The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Making the Rounds

Bill Clinton Fires Back at Vanity Fair Probe

By Perry Bacon Jr.
Former president Bill Clinton's office yesterday sharply attacked an article on the former president in this month's Vanity Fair magazine, calling it "a tawdry, anonymous quote-filled attack piece" and "journalism of personal destruction at its worst" in a long-memo that detailed its faults.

The article, written by former New York Times White House correspondent Todd Purdum, included former advisers slamming Clinton for bringing negative attention to his wife's candidacy and surrounding himself with friends who former aides thought could tarnish the ex-president's reputation. Many of these former aides, most of whom were not quoted by name, also attacked Doug Band, Clinton's right-hand man since he left office, for not managing Clinton's carefully.

While Hillary Clinton's campaign did not provide a direct response to the piece, her aides are known to coordinate closely with her husband's office, which released the memo. The 2400-word rebuttal not only slammed Purdum for his use of unnamed sources in much of the piece, but detailed the work of Clinton's nonprofit foundation on HIV/AIDS prevention and other issues, calling the Clinton Foundation "a leading global nongovernmental organization."

Excerpts from the Clinton memo follow:

TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Office of President Clinton
RE: Vanity Fair Article on President Clinton
DATE: June 1, 2008

A tawdry, anonymous quote-filled attack piece, published in this month's Vanity Fair magazine regarding former President Bill Clinton repeats many past attacks on him, ignores much prior positive coverage, includes numerous errors, and ultimately breaks no new ground. It is, in short, journalism of personal destruction at its worst.

Any balanced account of President Clinton's post-presidency - which other publications have referred to as one of "a great philanthropist;" the face of "the power of philanthropy" and "a major force in fighting the pandemic [HIV/AIDS]" - would recognize that the lion's share of his work is his multi-million dollar charitable foundation, which works in almost 50 countries around the world. [The Economist, 9/23/06; Fortune Magazine, 9/7/06; The Wall Street Journal, 1/14/04] Vanity Fair, however, has chosen to publish thousands of words on former President Clinton, but to devote only a single paragraph to his enormous charitable accomplishments.

The piece also takes gratuitous and baseless shots at President Clinton's longtime Counselor, Doug Band, a key architect of the post-presidency, in sections that are rife with mistakes and which, in particularly galling taste, go as far as to criticize Band's wife, who started, and is the CEO of a multi-million dollar global company. The article even criticizes his wedding. The critiques of Band are baseless, and President Clinton has credited Band with being the originator of CGI and has noted that "I couldn't have done half of what I have done in my post-presidency without him."

The author, Todd Purdum, acknowledges speaking to over 50 people (almost all of them anonymous Washington insiders) before contacting President Clinton's office about his piece. Though he researched the piece for several months, his first contact with President Clinton's office was several weeks before he closed the story. Most revealing is one simple fact: President Clinton has helped save the lives of more than 1,300,000 people in his post-presidency, and Vanity Fair couldn't find time to talk to even one of them for comment....

This piece was written by Todd Purdum, who is married to Dee Dee Myers, former White House Press Secretary. Purdum's disclosure of this in the piece does not, as Vanity Fair apparently concluded, remove the obvious conflict of interest. It's a conflict that would likely not be contemplated at more reputable publications, especially considering that, as a result of this relationship, at least one source's anonymity was revealed to others.

Posted at 12:50 PM ET on Jun 2, 2008  | Category:  Making the Rounds
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Clinton's Endgame | Next: McCain Quietly Spending on TV in Swing States


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Don - your comment about the Clinton's being around forever.

A good analogy would be like how they try to clean staph in the hospitals, just when you think you got it all then whoops there it is again. Oh well. I feel really sorry for the peps that get sick and diseased from unaware contact with the staph. Someday you will too. Like when you start hearing the truth. For some the truth isn't in them...

Posted by: Anonymous | June 4, 2008 3:31 AM

Mez think he protestus too much. A fox always smells his own whole first. It's a southern expression so he knows just what it means.

Posted by: MissClarity | June 4, 2008 3:25 AM

Mez think he protestus too much. A fox always smells his own whole first. It's a southern expression so he knows just what it means.

