Vanity Fair on Bill Clinton
- Thread starter 21
- Start date
spinning27
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2002
- Messages
- 3,071
21 said:
Yeah, just from a journalist's POV, way too many unnamed sources for my liking but given the sensitivity of the subject matter, I don't know how it could have been avoided.
I was reading the article yesterday at about the same time as Hillary gave her speech in Puerto Rico, and I was reminded by how short her supporters' memories must be. When it comes to skeletons in closets, can Obama even approach Clinton territory? When you read some of these virulent pro-Hillary, anti-Obama blogs, it's clear there's a whisper campaign out there against Barack trying to make all these associations between Wright, Pfleger, Farrakahn, etc., which haven't amounted to much other than what you'd expect from a well-connected politician knowing important people in his home city.
Since Jeremiah Wright broke, Clinton hasn't had much scrutiny on her at all and Bill has had none. But if she were on the ticket, as the nominee or VP, Bill once again becomes an issue. All the women. All the shady financial dealings. Hillary's people seem to forget that.
All I got out of the story was a character indictment of people who were not Bill Clinton and who were not in politics and who were not married to women running for the White House. This guy flies on a private jet called Air **** One, that guy dabbles in porn, and Eleanor Mondale was seen in the White House when Monica was scratching at the gates.
Every graf is a long voyeuristic tease about an alleged lap in the fast lane, ending with some version of 'but to be fair Chelsea was there too and no one is saying the former president was really involved.'
No different from the NYTimes McCain-lobbyist story (A woman! On the plane!)
Every graf is a long voyeuristic tease about an alleged lap in the fast lane, ending with some version of 'but to be fair Chelsea was there too and no one is saying the former president was really involved.'
No different from the NYTimes McCain-lobbyist story (A woman! On the plane!)
spinning27
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2002
- Messages
- 3,071
21 said:
It's more than just innuendos, however. There are close advisors and staff members -- albeit anonymously -- fretting about who these larger-than-life figures are associating with.
Mizzougrad96
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Messages
- 56,139
spinning27 said:
Is it now a law that every writer at Esquire and VF has to refer to themselves in all stories? There were a lot of unnecessary "Is" in this one...
Mizzou--I was distracted by that as well...I guess we need to feel Purdum's personal pain and appreciate his proximity to the subject.
Spinning, I would agree that if your spouse is running for president, you should watch the company you keep. Although much of this stuff is not altogether current.
But this entire piece is openly focused on chasing innuendo and rumor...and failing to find fire under the smoke. Why not do a broader piece on Clinton--include the private life stuff, the post-op issues, etc--but really focus on the man instead of the gossip?
Spinning, I would agree that if your spouse is running for president, you should watch the company you keep. Although much of this stuff is not altogether current.
But this entire piece is openly focused on chasing innuendo and rumor...and failing to find fire under the smoke. Why not do a broader piece on Clinton--include the private life stuff, the post-op issues, etc--but really focus on the man instead of the gossip?
21,
I can't find the story now, but there was a more substantial profile in Vanity Fair (or Esquire…pretty sure in Vanity Fair) about four years ago. Might have been Purdum, for all I know. In it I recall a Manhattan dinner party scene in which Clinton was sort of the center of attention, but was so needy for it that, by the end of the night, attendees were trying escape the web of his conversation. Also examined Clinton's newfound passion for AIDS research.
I can't find the story now, but there was a more substantial profile in Vanity Fair (or Esquire…pretty sure in Vanity Fair) about four years ago. Might have been Purdum, for all I know. In it I recall a Manhattan dinner party scene in which Clinton was sort of the center of attention, but was so needy for it that, by the end of the night, attendees were trying escape the web of his conversation. Also examined Clinton's newfound passion for AIDS research.
spinning27
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2002
- Messages
- 3,071
21 said:
I have come to terms with the truth about the Clintons long ago. I couldn't be any less interested than I am right now in who Bill wants to ****. If he wants to spend his last 15 or 20 years on earth being an international playboy on the dime of his mega-billionaire buddies, fine with me.
My only point was, as the country has suffered through eight years of Bush, fondness for Bill Clinton's presidency has overshadowed much of the polarity he produced while in office. There's a ton of slimy stuff out there that the Republicans have been waiting to pull out of the file if Hillary got the nomination. Remember, guys like Limbaugh and O'Reilly made their names by sliming the Clintons. So soon we forget.
This article just reminded me about the kind of coverage we'd be in store for throughout the summer and fall had Hillary won the nomination.
Alma said:
You know what, I have that somewhere, I have to look...much about Marc Rich, as I recall, I think we discussed it here.
The Clinton-Does-Hollywood thing is nothing new, and always strikes me as a little trite. But I agree with spinning, it's the kind of stuff that makes easy headlines and a veritable luau for the opposition.
HejiraHenry
Well-Known Member
Doc will wade in to tell me to STFU, I suppose, but I read the VF profile last night and found it – like the posters here – curiously short of nutritional value, except for the part about the persistent concerns about his health.
That, I'm not sure I'd really read anyplace else.
That, I'm not sure I'd really read anyplace else.
