Bill Clinton's Sad Response to a Magazine Piece

My book about Bill Clinton's post presidency, Clinton in Exile: A President Out of the White House, was published on May 6. On June 1, Matt Drudge linked to a piece by former New York Times reporter Todd Purdum that will run in the July issue of Vanity Fair, where Purdum is now national editor. Titled "The Comeback Id," it is relentlessly negative, full of anonymous sources, of speculation that Clinton's sometimes loony behavior on the campaign trail is related to his bypass surgery of four years ago, of questions about possible conflicts of interest in his business dealings with various billionaires, especially grocery store billionaire and investor Ron Burkle.

One newspaper editor who read my book and then read the Vanity Fair piece and emailed me to alert me to its existence, wrote that it all sounds familiar; and it's true that there's almost nothing in the Purdum piece that is not in my book. The difference is that mine is a book, so I delve much deeper and I do devote many pages to the good works that Bill Clinton has done, especially in Africa. I did interview many of the physicians and NGO heads who work with him there, most of whom attested to his splendid performance on that front.

Bill Clinton -- or more precisely in memo jargon, the "Office of President Clinton"-- came out swinging in a response published the same day in Politico, blasting Purdum for not bothering to interview anyone connected to or impacted by the former President's philanthropic endeavors. As reported by Ben Smith, Bill Clinton attacked the magazine's editor-in-chief, Graydon Carter, charging that Carter's own business dealings were conflicted; that the piece represents "journalism of personal destruction," that Purdum is not an M.D. so his assertions about Clinton's health are inappropriate, and that he has the statement of only one physician -- who never examined the president -- for his speculation that Clinton has not been the same since his bypass surgery. Clinton also charges Purdum with a conflict of interest for writing the piece even though he is married to Clinton's former press secretary, Dee Dee Myers, who, in effect, was nudged out of her job in the first term. Presumably, although it's not clear, President Clinton is saying that the piece is a sort of payback for that long-ago insult.

Many of Purdum's charges -- the business conflicts, the glitzy, inappropriate friendships, the assertion that Bill has been nothing but a drag on his wife's campaign
-- are well taken; I make them in my book, and I do believe that when the history of this Hillary/Obama race for the nomination is written, Bill Clinton will be seen as one of the key reason his wife lost. "The first black president" managed to turn African Americans who were supporting Hillary by large margins into almost unilateral Obama supporters. I also believe, as my chapter heading, "Philanderer in Chief" makes clear, that Clinton out of the White House is still the same undisciplined playboy that he was in the White House.

But perhaps the most interesting thing about the former president's detailed almost comically specific response -- and of course by responding he is drawing more attention to the piece than it ever would have received on its own -- is that he completely ignores the take away point of Purdum's piece: that Bill Clinton is still running around with women not his wife.

One of Purdum's targets is Clinton's butt boy-turned-counselor Doug Band. Like Purdum, I listened to people who were close to Clinton while he was president and needed them, who felt cast aside by Clinton post-presidency as he befriended billionaires and traveled worldwide on their private jets. Purdum never talked to Band; neither did I. But I got a sense of the man as, over two years, I researched and wrote Clinton in Exile. I'd wager that the one-time water/coat holder Band, who former FOBs described as ultra-arrogant, who earned his law degree while working for the President, wrote the response. My sources described Band as a man who so closely identifies with Clinton that he has become more of an enabler than counselor or protector.

In any case, it this is not a response that is worthy of a former president -- quoting a radio talk show host attesting to Clinton's skills on the stump just seems weird and sad; as does the inclusion of precise percentage point wins in rural Pennsylvania counties in which he campaigned. Hillary won there convincingly, but the President's response does not note that Bill assiduously campaigned in front of small groups of white voters in rural North Carolina, but Hillary still lost that state decisively.)

Whoever wrote the response to the Vanity Fair piece blasts Purdum for interviewing "over [sic] 50 people [...] before contacting President Clinton's office about his piece." I contacted Clinton, through his then-press secretary Jay Carson, the first week I started to research my book, and all I got for my promptness was the runaround from Carson, who treated me abysmally, making me jump through ridiculous hoops, wasting my time, money, and energy, knowing, I believe, all along that an audience with the former president would never be granted.

There have been many pieces written about the former president's good works -- he has often been the cover boy for stories that are so glowing that they might have been written by Clinton's own public relations agents. His response references many of them, again making the entire endeavor seem pathetic, beneath the dignity of a former President. On the other hand, President Clinton has often behaved in a manner that not even the most fawning Clinton sycophant would call dignified.

Comments

[presidentsrus]

Felsenthal's "weird and sad" is but the beginning on Clinton's odd response.

It rebuts accusations not made, scrambles references [including a mistaken one to HuffingtonPost] and stands Clinton with a highly motley crew of persons aggrieved by Vanity Fair.
www.presidentsrus.com

[vincealy]

Looks like all Bills deciet is coming home....

[eatbees]

Are you sure you are using the term "butt boy" correctly?

[Ndw]

/shudder

[KarateKid]

As a strong supporter of Barack Obama, I have often cited Bill Clinton as the reason I did not support his wife. I hated him for his repeated philandering and for dragging the country through a tawdry impeachment, and his behavior yesterday was beneath a former President.

However, I am also troubled by the timing of the article and the motive of the writer, who is married to Clinton's former press secretary. There were no direct sources for the article, only innuendo and it reeks of a hatchet job.

Blaming Obama's campaign for dirty tricks was a blow below the belt. I 'd like to ask Bill Clinton what Obama has to gain at this late stage by doing something like asking Father Phleger to say such hateful things.