Posted by: MissClarity | June 4, 2008 3:25 AM

The Clintons have done nothing but create bad-blood between themselves and everyone they've associated with since 1973. Arguing conflict of interest, or lack thereof, may seem a tad erroneous. However, one hallmark of the Clintons and their cronies and former cronies, is that they love not only to lawyer their own cases, but to try them as well: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by: Peggy McGilligan | June 3, 2008 9:10 PM

Didn't Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid tell everyone it would all be over this week one way or the other?

Now will come the articles saying how Hillary was actually the Veep during the Clinton years instead of Al Gore. That way the Obama campaign can get out of naming her vice president gracefully without fears of igniting her "core constituency", who will have forgotten all about this by November. Politics as usual. As long as no one else finds out about it, and journalists have to protect your sources, right?

Isn't politics wonderful?

Posted by: C. O'B. | June 3, 2008 8:50 AM

Didn't Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid tell everyone it would all be over this week one way or the other?

Now will come the articles saying how Hillary was actually the Veep during the Clinton years instead of Al Gore. That way the Obama campaign can get out of naming her vice president gracefully without fears of igniting her "core constituency", who will have forgotten all about this by November. Politics as usual. As long as no one else finds out about it, and journalists have to protect your sources, right?

Isn't politics wonderful?

Posted by: Unaffiliated | June 3, 2008 8:48 AM

I too would be mad if I had been the president of the United States in the years after the cold war - years ripe for serious earth altering progressive change - if I'd been the president and most powerful man on the planet - with the backing of a majority of the country's and planet's population - and then handed it all over, that power, that ability, that opportunity and potential, all of it, all that I could have done, could have achieved, could have been, handed over all of that to my insignificant, self-serving, base, and singularly visionless foes. Handed over all of that - for absolutely nothing.

I too would be mad if I was looking back on my presidency - looking back with 20/20 vision - and seeing all the places where I'd been wrong. Looking back at places where I did have power to wield but failed to wield it wisely.
Where I could have signed my own modified version of an agreement rather than the one my known opponents put in front of me.
When I could have pushed this or that group out of the way more forcefully rather than deferentially compromising with them then only to resent and regret it later.
How I could have supported more completely and earnestly one ex antagonistic but now floundering and fawning country in the time of its most serious need, or conversely how I could have more aggressively reigned in another - a friend out of control and on a pretty clear course to destruction, and done both knowing I'd reap the benefits of future world stability and peace.
And why I didn't seize the moment and begin to disarm the planet of its most serious and immediate global threat - nuclear weapons - rather then leaving them to hang over the head of humanity like thousands of forgotten but razor sharp swords.

I too would be mad. But I'm sorry Mr. President; there will not be a second chance, not even in the passengers seat. What is done is done, what was not done will either stay undone or be done by someone else. History has been written and the ink on your page is dry.

I too would be mad.

Posted by: Justice Now | June 3, 2008 2:43 AM

Obama will never be the leader some pretend he is. Dynamic Speaker? Yes. Presidential material? No. His lack of experience places him just above G.W. Bush as a leader. Plus, he is "wagging the dog" with the new controversy surrounding his church. He needed to create a situation that would allow him to abandon pastor Wright without condeming his racist views and offending many of his supporters. Conveniently, a white pastor takes the fall after making offensive sexist remarks about Hillary.

Posted by: Won't Back Down | June 2, 2008 10:52 PM

I laugh hysterically every time a Clinton hater mouths off! The Clintons will be around for DECADES and there is nothing you can do about it!!! lol
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Posted by: Don | June 2, 2008 10:09 PM

The Clinton façade, eagerly maintained by the media during his active presidency, is coming apart at the seams. There is a new star in town (Obama) and the formerly Clinton friendly media has thrown Bill and Hillary under the bus! Sorry folks, your usefulness has run out! How does it feel to be on the receiving end for a change?

