« Our Brand Is (In) Crisis | Main | Remembering Robert Jordan »

The Dog That Didn't Bark

01 Jun 2008 02:15 pm

billclinton.jpg

Todd Purdum on Bill Clinton, in the forthcoming Vanity Fair:

Over the last few years, aides have winced at repeated tabloid reports about Clinton’s episodic friendship and occasional dinners out with Belinda Stronach, a twice-divorced billionaire auto-parts heiress and member of the Canadian Parliament 20 years his junior, or at more recent high-end Hollywood dinner-party gossip that Clinton has been seen visiting with the actress Gina Gershon in California. There has been talk of a female friend in Chappaqua, a woman in a bar at a meeting of the Aspen Institute, and a public sighting of Clinton, Bing, and a ravishing entourage in a New York elevator that, a former Clinton aide told me, led a business leader who saw them to say: I don’t know what the guy was doing, but it was so clear that it was just no good.

None of these wisps of smoke have produced a public fire. But four former Clinton aides told me that, about 18 months ago, one of the president’s former assistants, who still advises him on political matters, had heard so many complaints about such reports from Clinton supporters around the country that he felt compelled to try to conduct what one of these aides called an “intervention,” because, the aide believed, “Clinton was apparently seeing a lot of women on the road.” The would-be intercessor was rebuffed by people around Clinton before ever getting an audience with the former president, and another aide told me that the effort was not well received by either Bill or Hillary Clinton and that some Hillarylanders, in particular, were in denial about the continuing political risks that Bill’s behavior might pose.

It's interesting that Purdum and VF are coming out with this piece now, with Hillary Clinton's campaign more or less finished, since this sort of gossip has been in circulation for a while - to the point where if you'd asked me nine months ago to list the major roadblocks to Hillary's near-inevitable nomination, I would have put her husband's possible tomcatting right up there with her Iraq War vote. In the event, the Big He did end up having an impact on the race, but it was public gaffes that mattered, not his private vices. I'm not sure what to make of the lack of coverage on this front: It could suggest that there's vastly more smoke than fire where Clinton's post-Presidential priapism is concerned; it could suggest that Clinton's handlers are really, really good at putting out the fires in question (though it doesn't sound that way from Purdum's piece); or it could suggest a conspiracy of silence on the part of the media, based on the fear that pulling the trigger on such stories could get them accused of gossip-mongering or invading the Clintons' privacy. (If the third possibility is the correct one, it's a pretty remarkable testament to the MSM's ability to keep the lid on a story, even in the age of Drudge and TMZ and Gawker Stalker ...)

Photo by Flickr user Franz88 used under a Creative Commons license.

Comments (33)

Gina Gershon?

Jesus F. Christ, who could blame him?

Blah, blah, blah, genital-based morality, blah, blah, blah, Repiglican hypocrisy, blah, blah, blah, lesbian snuff films, blah, blah, blah, Cindy McCain's a home-wrecking whore, blah, blah, blah, lying about blowjobs versus Dumbya and Dickless lying us into war, blah, blah, blah, Bushpigs, etc., etc.

I'm an Obama supporting Democrat -- I'd sort of assumed the Republicans who would normally be stoking these fires were holding back to keep the Democratic nomination campaign going as long as possible. (Think "Project Chaos" and all that). Since Obama obviously isn't going to touch this, the media hasn't had an excuse to run with it.

If Hillary Clinton were on track to sweep through to the nomination, I would expect that we would have been seeing much more of this -- whether or not there's any truth to the rumors. There would probably be a Vanity Fair article coming out now about Obama's crazy pastor, and you'd be writing a blog post asking why the media never really looked into that story.

Of course, if Obama picks Hillary as his VP we'll really see if the Republicans finally do start pushing this. I look forward to 24/7 Fox News symposia on why Bill can't keep it in his pants!

Considering how in the tank for Hillary and Bill most of the media is -- after all, Todd Purdom is married to a former Clinton aide -- the silence about Clinton scandals is hardly surprising. So much talk concerned weaiting for an "Obama Scandal": when one happened to Hillary -- hoping fo an assasination -- it was forgotten fairly quickly. Coincidence?

