by the 3 page memo the Clinton campaign put out responding to it.

I don’t see the Clinton campaign whining every time National Enquirer has a “who is Bill sleeping with now” cover (which they do).

Posted by Shock Mouse | June 2, 2008 2:26 PM

Don, SCMT etc.:
Look, no one's gonna argue that what Bill's been doing is illegal, or even terribly immoral behavior for a private citizen. But flying around the world on "the fuck plane" or whatever they call it with a bunch of billionaires and 19 year olds is pretty goddamn sleazy, and if your wife is running for president you'd hope to have the self control to hold off for a year or eight.

Posted by Curly | June 2, 2008 2:27 PM

The point isn't really whether they could prove anything; rather, if Hillary/Bill were back in the White House the press and the right wing would go nuts obsessing about this stuff, trying to dig it up, make it up, sling it around, sell papers, etc. Standards of proof are not the primary concern. And the Clintons would get caught up in countering the sleazy attacks, and indeed would relish doing so, and around and around we'd go. I can't believe anyone thinks this would be remotely desirable.

Posted by guyx | June 2, 2008 2:31 PM

Re "It was amazing that Hillary went all of 2007 without the 2001-2007 era Clinton's getting more press. This probably had to do with multiple Democrats not wanting to go negative"
-----------
Actually, it had partly to do with the Clintons stonewalling on release of their tax returns until a few weeks ago -- and only then because Obama turned up the heat.

By which time Hillary had lost and the emphasis had shifted to not rubbing her nose in it -- for fear her supporters would desert the Party in the general election/

Posted by Don Williams | June 2, 2008 2:33 PM

One of Bill's friends is a rich guy who likes to date beautiful 19 year old girls? Yeah like every male out there will agree that that's a crime.

You grossly overestimate the American electorate. Newt Gingrich was banging his now-wife in the Speaker's office while impeaching Clinton for a two year old blowjob; Henry Hyde, Dan Burton, Robert Livingston and Vitter all signed on, as did Mark Foley. I have a friend who spends every spare dime and minute he can get away with in strip clubs (he's married). He voted for Bush because Al Gore didn't do anything to stop the blow jobs. There are a lot of people who don't hate the Clintons for a reason, they just use stuff like this to justify their hatred. And some of those people will all be sitting around Tim Russert's roundtable for the next six months.

And I agree with Shockmouse. "Pardongate" is a dog that hasn't barked, and touches Hillary more directly than whatever Bill's been rumored to be up to.

Posted by Jim | June 2, 2008 2:33 PM

This is the reason the whole right-wing is going batshit because Hillary is losing - all that time and money and energy they spent digging up bullshit on Bill for the general is now going to end up wasted.

Why do you think a fuck stick like Byron York is pulling for Hillary?

Posted by calipygian | June 2, 2008 2:37 PM

Wow, that is seriously weak logic, approaching wingnuttery.

(and i have no horse here)

Something that you freely admit not knowing is true is a "great refutation" of someone's theory?

maybe you should take some time off before the election.

Posted by bh | June 2, 2008 2:40 PM

Wow, that is seriously weak logic, approaching wingnuttery.

(and i have no horse here)

Something that you freely admit not knowing is true is a "great refutation" of someone's theory?

maybe you should take some time off before the election.

Posted by bh | June 2, 2008 2:43 PM

sorry for the double post

Posted by bh | June 2, 2008 2:45 PM

Thanks, Matt, for pushing slanderous attacks against Democrats. Good on you.

Posted by Vidor | June 2, 2008 2:48 PM

Most indignant non-denial ever. From Vanity Fair:

The sensitivity among Clinton’s staff to these questions is such that, after I posed some queries about Clinton’s relationship with Burkle and Co., a spokesman, Jay Carson, e-mailed me this comment: “The ills of the Democratic Party can be seen perfectly in the willingness of fellow Democrats to say bad things about President Clinton. If you ask any Republican about Reagan they will say he still makes the sun rise in the morning, but if you ask Democrats about their only two-term president in 80 years, a man who took the party from the wilderness of loserdom to the White House and created the strongest economy in American history, they’d rather be quoted saying what a reporter wants to hear than protect a strong brand for the party. Republicans look at this behavior and laugh at us.”

Forget concerns about the quality of the product. Questions only damage Brand Clinton!

Posted by joejoejoe | June 2, 2008 2:51 PM

[/i]I hear he fellated a Puerto Rican goat.[i]

I saw it! It was to punctuate a speech on the golden rule.