Hillary, the Queen of Spin and a Legend in Her Own Mind!

http://klintons.com

Posted by: Bob | June 2, 2008 9:58 PM

I am humbled to be posting what is very likely the last comment on this article until the next "expose" (everyone seems to have worn their sweet selves slap-out). Obama may very well indeed drive us all straight to hell. But remember, after what's gone down the last 45 years (since Jack Ruby saved elder Bush's, et.al, ass(es) from a life-sentence in Dallas), that's a very short trip. On the other hand, he his none of these others. If he's going to screw the world, it will be a fresh, unknown screw. We know how Clinton and McCain will manipulate our compliant cheeks. Obama wants to try something different. Of course he doesn't stand a chance in the long run. But give the chance to look ahead and feel good about it, the way we did in 1960 (and, Hillary, no head-jerk JFK/Dealey Plaza jokes, please!). Ok, your turn!!!

Posted by: HigherAnonymous Bosh | June 2, 2008 8:33 PM

HEY BOB AND ANGOOSE ARE U GUYS BLIND OR DO YOU VOTE FOR WHO EVER THE PARTY PUTS UP. IF HILLARY HAD WON THE PRIMARIES WOULD YOU VOTE FOR HER OR MCCAIN? YOU SHOULD VOTE FOR A PERSON WITH INTEGRATITY AND KNOWLEDGE OF HOW GOVERNMENT IS RUN. KENNEDY KNEW WHAT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO BUT WITHOUT LBJ NOTHING WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. ITS NOT A MATTER OF BLACK AND WHITE ( I WOULD VOTE FOR COLIN POWELL IN A HEART BEAT BUT HE IS TOO SMART TO GET BACK INTO POLITICS) A 2 YEAR SENATOR IF HE WAS BLACK OR WHITE I WOULD FEEL THE SAMEWAY.

Posted by: BERNIE | June 2, 2008 8:31 PM

It is so amazing to see the liberal media turning on their former hero. This rag defended his right to privacy when he was taking advantage of a young impressionable intern in the face of incontrevertible evidence. Now they do a typical drive-by kill article on the basis of wisps of smoke. I only read for entertainment value since all media left or right seems to have no substance. It such a sad commentary on our world that with more information available than ever there is less factual reporting and even less real debate. Most of the comments to this article (left or right) are so embarrassingly partisan and lacking of open minded views it makes me realize that we have lost our intellectual curiosity and respect for opinions that differ from ours.

Posted by: bhoward1 | June 2, 2008 8:00 PM

The Clintons were criminals, but Obama has the potential to be even bigger.

When the Left gets everything it wants, it resorts to mass murder. 50 million in the Soviet Union, 100 million in Red China, Pol Pot was good for 3 million, etc. All of this murder, under the idea of "doing good for humans."

Now that the left HATES humans, for example, "Humans are destroying the planet," think how big the numbers will be when they get all the power they want this time... 2000 Million??

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 7:26 PM

Another attempt by Obama lapdogs to malaign the Clintons and make some quickbucks.Wont work folks!

Posted by: Ron | June 2, 2008 7:13 PM

The Clintons made a huge tactical error. They confused the loyalty of their fellow Democrats with carte blanch. Many of us chose either to forgive them for their indiscretions or to pretend we didn't notice. We chose not to blame them for their role in getting George W. Bush elected. We chose to honor the memory of the Clinton presidency - as long as it was over anyway.

That doesn't mean we really had absolutely no clue about the liabilities they brought to our party. It doesn't mean that because they were never actually convicted of anything they had no credibility problem. They've both blown that by being caught in very public, deliberate lies. (I'm talking pre-sniper lies here.)

Sure, there are Democrats who, for various reasons, were ready for more. As for the rest of us, many wanted to like the Clintons, to remember the good and de-emphasize the bad, but we didn't want to bet our future on a team that let us down in the past.

Posted by: DoTheMath | June 2, 2008 6:21 PM

In fact, Hillary's favorite song is: "Devil with the Blue Dress on."

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 6:11 PM

"I am still trying to find out if Monica was a swallower or spitter."
Posted by: cameltoe"

Why does it have to be either/or? Could be both. Remember the BLUE DRESS?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 6:10 PM

The first thing Hil should do is fire that incompetent staff she had. How do you go from the heavy favorite in December and fall to an unknown?
The second thing she should do is dump Bill, what an embarrassment.