Can I really have been the only one who thought that the Vanity Fair piece was just a lot of hot air? Purdum tried to get the story, but he didn't succeed, and so built up a story filled with innuendo; his material didn't even reach the level of gossip. Bill hangs out with a bunch of rich people guilty of some shady dealings, and periodically he's seen in the company of groups that include attractive women. He is a lot "angrier" since his heart surgery. He is very "narcisstic." Folks, I've just saved you the price of the magazine and an hour of reading time. Now can we go on to something important?

I just wanted to say that "post-Presidential priapism" is possibly the funniest phrase I've ever read in print. That is all.

This is (shockingly) the first time I've seen the brilliant alliterative reference to "post-Presidential priapism." Well done, RD!

It could also be that Clinton's promiscuity is so yesterday's news, so 90s-esque and been there, wrote about that that the media collectively really got all they needed in the last decade. I found the suggestions in the VF piece extremely boring, whereas similar claims about probably any other politician in the world would be immensely interesting to me.

She was the one running not him. Traditionally the image of him as tomcatting made her more sympathetic. Efforts to deal with McCain and adultery backfired in a huge way. Lastly at this point people know Bill's a cheater and probably believe he has cheated more than he actually could.

So I don't think I ever thought this matters and I'm a McCain voter. If she's having an affair with a foreign dictator or something than it could be interesting, but this? Mehh.

Those who are arguing that this story is dull or "doesn't matter" seem to demonstrate remarkably simplistic views about human psychology. More specifically, they have to accept the premise that a cheating spouse and the accompanying anxiety that the cheating activity would not be reported in the press would have little to no effect on the president's mood or job performance. I find that additional psychological premise to be implausible (even for Hillary).

I know that, if I knew I was being cuckolded, my job performance would certainly suffer.

And I expect when people start complaining that these stories are petty distractions David Brooks and Paul Krugman will leap to their typewriters, and say that no, these stories are important because the Republicans will use it against Hillary in the general election, which she still expects to be running in.

I'd say the story marks an awareness that the Clintons are now down and out. No-one needs to fear HRC in the White House, with Bill behind the scenes. This story basically says that the media thinks the Clinton well is dry, and so they are fair game for the articles that have been held back until now. RIP Clinton dynasty. HRC ain't winning this year, and certainly ain't winning in 2012. Let the media games begin!

Thomas R. writes: "Efforts to deal with McCain and adultery backfired in a huge way. Lastly at this point people know Bill's a cheater and probably believe he has cheated more than he actually could.

So I don't think I ever thought this matters and I'm a McCain voter."

I think this sort of thinking is why the stories haven't been utilized by anyone. How can Bill Clinton's proclivities become an issue while ignoring McCain's own long history of adultery - and his even more disgusting history of fucking around on a disabled wife? It just doesn't fit in with any picture of an honorable man, does it?

Then there's the fact that Cindy McCain is a HOMEWRECKING WHORE. Maybe she could hook up with Bill and the two of them could make a Viagra commercial together. But then she looks a little, uh, frigid, so he probably wouldn't be interested.

Gina Gershon! Nice catch, Bill!

Let's see:

Republicans impeached Bill over this crap.

Then, they stole the white house, and installed the Idiot-in-chief, started an illegal war, and fleeced the next generation. Now, with the hopes of running against the Clinton's again so that they can install the bully-in-chief and so that voters will forget their crimes and incompetence, allowing them to continue fleecing the public, they keep quiet about Bill's habits. Saving it for the general, I'm sure.

I'm so sick of hearing the blow hards warning people that "Obama is unelectable." They're so obvious, "Wink, wink, nod, nod, if you silly little liberals want to win, better vote for Clinton."

Brand Republican is in serious trouble. Brand conservative is an oxymoron. Small government, bipartisanship, fiscal responsibility, judicial honesty, all word to trick people with instead of principals to live and govern by.

"my job performance would certainly suffer." by Jonm

TR: My guess is you're not a seasoned politician who already had to deal with a public issue over a spouse's adultery.

"How can Bill Clinton's proclivities become an issue while ignoring McCain's own long history of adultery" MLaJ

TR: As long as no laws are violated I don't think either should be an issue.

