Bill Clinton Goes Ballistic (Again): Calls Vanity Fair Journalist Purdum “Dishonest…Scumbag”

Former President Bill Clinton has provided yet another example of why some feel he has proven to be a strategic and imagery-negative for his wife Senator Hillary Clinton’s Presidential nomination campaign — delivering a new lashing-out tirade to a writer for The Huffington Post, this time aimed at a former New York Times reporter who wrote a highly unflattering piece about him in Vanity Fair.

Ironically, his latest tirade seemingly confirms some of the points that Todd Purdum raised in his article about Mr. Clinton’s self-control and recent judgment. See our previous post here for a link to the piece and Joe Windish’s analysis.

[See UPDATE below. A Clinton campaign spokesman has now apologized for Bill Clinton's remarks.]

In his comments, Clinton lashed out not just at Purdum but the evil, apparently monolithic press that he says has been out to get his wife Hillary Clinton — all delivered in an outburst that perhaps provides an idea of what it might be like if the 2008 version of the onetime politically-adept Bill Clinton was back in the Oval Office, complete with extensive media access.

The late President Harry Truman was supposed to be volcanic and outspoken.

Bill Clinton makes Harry Truman look like Mahatma Gandhi.

We don’t usually run quotes from another post so extensively, but this one merits it because it provides a glimpse into a mindset that is to those who do not share it a bit…troubling:

Former President Bill Clinton today unleashed a salty stream of epithets to describe former New York Times reporter and current Vanity Fair writer Todd Purdum, calling him “sleazy,” “dishonest,” “slimy” and a “scumbag.”

The former president made the comment at a local campaign event after I asked him if Purdum’s much-commented upon Vanity Fair story was weighing on his mind.

What follows certainly doesn’t sound like someone who is ready to put the primary battles behind him — but of someone who takes politics very personally and could do some serious payback if he gets a chance:

Tightly gripping this reporter’s hand and refusing to let go, Clinton heatedly denounced the writer, who is currently married to former Clinton White House Press Secretary, Dee Dee Myers.

“[He's] sleazy,” he said referring to Purdum. “He’s a really dishonest reporter. And one of our guys talked to him . . . And I haven’t read [the article]. There’s just five or six blatant lies in there. But he’s a real slimy guy,” the former president said.

When I reminded him that Purdum was married to his former press spokesperson Myers, Clinton was undeterred.

“That’s all right– he’s still a scumbag,” Clinton said. ” Let me tell ya– he’s one of the guys — he’s one of the guys that brought out all those lies about Whitewater to Kenneth Starr. He’s just a dishonest guy– can’t help it.”

Editors will probably tell you that, if the subject of a story that is unflattering goes after the writer and calls him/her dishonest without detailing exactly why, the reaction of many in the news business is: that writer must have really done a well-reported piece. Clinton here is not countering allegations. He’s trying to discredit the writer:

“The editor of Esquire– he sent us an email yesterday and said it was the single sleaziest piece of journalism he’d seen in decades. He said it made him want to go take a shower and he was embarrassed to be a journalist when he read it.”

Fair enough.

But truly inquiring minds would want to know a) the relations between Esquire and Vanity Fair, b) if the editors and staffs of Vanity Fair and Esquire know each other. Are there any other dynamics at play here? Also: editors’ news judgments may vary, depending on the editor’s standards.

Just as blogs don’t all have the same content, values, and goals, neither do all magazines, newspapers and television organizations. If all editors and analysts agreed, then Fox News and MSNBC could run the same programs.

“You know he didn’t use a single name, cite a single source in all those things he said. It’s just slimy. It’s part of the national media’s attempt to nail Hillary for Obama. It’s the most biased press coverage in history….”

Really?

Perhaps Clinton ought to inform the Pew Research Center — which found, in a recent study, that the press was more biased against Obama. Here’s the link and part of what it said:

If campaigns for president are in part a battle for control of the master narrative about character, Democrat Barack Obama has not enjoyed a better ride in the press than rival Hillary Clinton, according to a new study of primary coverage by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University.

From January 1, just before the Iowa caucuses, through March 9, following the Texas and Ohio contests, the height of the primary season, the dominant personal narratives in the media about Obama and Clinton were almost identical in tone, and were both twice as positive as negative, according to the study, which examined the coverage of the candidates’ character, history, leadership and appeal—apart from the electoral results and the tactics of their campaigns.

The trajectory of the coverage, however, began to turn against Obama, and did so well before questions surfaced about his pastor Jeremiah Wright. Shortly after Clinton criticized the media for being soft on Obama during a debate, the narrative about him began to turn more skeptical—and indeed became more negative than the coverage of Clinton herself. What’s more, an additional analysis of more general campaign topics suggests the Obama narrative became even more negative later in March, April and May.

But according to Bill Clinton, reporters, editors and publishers are all working together with one goal in mind: get rid of Hillary Clinton. More of his comments:

It’s another way of helping Obama. They had all these people standing up in this church cheering, calling Hillary a white racist, and he didn’t do anything about it. The first day he said ‘Ah, ah, ah well.’ Because that’s what they do– he gets other people to slime her. So then they saw the movie they thought this is a great ad for John McCain– maybe I better quit the church. It’s all politics. It’s all about the bias of the media for Obama. Don’t think anything about it.”