Posted by: steve | June 2, 2008 5:56 PM

All I can say is Bill Clinton is a hell of a lot better man than Obama will ever be. I did not vote for Clinton, but I believe that Obama will never fit in Clinton's shoes. To place Obama in the White House will be a stupid, irresponsible and unpatriotic move.

Posted by: Millie | June 2, 2008 5:46 PM

So Bill Clinton has a zipper problem, so what....at least while he was president I wasn't paying over $4 a gallon for gas and I had a great job and a decent mortgage. You nut-jobs would have impeached FDR for his various affairs and the man didn't even have feeling below the waist!!! I for one can't wait until these "Asses of Evil" are out of office so Madame Speaker can do her job and land them all in prison where they belong. And if you want some really good reading, read "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast, and you'll learn what a REAL corrupt president is!!!

Posted by: Vernilu | June 2, 2008 5:25 PM

an economic bubble was built in the 90s..it collapsed in March 2000 with the stock market crash and subsequesnt recession...Clinton was President in 2000..take off the rose colored glasses

Posted by: Patrick | June 2, 2008 5:19 PM

funny how the media always have something nasty to write about the clintons right after hillary has a big win. Either it's a trash article like this or a superdelegate that gets announced. really, who connected to the obama campaign or the DNC is behind this, it stinks!

McCain 08
HILLARY 2012

Posted by: sinead | June 2, 2008 5:00 PM

Mr. Dee Dee Purdom,
You, like your article, are cheap!

Posted by: John McKee | June 2, 2008 4:43 PM

Bernie, Bernie, Bernie,

You falsely correlate favor for Obama with blind hatred of the Clintons. Rather, I think they both (the Clintons) fuel the evil neo-con spin machine like no other force. Don't be the victim of Limbaugh-esque political misdirection any longer. Throw that yoke off! If you actually are a Democrat or otherwise sensible open-minded individual then you will not take part in the media-urged Obama/Clinton schism but let the process play out and then rally behind whomever is nominated and send a Democrat to the White House with a soon to be securely Democratic congress to begin to undo the mess created during the last seven years. Also, if the Democratic party can be unified and place itself above this, we will all have the benefit of watching Pitbull Nancy Pelosi take off the gloves in pursuit of the current administration for war profiteering, etc. She's only playing nice while W. still has the executive pardon. The sharks she currently has compiling evidence and will unleash early in 09 will make Kenneth Starr's squad look like a troop of Brownies selling cookies.

Get over the pettiness of Rovian politics.

Posted by: Angoose | June 2, 2008 4:31 PM

Bernie wrote "OBAMA SAT IN HIS CHURCH FOR 20 YEARS.."

You people keep up this silly drumbeat of why you like hating Obama. Fact is you would be writing these same things no matter what he did or say. If you found out he laced his shoe laces left over right rather right over left, we would still have to listen to your incessant pleas of desperation.

I would have some respect for someone arguing they didn't approve of his policy on withdrawing from Iraq. But all the yammering about flag pins, patriotism, what his wife said, what some ministers said, it's all a smoke screen for "well we just hate him and we need to find some reason, any reason."

If you just hate him, say it. Don't make up phoney excuses for your emotions.

Posted by: bob | June 2, 2008 4:20 PM

There were already 100 good reasons why Obama would not want "the Clintons" in his administration. Now there are 101. Or 1001.

Posted by: kpal | June 2, 2008 4:18 PM

Imagine how much better this country would be today if someone had written such an exhaustive piece on George H.W. Bush while his son, W, was running for President.

The country would have learned in 2000 about the Bush family's ties to the Saudis, about HW's CIA years and the unanswered questions, and about unsubstantiated rumors that HW is a closeted homosexual. (Ridiculous? So are some of the things in Mr. Dee Dee Myers' article.)

Heck, we might have even been reminded the Bush family is from Connecticut, not Texas. Then, we wouldn't have had to wait for a Mexican President to tell us that W is such a phony he can't even ride a horse!

What would that have accomplished?