"and his even more disgusting history of fucking around on a disabled wife?" MLaJ

TR: He states "my marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity." By all available reports he gave her a generous divorce settlement. She moved on, worked with Nancy Reagan, and has been supportive of her ex since at least 2000. What makes you special to still hold a grudge?

"Cindy McCain is a HOMEWRECKING WHORE."MLaJ

TR: You know repeating inanities doesn't make them less inane. He was apparently separated when their relationship began and there's no evidence she was promiscuous. (McCain's first wife was a model, who'd been previously married with two kids, so he may never have went for "virginal" or brainy.)

Sure his wife being a former drug addict and beer heiress isn't ideal, but she's not a whore or a homewrecker.

Thomas R quotes and replies: ""and his even more disgusting history of fucking around on a disabled wife?" MLaJ

TR: He states "my marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity." By all available reports he gave her a generous divorce settlement. She moved on, worked with Nancy Reagan, and has been supportive of her ex since at least 2000. What makes you special to still hold a grudge? "

I think you're brighter and more perceptive than the average Republican, TR, so I think you know that I don't give a damn about any of this. But your party jammed this "family values" up Clinton's ass for over half of his presidency, despite the FACT that most of the movers and shakers in that effort (Hyde, Gingrich, Barr, etc.) were hypocritical scumbags themselves. They weakened this country as a result. You choose to respond to that by continuing to vote for the worthless bastards. I choose to do this.

"Sure his wife being a former drug addict and beer heiress isn't ideal, but she's not a whore or a homewrecker."

She was banging a married man with a disabled wife. If the spouse of the Dem nominee had that history we'd be hearing all about it from the usual Repiglican suspects, and you damn well know it. It's nice that he bought off his discarded wife and all, but them's the breaks. Oh, and his "immaturity" occurred when he was a fully grown man, and there's reason to think he's been at it again - remember that lobbyist who has been in hiding for months now?

As a committed Republican, can you explain to me why your candidate should be treated any differently than Bill Clinton was?

Tell you what, let's have the Dumbya/Bushpigs War Crimes Trials starting in 2009, and after that we'll call it even for Blowjobgate. Deal?

"As a committed Republican, can you explain to me why your candidate should be treated any differently than Bill Clinton was?"

As a social libertarian-leaning independent, I can answer this question. When McCain pressures a 24 year old girl, whom he seduced, to lie to federal investigators, then insinuates that she is insane to the wide world until she produces a dress with his sperm on it, and then lies to federal investigators himself about the affair until he is overwhelmed by the evidence...then, yes, then he should be treated the same way Bill Clinton is.

I don't know how some people can be so thick to think that the Clinton thing was about getting a blow job. It wasn't. If he had just said, "You know what guys, I got a blow job. I did. I was attracted to the girl. We messed around. I'm sorry. I'm sorry to her, her family, and my family. But that's it, beyond that it is a private matter to be worked out among adults. I promise it won't affect NAFTA, or the Irish Peace talks, or any other serious matters." Now, if Clinton had said that, that would basically have been the end of it, especially in our self-disclosure mad society today. But no, he didn't do that.

In fact what he did was punishable by law in federal courts, most states, and subject to disciplinary action in every major corporation and institute of higher learning. In schools they forbid mentor-student sexual relationships for very good reason, it is an abuse of privilege and exploits the vulnerability of the eager student. In corporations, senior officers who do such things are fired. In the military, they are prosecuted. The simple fact is, he took advantage of a young woman. He was by far her senior and superior and he abused that position for his own ends. That is not a crime in itself, but it is unacceptable in most professional communities in our country, as I have previously addressed.

But, to make things worse, he then pressured her to lie about the relationship to federal investigators (that IS a crime). Then he maligned her character (THAT's slander, another crime) when she admitted (only) under questioning that the affair took place. Again, this is not about Bill getting a blow job, it is about his complete disregard for the women he seduces and the consequences of his subsequent cover-up actions. It is about his abuse of his position of power and privilege. None of the affair rumors of McCain have had any such elements, that I have heard. And the whole "cheated on a disabled wife" angle should take into account that he was, and is, disabled as well.

That is why the two situations are being treated differently.