The Democratic Party has a golden opportunity to regain the White House but it seems like they are doing their best to blow it. It also reinforces how divisive the Clintons are. Her behavior the rest of the campaign holds the key, and that in itself is troubling since she is the loser. Something doesn't look right in this picture.

[globalmusing]

Wild Bill just doesn't get the connection between his personal life and his family's political life, and, true to form, he acts abominably when his private life is exposed. Your book and Purdum's article give us a peek into the Republicans' arsenal against Senator Clinton. Perhaps his anticipated thrill at the sight of the 4-month long bloodbath is what fueled Rush Limbaugh's urgings for Republicans to vote for her. I would have voted for Hillary if she had been the Democratic nominee, however, having lived through Whitewater and Wild Bill's "definition of 'is' " era, I'm relieved that Senator Clinton is not our nominee.

[uncalledfor]

Bill, as always, is his own worst enemy. His personal standards for conduct have been his ruin. Like any troubled individual that cannot or will not own up to their failings, he lashes out at anyone that notices his. Let's hope Hillary's failure grant's him the absence of a spotlight in his golden years.

[wizened]

for Bill Clinotn or Doug Band or whoever wrote that response to the Vanity Fair article: if Harry Truman were alive he would tell you if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. BC has been in politics so long its hard to believe he hasn't learned to resist the temptation to attack the bearer of an unpleasant message. That kind of personal attack in the name of a former President of the United States is detestable. I am sorry he has so little perspective on himself and how he appears to the American people. We are sick of politicians who put all their effort inot managing their images rather tthan living up to them!

[PKSSK]

The sad reality is that Hillary and her surrogates continued to point blame at the media for sexism, when the biggest culprit of sexist behavior was her husband and father of her daughter. Very sad!!

[DinSea]

Speaking of which ... have you matched up photos of Webster Hubble (Hillary's close companion at Rose Law Firm) and Chelsey Clinton? Check it out

http://www.anusha.com/chelsead.htm

[SamThornton]

Great post. A little "inside baseball," but there are those of us who go in for that sort of thing.

Read the Todd Purdum piece and, as you suggest, it didn't seem like quite the biased, personal attack the Clinton responder made it out to be. That memo's excoriation of Purdum for not personally calling the "200,000,000 people in 100 countries whose lives will be impacted by commitments made by Clinton Global Initiative members" seems like a perfect example of the obsessive quality of the memo itself.

Say what you want about him, Bill Clinton is an interesting character full of those contradictions that make for good drama. Maybe that's what he really is: America's Drama King.

[midwesthousewife]

I've often thought during the past sixteen years, between Bush, Bill and Hillary, it would have been interesting to see what plays Shakespeare might have made of all the drama!

[ObamaEdwards]

"...he completely ignores the take away point of Purdum's piece: that Bill Clinton is still running around with women not his wife." Maybe that's because Bill and Hillary and Chelsea still (bizarrely) think this is a personal matter. The guy's wife is running for president, and he doesn't think it's anyone's business that he has affairs with other women. He doesn't dispute it, either. To do so would be to invite more journalists--and the GOP--to let loose with all that they know about Bill Clinton's habits. So much of this campaign, and BC's anger, indicates that he realizes how much the campaign has further tarnished his image. Like a rapidly aging rock star who is out of touch with music fans and music trends, he lashes out at younger stars who represent a contemporary audience's taste and sensibility. And he has neither the good taste nor the character to let it go and retire. If he retired, he'd have slim pickings in the ardent fan department. He has to maintain his image--not for history, or America, or even for his family, but for the most tawdry reason of all--it helps him score.

[Lindamae]

Unfortunately, it worked for JFK, yet he still is idolized. I can't understand it. He was on a cruise with the "boys" and a few chickies when Jackie had her miscarriage and his dad had to order him to go to her side. And Judith? And Marilyn? Who know what would have happened?

[nectanebus]

Wow. Excellent post. Well written bullseye.

[UrbaneMeyer]

Carol, I loved your book and agree that this response is beneath a former president. What a shame that Clinton's ego and personal indiscretions continue to obscure the successes of his presidency. Eight years of peace and prosperity, does anyone remember?

[candyc]

It's been humbling to have to admit that my republican friends were right about both Bill and Hillary Clinton.

This country has a wonderful opportunity to have a fresh start.

We should all be very relieved that we have dodged the Clinton recipe of constant drama mixed with distraction. It's the very LAST thing we need as we work to overcome the many travesties of 8 long, torturous, miserable years of W.

[conned]

I think it is completely inaccurate and a cop out to say Hillary lost the nomination because of Bill. He made a few dumb comments here and there, but at the end of the day, unless he was writing her lines and managing her campaign, no one lost this nomination but Hillary. Did Bill vote for the Iraq War and to give the president the authority to wage war on Iran? No. Hillary did. These different journalists just don't want to face the fact that the people are angry about a war that is costing us hundreds of billions of dollars that was sold to us on false premises and that we continue to sacrifice for. Hillary only fed the anger when she refused to acknowledge the mistake. There are so many other things she or her campaign (and if you wish to speculate that Bill was the driving force behind the scenes, fine, but this IS Hillary's campaign, and she should ultimately be held accountable) have done wrong, that there's not enough room in one post to mention them all, but her whole message was out of touch with the current situation in the country.

[dadw5boys]

The guy who wrote the article was on the Today Show said " There is no proof any of it is true", then "I wrote the story to let the Clintons know what people in Washiington are talking about".

So he wrote LIES !!!!!
Admitted it on T.V.
JOURNALIST ETHICS AT WORK!!!!!!!

[LiberTLover]

Hell, it works for Fox News!

[jjasonham]

I feel this is where Bill's response should have specifically shot down the accusations instead of sliming the author and telling you to pay attention to the positives. Its not like the accusations were intangibles.