At the very least, we would have seen W for the dynasty he represented, rather than the guy we wanted to have a beer with. (I mean, even his grandfather served in the Senate! Oh, he represented Connecticut, by the way.)

At the most, over 4,000 young men and women would still be alive.

Posted by: palolopaws | June 2, 2008 4:01 PM

FOR ALL YOU OBAMA LOVERS AND CLINTON HATERS. GROW UP. UNDER CLINTON WE HAD GREAT TIMES. I WOULD RATHER HE BE SCREWING MONICA LEWINSKY THEN BUSH SCREWING THE COUNTRY. OBAMA SAT IN HIS CHURCH FOR 20 YEARS AND NEVER HEARD OR READ A THING. FOR SOMEBODY SO OBSERVANT, DOES HE REALLY HAVE THE THOUGHT CAPACITY TO BE PRESIDENT? hE IS A GREAT SPEAKER BUT WHEN IT COMES TO A DEBATE HE IS A DISASTER. WHO REALLY WILL BE PRESIDENT OBAMA OR MRS. OBAMA (WHO HAS NOT BEEN PROUD OF AMERICA IN THE PAST 20 YEARS.

Posted by: BERNIE | June 2, 2008 3:54 PM

There is the matter of Billy Dale, an innocent man set-up by crooks. Exculpatory evidence was withheld from the court by the Clintons. What a filthy, dirty trick.

This alone is enough to justify prison terms for the both of them.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 3:20 PM

It is indeed a terrible article, full of sub Journalism-101 innuendo - 'There is reason to believe' and 'There are those friends who worry that...' Virtually the entire article cites unsourced names offering generalized comments that are presented as substantial. Purdum begins paragraphs indicating a dispassionate view, such as 'None of these wisps of smoke have produced a public fire..' but then ends them using apparentlys and mights to suggest there really is fire.

Some of the reporting is shockingly amateurish. 'In 2002, Clinton flew to Africa with the New York investor Jeffrey Epstein.... In 2006, Epstein was indicted on state charges of soliciting prostitution in Palm Beach, Florida, and he later came under investigation by federal authorities amid allegations that he hired under-age girls for massages and more in a house stocked with sex toys and genitalia-shaped soaps.' So Clinton was on a plane with a guy who, four years later, got busted? Big deal.

Other parts are nothing more than petty sniping - for example claiming he 'dithered' over taking holidays, thus inconveniencing his Secret Service staff. To criticize the President of the United States for having a busy schedule is the mark of a journalist who really has nothing important to bring to his article. I found nearly the entire article both vapid and malicious, and simply very badly written. There are several paragraphs of woolly speculation from a cardiologist who has no connection with Clinton, for example, again presented to increase innuendo.

The only substantive material in this article was old news, such as the disgraceful pardon for Marc Rich. The rest of it was just hollow, banal and snippy writing that I am surprised to find in a magazine that seeks to offer decent journalism.

Posted by: ThisLunarBeauty@yahoo.com | June 2, 2008 3:17 PM

"I am still trying to find out if Monica was a swallower or spitter."
Posted by: cameltoe

A spitter. The Clintons leave a bad taste in people's mouths.

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

The good mans of the world has always ben badmoth. Clinton, Castro, etc.

Posted by: Tie Rone | June 2, 2008 3:06 PM

MAYBE IF HIL WOULD BAKE COOKIES,BILL WOULD STAY HOME.ASIT IS HE MEANDERS FROM WOMAN TO WOMAN SEEKING SATISFACTION DENIED AT HOME HILLARY SHOULD RUN FOR PRESIDENT OF FRANCE

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

The good mans of the world have always ben badmoth. Clinton, Castro, etc,,

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

love bills intellect--hate his character.problem is they come as a package.hillary has neither character nor intellect.she is base in her ambition,crass in her methods,and pedantic in her world view.what purdom highlites is the faustian bargain at the foundation of bilary

Posted by: tamsin | June 2, 2008 3:01 PM

You don't lose the white house after a successful term. A lot of people have selective memory.