Posted by JK | June 2, 2008 2:54 PM

Or, in the words of James Branch Cabell, "There is no faith stronger than that of a bad-tempered woman in her own infallibility."

But, I guarantee you'll never read a more fascinating albeit true Clinton tale: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | June 2, 2008 3:03 PM

Bill Clinton ... created the strongest economy in American history.

Ha ha ... can't stop laughing. Everyone knows Al Gore invented the Internets, not Bill Clinton.

Posted by doug | June 2, 2008 3:04 PM

Re Curly's comment "But flying around the world on "the fuck plane" or whatever they call it "
-------------
It's called "Air Fuck One"

Posted by Don Williams | June 2, 2008 3:06 PM

"Thanks, Matt, for pushing slanderous attacks against Democrats. Good on you."

Let's all destroy the Clintons now, and just watch how people like me respond through the rest of the campaign. The Yglesias hatred of Hillary Clinton is beyond tolerating.

Posted by Jennifer | June 2, 2008 3:07 PM

The Yglesias hatred of Hillary Clinton is beyond tolerating.

Feel free to intolerate it.

Posted by Senescent | June 2, 2008 3:12 PM

"...and if your wife is running for president you'd hope to have the self control to hold off for a year or eight."

Why start now?

Posted by mantooth | June 2, 2008 3:13 PM

Let's all destroy the Clintons now, and just watch how people like me respond through the rest of the campaign. The Yglesias hatred of Hillary Clinton is beyond tolerating.

Posted by Jennifer

So if someone hurts your feelings (by proxy), by discussing the realities of the media and the electorate, you'll say, "Fuck the country! It's all about me!"?

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

"...and if your wife is running for president you'd hope to have the self control to hold off for a year or eight."

Why start now?

Posted by mantooth | June 2, 2008 3:17 PM

Ooooh, everyone watch Jennifer!! You'll see what a terrible mistake you've made, Matthew. Just keep your eyes peeled for Jennifer and people like her. They're about to go off!! They've already pulled the pin! You better watch it, mister!!!

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

Don Willims:

Um, you're quoting Honore de Balzac -- not Voltaire.

You know it's not necessary to post ten times a day.

You can give the other little boys and girls a chance.

Everyone else:

What the hell is the deal with this Kathy G.?

She's suddenly all over the place. She was caught more or less plagiarizing one post and she would seem to be a bit of a (well, how shall I put this?)dummy. A big dummy.

Yet it's non-stop Kathy G. these days? Now we haev her ignorant comments on this article.

Please explain. Anyone know?

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

The Yglesias hatred of Hillary Clinton is beyond tolerating.

Feel free to intolerate it.

Posted by Senescent | June 2, 2008 3:56 PM

doug joked:

Ha ha ... can't stop laughing. Everyone knows Al Gore invented the Internets, not Bill Clinton.

Proving MY's point, that the GOP would rehash everything, even the stuff that was misquoted or made up the first time.

Posted by cmholm | June 2, 2008 3:58 PM

I believe the crime/fortune epigram came from Balzac. At least he's the bozo it's commonly attributed to. Maybe it really came from John D. Rockefeller.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 2, 2008 4:16 PM

I guess nobody got to the part, where Clinton was cozying up to Nursultan Nazarbayev and pushed him as head of the OSCE - bloody hell. And then there are the mysterious donors to the Clinton library. I don't like it.

And just to dispel suspicions that I harbour "Clinton hatred":

I don't like Bush senior and John Major cashing in at the Carlyle group. Or Blair spending his holidays on the yacht of that sleazebag Berlusconi. Or Schröder hobnobbing with Putin and turning his former office into gold at Gazprom. Or the whole idea of "Bandar Bush".

I have no problem with wealth or wealthy people, but when it comes to political leaders I much prefer the genuinely down to earth, middle-class, boring style of people like Angela Merkel (world's most powerful woman nonetheless).

Posted by novakant | June 2, 2008 4:51 PM

Feelin' the Unity!

Posted by Julene | June 2, 2008 5:16 PM

I for one never said that the Republican slime machine couldn't dig up new dirt, my argument was that the cummulative effect of the last 15 years of dirt is more likely to be apathy than anything else.

That is, they couldn't dig up any _effective_ dirt.

The question is now will they dig up effective dirt (true or not) on Obama?

Posted by michael farris | June 2, 2008 5:17 PM

The question is now will they dig up effective dirt (true or not) on Obama?