Further to what PatricktheRogue said: Clinton (I) himself signed into law amendments to sexual harassment legislation that removed respondents' rights to privacy regarding previous consensual affairs. Reason covered this at the time and concluded that WJC was fine about sexual privacy being violated, just not his own.

what I find interesting is that many of these 'former Clinton aides'have marched over to the Obama camp and are now supporting him and have no trouble thrashing the Clintons and even implying that they are racists...so much for the loyalty, intent and motivation of 'former Clinton aides'...

Bob Beckel stated last night on Fox that Todd Prudum is a republican operative...and sadly his wife, Dee Dee Myers has not sounded very loyal towards the Clintons lately...perhaps she is looking for a job in an Obama admin...

...perhaps Todd Purdum is trying to start trouble to muddy the waters for Hillary as a possible VP candidate...

...the media has been out to get the Clintons from the beginning of the primary season...

"As a committed Republican, can you explain to me why your candidate should be treated any differently than Bill Clinton was?"

TR: I'm not a committed Republican. I'm conservative and believe in some of that "family values" stuff. However

1: I don't think adultery can or should ever be a crime. We can say something is morally wrong without saying it's legally wrong or that it even makes a person unfit for a job.

2: Nothing you're saying about McCain or Hyde or whatever is a crime. Not even in some technical way.

3: I didn't favor the impeachment of Clinton, at least not on those grounds. However there was at least some kind of law involved. I believe Clinton had supported the idea that you can ask questions about past sexual history in a sexual harassment suit. Again nothing you're saying about these Republicans is illegal.

4: Clinton wasn't hurt by the impeachment, quite the contrary. As I recall his popularity rose during the period and it's still one of the things his defenders love talking about. Which I suppose makes sense as there's not much else to defend about him if you're on the Left. He presided over an era of increasingly monopolist capitalism, increased income inequality at home, selling weapons to Right-wing dictatorships abroad, and saw the Democratic party lose the House for the first time in decades. If he'd been against abortion and had bombed Somalia more he'd practically be Reagan.

I should preface "I'm conservative" a bit.

I don't fit US conservatism in all respects. I'm not particularly patriotic or nationalist. I don't think the Founding Fathers were necessarily that great. In fact I think many of them were atrocious bigots and borderline Jacobins. I think Thomas Paine was rightly reviled by many of his generation. I'm not libertarian at all. In fact I think libertarianism is worse, theoretically, than socialism. It's maybe not worse in reality because it's never fully going to be tried in reality.

In some respects I suppose I'm like Chesterton, without some of his more troubling racial overtones.

"without some of his more troubling racial overtones."

TR: On consideration that's a bit off. G. K. Chesterton's racial statements were sometimes ambiguous.

I think the difference is more that I'm not a Medievalist or nationalist. I like technological advancement very much. If we could have as much of it with minimal social change that'd be good. I even wouldn't mind a World-State if it's some kind of conservative-leaning confederation.

She was the one running not him. Traditionally the image of him as tomcatting made her more sympathetic. Efforts to deal with McCain and adultery backfired in a huge way. Lastly at this point people know Bill's a cheater and probably believe he has cheated more than he actually could.

Unlike MoeLarry, I think Thomas R gets this issue basically right.

Look, Clinton lied at a deposition. He was never going to face impeachment merely for having an affair.

And I don't mind the press reporting these affairs-- there's really nothing wrong with gossip. (For the record, I have no problem with the press reporting on McCain's personal life as well as Bill Clinton's.)

But when it comes to voting behavior, these things seem to have limited salience, and that's a good thing. And that's doubly true when we are talking about the husband of the candidate, not the candidate herself. Would we punish John McCain or Barack Obama if we found out that their wives cheated on them?

"Would we punish John McCain or Barack Obama if we found out that their wives cheated on them?"

I would. Cheating would be a distraction for the president and the fact that it was happening would indicate obtuseness (not a good characteristic for the president).

Also, on an unrelated note:
1. Character counts. The president should take into consideration his/her status as a role model.

2. We have no royalty in America. The president must also function as a head of state in addition to head of government. Cheating scandals are not good coming from a head of state.

Winston, I agree with you. There wasn't even smoke in this article, just rumors of smoke that might lead eventually to something resembling a fire. If this was the best VF could do against Bill Clinton, they should not have bothered.