=============
Those who hates President Bill Clinton haven't understood how this country and World works.
He tried to gave best to this great country and World in his capacity. May be he could have done better (containing and destroying terrorism around the World that our current president is doing).
God bless Clintons.

Posted by: clinton lover | June 2, 2008 2:53 PM

Posted by: zzzzzzzzzzz | June 2, 2008 2:56 PM

What you see is what you get......

Posted by: John Wayne | June 2, 2008 2:54 PM

Those who hates President Bill Clinton haven't understood how this country and World works.
He tried to gave best to this great country and World in his capacity. May be he could have done better (containing and destroying terrorism around the World that our current president is doing).
God bless Clintons.

Posted by: clinton lover | June 2, 2008 2:53 PM

Flapper wrote: "President and Mrs. Clinton both remain as dirty as they come, and should be in jail, not running for office."

Good point.

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

Didn't Vanity Air publish a simlar article four years ago? If I can parphrase Eric Remarque, Im Washington, nichts Neues.

Posted by: judgecurran | June 2, 2008 2:46 PM

I am still trying to find out if Monica was a swallower or spitter.

Posted by: cameltoe | June 2, 2008 2:35 PM

From the beginning of Hillary's campaign I have noticed that Bill continuously kept making serious errors. Early on I thought about his narcissistic personality and wondered how he would feel being the first male "first lady". I realized that he wouldn't be able to stand what he would consider a demotion in rank if Hillary won. I truly believe that he has set out to sabotage her campaign right from the start. That also explains why Governor Richardson (close friend of Bill) supprted Obama and not Hillary. If Obama DOES choose Hillary as VP, he will have to make Bill his first cabinet appointment - as food taster to the president.

Posted by: Kathy Reilly | June 2, 2008 2:31 PM

From the beginning of Hillary's campaign I have noticed that Bill continuously kept making serious errors. Early on I thought about his narcissistic personality and wondered how he would feel being the first male "first lady". I realized that he wouldn't be able to stand what he would consider a demotion in rank if Hillary won. I truly believe that he has set out to sabotage her campaign right from the start. That also explains why Governor Richardson (close friend of Bill) supprted Obama and not Hillary. If Obama DOES choose Hillary as VP, he will have to make Bill his first cabinet appointment - as food taster to the president.

Posted by: Kathy Reilly | June 2, 2008 2:31 PM

The VF article, accurate or not, is prima-facie proof the Clintons are toast. Who could imagine a left-center rag like VF not DEFENDING the Clintons even 12 months ago. The turmoil in American politics is stunning. The Dems at this point have no choice but to nominate a candidate that CANNOT win the general. The Reps have a guy their base hates. Damn, is this a great elecion year or what!
McCain-Clinton for Pez.

Posted by: TRB | June 2, 2008 2:25 PM

Also thanks to him we also lost the white house to Bush.

+++++++
Ok then now look at the Clintons presidency with clear head...yes he was once popular but then thanks to his wife Democrats lost majority, thanks to his adultery he was impeached. During his presidency US Army was involved in the bigest number of war conflicts. During his presidenty we were negotiating and talking to UCK (Kosovo illegal army) which was on UN terrorist group list, during his presidency came Sudan dissaster. Thanks to him and his NAFTA was born and signed...Yes I knoww economy was in black numbers but so many other bad things and scandals was happening in the White House (people are trying to avoid it and forget it) I think he is the one who would be better off and stayed quiet.

Posted by: JR, Virginia | June 2, 2008 2:05 PM

Posted by: xxxxxxxx | June 2, 2008 2:20 PM

Bill was a lying cheat. Just about the worst kind of person we could have for POTUS. Lets hope we don't get McCain or Hillary to carry on his feeble legacy.

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

Bill was a good president when he could keep willie in his pants. The hildabeast has no presidential experience, but is hurting the Democratic party because she has one priority: her own consuming blind ambition.
I'm thinking this country would be better off if they would both just go away.
P.S. I am a lifelong Democrat.