So the Clinton dirt is less effective because we already know the Clintons are dirty while Obama is decent guy?

You want to overthrow the Democratic nominee because the public thinks our guy isn't dirty?

Posted by ben | June 2, 2008 5:39 PM

Clinton dirt is ineffective because it's been so overdone that most (sane) people tune most of it out by now. The rightwing echo chamber has thrown everything it has at Hillary (who they seem to hate more than Hitler and Stalin put together) and her negative are what they are and hasn't stopped her from being a (still) viable candidate.

Obama's been stumbling more often than not over the last couple of months and his reactions haven't been very inspiring. On the other hand, the hits (mostly not fair by any means) have hurt but not destroyed him, which indicates he may have the most necessary attribute of a successful candidate (the ability to take a fair or unfair hit and keep going and come back).

As for 'decent guy', I hate to break it to you but he's a politician ... from Chicago. The less inspiration and hope you expect from him the better for all concerned.

Posted by michael farris | June 2, 2008 6:14 PM

michael farris,

Your argument is circular: it boils down to claiming Clinton is a viable candidate despite all this possible dirt because despite all this possible dirt she is a viable candidate (according to you).

Incidentally, I think it is quite obvious that the "rightwing echo chamber" started pulling its punches with respect to Hillary as soon as it appeared she might actually lose to Obama, and logically they would not throw everything they had prepared at her during the primaries since it would likely do much more damage during the general election campaign.

Posted by DTM | June 2, 2008 7:02 PM

The rightwing echo chamber has thrown everything it has at Hillary

Obviously not. Bill made $100 million in the last 8 years working for folks like the Colombian government (under the guise of "speeches"). He's made $500 million dollars for his library from all sorts of nefarious characters (including $30 million for posing for a photo-op with the dictator of Khazakhistan). He also hangs out on Burkle's private jet with teenage models.

These are not "insane" accusations. There are piles and piles of oppo research that the RNC is salivating to unleash. Just because the Clintons got trashed in the 90s (along with the Democratic brand) and they claim to be professional victims fighters, doesn't mean that it won't happen again.

Obama's been stumbling more often than not over the last couple of months and his reactions haven't been very inspiring.

He's been viciously attacked during this time from Hillary, McCain, the RNC and the Whitehouse. He's been able to respond quickly and strongly, and there's not much left to throw at him (don't you think Hillary would have by now?).

... from Chicago.

Well, I hadn't thought about it like that. I bet he's good friends with Al Capone and runs around repeating "Da Bears" ad nauseam. I'm sure he eats deep dish pizza everday and works at the Sears tower.

Clinton's from Arkansas. I guess that means he's a moonshiner that plays the banjo, right?

Posted by ben | June 2, 2008 7:05 PM

Whoa, another outburst from Bill. At first he was convincing me, but when he veered into attacking Obama it only confirmed that he's a loose cannon

Posted by Lee | June 2, 2008 8:54 PM

God Bless Todd Purdum and Thank God for Vanity Fair!!!!

Bill and Hillary are the Democratic equivalents of Bush and Cheney.

They are 2 of the slimiest and sleaziest politicians in America.

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

Posted by jerry | June 2, 2008 10:04 PM

This (second to her foreign policy record) is what I didn't like about HRC's candidacy. Hillary may be clean as the driven snow and a genius, but Bill Clinton's self control is nil. I think the country has wasted enough time listening to Republican motivated media personalities discuss his sex life. No matter how good a job Hillary was able to do or tried to do, this crap would get in the way. I personally have exhausted my patience for having the "it doesn't matter" argument about it.

Posted by bemused | June 2, 2008 11:34 PM

my theory is Purdum held the story out of deference to his wife - DeeDee Myers -- UNTIL the nomination was firmly out of Hillary Clinton's grasp

Posted by alison | June 2, 2008 11:35 PM

my theory is Purdum held the story out of deference to his wife - DeeDee Myers -- UNTIL the nomination was firmly out of Hillary Clinton's grasp

A nice benefit of the timing is that it drives another nail in the coffin of Hillary's VP bid (not that there was much of a chance left after she raised the specter of assassination bringing her the nomination).