The impeachment and the perjury have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the double standard I'm talking about here. The wingnuts were going after Clinton on the matter of his adultery before he was elected to the presidency, and they never stopped going after him on that matter, as we all know too well. It's still happening today.

But McCain is getting almost a complete pass, even though he fucked around while he was married, and there are ongoing rumors about his current marriage and additional affairs. If this were the case with a prospective Dem nominee, the mouthpieces of the Family Values Party would be shouting about it ad nauseam.

That's undeniable, because that's how they work. Of course now they have a swarthy Muslim to kick around instead of a cheater.

JonM:

Yeah, but we are talking about the SPOUSE cheating. Let's say Cindy McCain decides to run off with the hunky maintenance man. How, exactly, does that make JOHN McCain less qualified to be President?

I agree with you about the royalty point, but it seems to me that the whole practice of treating First Ladies (and Lads) as if they are elected members of the administration rather than irrelevancies gets us much farther down that path. The wife of a King is a Queen, and the husband of a Queen is a Prince-Consort. The wife or husband of the President should, ideally, be a nobody who receives no power or benefit from the position.

But while it is bad enough that First Ladies and Lads are treated with the importance they are, holding their spouses responsible for their sexual conduct seems to me to make the problem worse.

Dilan says: "Yeah, but we are talking about the SPOUSE cheating. Let's say Cindy McCain decides to run off with the hunky maintenance man. How, exactly, does that make JOHN McCain less qualified to be President?"

Wrong. McCain was married and was a serial adulterer - Cindy was just the one he stuck with. Again, this would be made an issue by the Family Vaues Bullshit Society if it were true of a Dem candidate.

Let's not forget that there were credible reports about McCain indulging in a little side poon more recently, too. Again, with the double standard in place, no one pursued them much. This would not have been the case if those rumors had been about Obama.

Moe, if John McCain cheats, I agree, that's an issue (but not a huge one-- I don't think this has a very significant relationship with one's ability to govern). And the hypocrisy point only goes so far; we can't keep repeating errors into the future just we made the with respect to the other party in the past.

But what in heaven's name is the argument as to why CINDY's cheating (or Bill's, or Michele's) would be relevant?

Dilan writes: "But what in heaven's name is the argument as to why CINDY's cheating (or Bill's, or Michele's) would be relevant?"

There is no such argument because it isn't relevant, but I'm going to keep mentioning it because it amuses me to see how far up their hypocritical asses the Family Values Bullshitters are willing to crawl.

It would have been even funnier if they'd picked Giuliani, but I can work with McCain material, too.

I'm guessing Cindy likes to dress up as Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS, and handcuff Johnny Mac to the headboard as she works her riding crop on her latest hired boy toy. I hope the videos surface soon.

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

Bill and Hillary are the Democratic equivalents of Bush and Cheney and are the king and queen of toxic sludge politics.

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

WHat 'truth' was written? That Bill Clinton has some questionable friends? That some of those friend are women ?

This article was thin gruel

2. We have no royalty in America. The president must also function as a head of state in addition to head of government. Cheating scandals are not good coming from a head of state. Jon M.

TR: This is actually a good point. His role is different than say Prime Minister, which is part of why many analogies to the politics of Parliamentary nations don't really work.

A problem with it is royalty clearly have and do commit adultery. Traditionally with heads of state what is done is to make their public face one of principle and compassion. Their private space is left somewhat alone. In Thailand the king is held in reverence and if he had affairs this is quiet. In Spain it's not as intense, but the royalty is given some respect. In both those nations the Prime Minister can be pummeled by the media on many issues.

In some respects the public face of Clinton, I have to admit, was quite good. Personally I think he was generally better as a head of state than as a head of government and I don't like the guy at all. He was like King Edward VII, Queen Victoria's son, maybe. They were both overweight adulterers, but they could make people feel good and throw a fine party. Clinton also did well with disasters and acting like he cared. (Granted he probably did to some degree)

In other respects I agree he didn't work well as head of state. Even without the Republicans smearing him he essentially presented his public face as a guy who talks about underwear and uses words to manipulate people. He's practically the defining example of a logodaedalus and he allowed the media to show that when covering his campaigns.