Posted by: Jh | June 2, 2008 2:11 PM

Ok then now look at the Clintons presidency with clear head...yes he was once popular but then thanks to his wife Democrats lost majority, thanks to his adultery he was impeached. During his presidency US Army was involved in the bigest number of war conflicts. During his presidenty we were negotiating and talking to UCK (Kosovo illegal army) which was on UN terrorist group list, during his presidency came Sudan dissaster. Thanks to him and his NAFTA was born and signed...Yes I knoww economy was in black numbers but so many other bad things and scandals was happening in the White House (people are trying to avoid it and forget it) I think he is the one who would be better off and stayed quiet.

Posted by: JR, Virginia | June 2, 2008 2:05 PM

Dee Dee Myers, the Scott McClellen of the Democrats.
Hope the money was worth it?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2008 2:01 PM

There will be plenty reflection on the Hillary Presidential campaign from many looking to get fame and fortune. Blaming Bill, alone will not cut it. There are numerous reasons why Hillary's presidential campaign is ending, and most of it has to do with Hillary herself. Without Bill Clinton Hillary would not have been first lady, New York Senator, or seriously a presidential candidate. I know it's hard for many Hillary-supporters to digest this, but really ask yourselves are you looking only at Hillary as a candidate or are you looking at Hillary and Bill as a candidate?

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | June 2, 2008 2:00 PM

If the former president feels so philanthropic maybe he will repay the American people for the $20MM in legal fees paid for a special prosecutor. Or better yet, The Treasury Dept should bill him. Then we can restore nutrition programs for the children and elders in the U. S.

Posted by: slodaddy | June 2, 2008 1:58 PM

That might be the weakest response to an article I have ever seen. SO basically what they are saying is we know President Bill Clinton is scum and a criminal, but he does some good things too? That we should only focus on his post-presidential activities, most of which we are NOT aware of? President and Mrs. Clinton both remain as dirty as they come, and should be in jail, not running for office.

Posted by: Flapper | June 2, 2008 1:55 PM

Posted by: DR | June 2, 2008 1:44 PM

I am just embarrassed by behavior of the Clintons.
==================================

I guess George Bush's behavior or Obama's behavior ( Sitting in that church for 20 years) is very thrilling and something that everyone should be proud of??

The behavior of the president should be determined by what he has done for the country. There is something to be embarrassed about in everyones behavior.

Posted by: DrDl | June 2, 2008 1:55 PM

The point of Todd's article escapes me. Is Bill Clinton important enough on the American political scene to warrant this type of attention? It read like a gossip column piece. Todd, were the President's eyes a lovely shade of blue, and did they clash with his purple socks? With the country near bankrupcy, our soldiers being killed in Iraq, the village idiot as President, and you write this drivel?

Posted by: Saxxon Domela | June 2, 2008 1:53 PM

IF THE CLINTONS WERE AT AN AIRPORT CHECKING IN THEIR BAGGAGE THEY WOULD SURELY MISS THEIR FLIGHT SINCE THEY HAVE AN ENDLESS AMOUNT TO CHECK IN-I AM TOTALLY TIRED OF THE CLINTON NAME-BILL NEEDS MONICA LEWINSKY AND HILLARY SHOULD HAVE ESTABLISHED HER INDEPENDENCE A LONG TIME AGO- THEY HAVE PLAYED THE GENDER AND RACIST CARD TO THE HILT.

Posted by: RJ OF PA. | June 2, 2008 1:52 PM

Bill Clinton led this country through one of the most prosperous times in its history. Since his term he has worked hand in hand with Republican George H W Bush to help less fortunate people have a better life. He has his flaws as do we all, but as most Presidents who have served in the White House, he has public service in his heart. Clinton haters aside, Americans should read this article for its entertainment and nothing more.

Posted by: artradioguy | June 2, 2008 1:51 PM

As a Britney Spears fan, a guy in drag, defended Britney in a YouTube video...I too say "LEAVE BRIT...ERRR, I MEAN BILL ALONE! PLEAZZZZZZZZZZE LEAVE BILL ALONE! AHNNNNNNNN (the sound of crying and mascara running)"

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | June 2, 2008 1:51 PM

Looks like the Post is in total lockstep with the Clinton position - what a surprise! It's kind of amazing how the Post can identify "gratuitous and baseless shots" when they are directed at Clinton but its own editorial staff can't identify them when they are directed at conservatives. As for Bill's "charitable" work, how nice that he dedicated a minute percentage of his ill-gotten gains to his self-named foundation so he could claim that "he" had helped millions. He'll always be "Slick Willie"

Posted by: Fred | June 2, 2008 1:50 PM

Bill is the best thing we could ever ask for to keep THAT woman out of the White House. Thank you Bill for opening your mouth once again.