Posted by ben | June 3, 2008 12:18 AM

at least Bill Clinton likes 19 year old girls
personally, I don't care who Obama gets his blowjobs from but the Republicans and press are sure to play up the gay ebony/ivory angle. If the RNC has oppo that Obama is a catcher it could get even worse

Posted by DL Huglhey | June 3, 2008 6:26 AM

Does matt give bjs to goats? Anonymous persons who used to go to school with him say that they don't have any personal knowledge, but admit that they wouldn't be in a position to know because he would know they don't approve of goat sex Hmmm, how can the Atlantic keep this goat fucker employed?

Posted by pj | June 3, 2008 8:44 AM

There is no logic to your conclusion. If it is perfectly in character for the press to pass on unsubstantiated muck about candidates and their spouses, the correct conclusion is not that 'Hillary Clinton is not the candidate with no new skeletons'. The correct conclusion is that 'There is no such thing as a candidate with no new skeletons.'

Never mind the fact that it is still formulated incorrectly, and would be better put, 'There is no such thing as a candidate for whom skeletons can't be constructed by an overzealous press if they 'sound true', regardless of whether or not they're actually true.'

But that real conclusion just doesn't look as 'juicy' to your readership, does it? Because it doesn't speciously dis Hillary Clinton's candidacy from an observation that applies to all candidacies.

So, speaking of press irresponsibility -- look in the mirror, my friend.

I'm sick of this baldly hypocritical form of press criticism.

Posted by DBL | June 3, 2008 8:45 AM

What do I take from Purdum's piece?

That the whole 'ex-president' thing is problematic in American politics. Bill Clinton isn't President Clinton any more, even though you're meant to call him that. There's an implicit feeling -- hello Secret Service, this is just a cultural observation -- that outgoing presidents should be sent to the knacker's yard rather than being put out to stud.

(Remember too, George W. Bush will be allowed the honorific 'President' until he shuffles off to the eternal BBQ.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 3, 2008 8:58 AM

It was a hit piece and Clinton was right to slam it.

Bill is one of only two Democrats in the 20th century to get re-elected, and presided over one of the most successful administrations in history. For Democrats to slam him seems truly weird.

Except for the class prejudice, of course. He's from Arkansas, you know.

Posted by John Petty | June 3, 2008 11:07 AM

Well since Jeffery Goldberg is too much of a wuss to have comments I will respond to his absurd "Memo to Todd Purdum" post here.

Goldberg asks why didn't Purdum pick up the phone and call at least half of the 2 million people Jay Carson correctly pointed out that President Clinton has helped through his charities.

Apparently that is supposed to be hilarious sarcasm. Got to love Goldberg; guy has his head so far up his ass he doesn't understand Carson's point that President Clinton has used his prestige to help an entire continent of people in the last 8 years and Todd Purdum just wants to quote anons with axes to grind. Hilarious.

Get your head out Goldberg.

Posted by Goldberg is a Moron | June 3, 2008 11:10 AM

I'm commenting simply to say that I was surprised and disappointed with MY on this one. In particular, I've found MY to be substantially more objective than most, and not afraid to take unpopular stands. So what dark place did this come from?

"Based on the record, it wouldn't at all be unlike Clinton for some of it to be true."

What record? All those allegations that Ken Starr couldn't prove? Or all that Republican and Fox News innuendo?

What kind of a journalistic standard is this? If they make enough charges they can't prove, then it's ok to make more undocumented and unproven charges?

It just may be you or me next time. Shouldn't we give at least a "damn" about journalistic standards?

Posted by justme | June 3, 2008 8:42 PM

Matty Yglesias is now being criticized for spreading Purdum's garbage:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh061208.shtml

Must-read.

Posted by Andrew | June 12, 2008 1:07 PM

Oh geez, Matt. You have truly sunk to the National Enquirer gutter.

Absolutely despicable.

We won't be back to your site, given what it has degraded to.

GAWD.

Posted by Mary | June 12, 2008 1:51 PM

"But either way, the point is that if there really is such a thing as the candidate with no new skeletons to be chewed over by the right-wing (and I'm skeptical there is) Hillary Clinton isn't it, any more than Barack Obama is."

BTW how does your "analysis" prove this point? It's absolutely clear that Obama's skeltons have hurt him big, and might hurt him more in the future. There is no evidence, that even if Purdum's accusations were true that they would have hurt Hillary.

Posted by steve | June 12, 2008 10:15 PM

"michael farris,

Your argument is circular: it boils down to claiming Clinton is a viable candidate despite all this possible dirt because despite all this possible dirt she is a viable candidate (according to you)."

Actually, no, it is quite linear, because you misstate michael farris' argument.

Posted by steve | June 12, 2008 10:23 PM