Your Thoughts
The press holds former presidents to high standards avoiding conlifcts of interest and inappropriate relationships even after they leave office. Was Vanity Fair right in airing suspicions from unnamed sources that former President Clinton might have romantic connections to women other than his wife? Or did the magazine cross a line, relying innuendo, rather than fact?
From the Los Angeles Times
I must surmise, had this piece been written exclusively about Bill Clinton, questions concerning journalistic honesty and integrity probably would not be the central issue, eh? Include Sen. John "Forked-Tongue Free Ride Express" McCain to demon- strate he was terribly mistreated. Message: No one should ever investigate McCain's alleged romantic relationship(s) involving both infidelity and conflict of interests!!! Negative on Bill Clinton 24/7; 365/12;... Halo Over John McCain " "
ABE @ 10:42 PM PDT, Jun 4, 2008
Perhaps, rather than writing on Vanity Fair or the NYT you should turn around and look at your colleagues. Lack of sources or research certainly hasn't stopped them from writing whatever they wanted during the Democratic Presidential campaign - when there was certainly more at stake than who was sleeping with whom. It also hasn't stopped them from reaching out directly to right wing bloggers with horrific reputations with questions on real political questions. And yes, I do have proof. And facts. In writing.
Mara @ 8:20 PM PDT, Jun 4, 2008
Compared to Bush's misdeeds, Clinton's still a wannabe - wannabe anywhere, but under Hellary! If you recall, we learned FAR too much about WJC during the 92 primaries; NO one thought this piker from the Ozarks would EVER be a candidate...HE proved us to be very gullible, naieve, and just plain STUPID. Let's just IGNORE him, and focus on the worst goons to ever infest the White House; Bush, Cheney and Rove, with support from DeLay, Cunningham, and the RNC at-large are those who should be held accountable (even in your dreams!).
Robert Laughing @ 5:23 PM PDT, Jun 4, 2008
This country started going to hell under Clintons watch. While he was busy with Monica, discracing the white house, he displayed his cowardice on more than one occassion. 1. twin towers in 93 2. Attack on the USS Cole. He was also to busy ripping people off in the White Water investigation. All Liberal left wingers seem to forget this crooks transgressions and failure to protect America. It is very easy for weak, narrow minded people to blame everything on Bush! why not? They only have to use half of their brain to throw comments like that around! grow up.
joe @ 5:19 PM PDT, Jun 4, 2008
Clinton single handedly damaged his reputation and the prospect of another democrat being elected in 2000 by his libido and fraternity boy outbursts of sexual misconduct. Now he has damaged his wife's chance at winning as well. If I were a democrat I would deal with him with a 10 foot pole. Vanity Fair has all the right in the world to expose, even through protected sources and nuance, a subject who has not protected or cared about the future of his party.
Sean Jensen @ 5:06 PM PDT, Jun 4, 2008
As I read that VF story, I kept wondering what the point was. Then I got to the part where he hissed how "selfish" Clinton was. It was all about Purdum's self-righteous judgment of Clinton. There was no other point. I'm glad I don't pay to read VF for this.
nene @ 4:53 PM PDT, Jun 4, 2008
Big Cat has been messing around for years, so this is nothing new and different. Remember when he was with Greg Norman. Does Gennifer Flowers ring a bell? And the more vigorous Big Cat is in denial, the bigger the coverup. Recall the waving finger in the Monica denial. But what does he care: he "earned" over $100 million since leaving 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Juanucho @ 4:51 PM PDT, Jun 4, 2008
Articles like these, and Paris Hilton on the cover, are the primary reasons why I no longer subscribe to Vanity Fair and are likely why the magazine has largely ceased to be relevant in general.
Chris @ 4:11 PM PDT, Jun 4, 2008
This column is no different from Vanity Fair. It is a disguised shot at McCain. But noting McCain's age, many will think of his energy level and be impressed. More to the point, Clinton targeted an emotionally disturbed, completely powerless, barley adult woman who obviously believed any nonsense thrown in her direction.
David N Harris @ 3:35 PM PDT, Jun 4, 2008
2. Does Vanity Fair stop at nothing? The country is going to hell in a hand basket thanks to Bush and they are hoping to make money selling trash like this. Submitted by: tedson ------------------------------------------ The economy being weak (we are not in resession yet) is caused by high gas prices. The Democrates will not let us drill for oil in our country, making the high gas prices the fault of the Democrates. It is not Bushes fault for the slow ecomomy (Bush wants to open up drilling), but the Democrates putting the enviornment over the ecomomy.
cbk16 @ 3:19 PM PDT, Jun 4, 2008
Next