Posted by: AZMac | June 2, 2008 1:48 PM

I lived thru the incredible nineties, and to the best of my recollection, Bill Clinton was President, he accomplished everything that he did while the Religious right tried to destroy him and the country in the process. So now some low life comes out of the woodwork and rights a hatchet job without the character to name the people who he considers his sources, sounds pretty cowardly to me. As for his wife whatever she was paid it was too much.Lets face it George Bush has accomplished what the religious right failed to do......destroy this country.

Posted by: apointofview | June 2, 2008 1:47 PM

The truth always hurts and the Clinton's are not used to the truth. Let's send them both on their way once and forever. He will not release a lot of info and his buddy Ron Burkle is not the best influence on him if you know what I mean.

Posted by: Mike Nelson | June 2, 2008 1:46 PM

We first heard of the Vanity Fair article on "Fox So-Called News". My husband and I are two people who have been dedicated supporters of President Clinton for most of the deeds he did while in the White House and since leaving office. However, we recognize his failings as well, and have had concerns over his most recent expressions during the primary contest. We read the Vanity Fair article last evening on line. Although it was tough in many ways, it seemed fair considering all we have personally learned about much of what was touched on in the article. We are not "quick to judge" and make every effort to research issues such as what was mentioned in this instance. On whole, we found the article fair and useful for those who have questions pertaining to President Clinton's involments since leaving office. We know his "good deeds" and applaud him for them, but he cannot expect people to turn a "blind eye" and "deaf ear" to his questionable behaviors and associations, especially given his historical misdeeds that disrespected our trust and the trust of many others while in office. He chooses to stay in the spotlight, so he chooses what comes with insisting on doing so. If you do good things, you should do them not expecting them to serve as distractions or excuses for your failings.

Posted by: cathy | June 2, 2008 1:46 PM

I just don't get it! Crazy people!

Posted by: sssssssss | June 2, 2008 1:44 PM

Peace and prosperity. That is what we had under Bill Clinton for 8 solid years. Thank you Bill. Everything else is irrelevant.
http://www.PresidentShe.com

Posted by: ladiesfirst | June 2, 2008 1:44 PM

Do we really want that sexual predator back in the White House? Does Hillary really want that?

Posted by: DR | June 2, 2008 1:44 PM

I am just embarrassed by behavior of the Clintons.

Posted by: Kim | June 2, 2008 1:38 PM

Bill Clinton is a flawed hero.
And Vanity Fair is a rag.
It's crap. Aside from a minute now and then at the news stand, I don't read it and I won't. But I'll leave my chewing gum between the pages.

You're welcome.

Posted by: Jim | June 2, 2008 1:38 PM

He's just a old skunk always will be he has hurted clinton in this election and now they are going home.

Posted by: SN | June 2, 2008 1:32 PM

A leopard does not change its spots.Billis and will remain trailer trash.His wife defended his sexual piccadillosto assure her own political carreer.Hillary does not satisfy his domestic needs nor do his commercial instincts satisfy his financial needs.Thus surragates for both are sought

Posted by: Danny Day | June 2, 2008 1:25 PM

So Dee Dee Meyers didn't mind being paid less for the same job that a man would have been paid. Maybe her husband minded.

Oh well, let's all just sit back and enjoy Bubba's purple rage.

Posted by: CC | June 2, 2008 1:20 PM

But if he's married to Dee Dee Myers, wouldn't you expect a puff piece from him? THAT surely would be the conflict of interest, and what he wrote is opposite that interest.

I don't get your point.

Posted by: theRealCalGal | June 2, 2008 1:11 PM

These people must never be allowed close to the white house.

Posted by: cccccccc | June 2, 2008 1:08 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company