“But I’m telling ya, all it’s doing is driving her supporters further and further away– because they know exactly what it is– this has been the most rigged coverage in modern history– and the guy ought to be ashamed of himself. But he has no shame. It isn’t the first dishonest piece he’s written about me or her.”

Rigged?

Granted Obama has gotten lots of big bucks for his campaign, but he’s also paying off and/or in touch with publishers and editors to fix the media coverage? So the New York Post (which has at times been critical of Clinton in the campaign) is working with the New York Daily News and the New York Times?

“Anytime you read a story that slimes a public figure with anonymous quotes, it oughta make the bells go off in your head.

So see? A lot of people BELIEVED the Washington Post’s Watergate coverage that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon. Those stories used anonymous quotes.

NOTE TO MR. CLINTON: Any editor will tell you that if a writer uses blind quotes, his/her editor may want to know the names of the sources. Also, on a highly-sensational story most editors will insist on more than one source delivering a controversial assertion or fact.

Because anytime somebody uses those things– he wrote the story in his head in advance, and he just goes around and tries to find some coward to say whatever they want to say, hoping to get some benefit out of it. It didn’t bother me. It shouldn’t bother you.”

So there is a new fact that emerges in this Huffington Post piece.

It turns out that in addition to being an ex-governor of Arkansas, a two-term President, head of a foundation, a popular speaker, and a tireless worker, plus and liability for his wife’s campaign, Bill Clinton is also apparently a psychic.

He apparently knows the writer wrote the story in his head in advance. He apparently can state with certainty that the writer only went around to fill in the blanks. He therefore also must know exactly how many people the writer talked to.

Why doesn’t George Bush hire him to find Osama bin Laden?

Bill Clinton must he a psychic and if he isn’t yet, he could be.

Because if Mr. Clinton sat in a chair for a few minutes and took a deep breath until his face stopped being red, and thought about his comments for a few minutes, I’ll bet he would figure out just what many independent voters, Democrats who aren’t Clinton activists, and Republicans think about his remarks.

And if he can’t, here’s a hint:

They probably are not pining for having Bill Clinton close to the Oval Office.

UPDATE: You guessed it!
(1) Bill Clinton’s p.r. people are trying to put the flames out.
(2) It turns out Mr. Clinton’s comments used to try and discredit Purdum were…inaccurate. The New York Times’ The Caucus blog reports:

Update: 9 p.m. Jay Carson, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said tonight: “President Clinton was understandably upset about an outrageously unfair article, but the language today was inappropriate and he wishes he had not used it.”

Mr. Purdum also released a statement tonight after Mr. Clinton’s original comments: “My Vanity Fair article speaks for itself. The reporting is based on interviews with dozens of high-level people who either still work for the Clintons or have worked with them or known them for years, and who continue to admire the former president in many ways.

“For the record, President Clinton’s statements to the contrary, I
played virtually no role in the coverage of Whitewater and was never a source for Kenneth Starr.”

Cartoon by RJ Matson, The St. Louis Post Dispatch

HERE’S SOME OTHER BLOG REACTION TO BILL CLINTON’S LATEST COMMENTS:
–LA Times blogger Andrew Malcomb:

Well, talk about going out with class. Ex-President Bill Clinton just went off again during a campaign appearance in South Dakota. The shock waves should be rippling through Chicago and Kansas City any minute.

….Even though by denouncing the article again Clinton is driving thousands more people to read it. He’ll soon be getting a handwritten thank you letter from the Vanity Fair circulation director. ….Yes, it sure sounds like the Clinton and Obama camps are drawing closer together, doesn’t it, and letting bygones be bygones? Bodes well for the general election campaign. Bill’s over it already. Clearly. And what a shocker that all these moves and criticisms are “all politics.” Imagine. Politics. In the middle of an American presidential primary campaign. That Clinton is losing.

–Newsday’s Spin Cycle:

Got that? It doesn’t bother him.

Because one of the things the story said was that he seemed to have developed an anger problem. And if it bothered him, he’d be showing anger.

But he’s not angry! He hasn’t even read it!

Even when you’re fabulously famous, rich and accomplished and have been attacked 1000 times before, it’s no doubt infuriating to read about unnamed people trashing you. The problem: His folks also love to trash people anonymously, and so does he — as he exhibits here.

Pots always get laughed at when they call kettles black. And, it never does you any good to lose it and totally go off in public. He just validates the stereotype of being a loose cannon.

–ABC’s Jake Trapper:

The former president’s monologue made it clear that he saw Purdum’s story as part of a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy co-run by the media and the Barack Obama campaign to take down his wife.

–Slog:

There’s no actual allegation [in the Vanity Fair piece] that Clinton has indeed been chasing skirts or doing anything illegal—although the same can’t be said for every member of his “scandal-tinged posse.” And the article is, in the end, built upon a lot of anonymous quotes and conjecture. But everyone’s is talking about the piece. Including Bill.

–Tigerhawk:

Why, exactly, Bill Clinton thinks it is ever in his interest to use sleaze-oriented words is beyond me, but self-reflection has never been his strong suit…I have to admit, that’s the first time I recall reading that Todd Purdum, formerly of The New York Times, was responsible for Whitewater. [TMV Editor's note: See above. Purdum was not responsible for the paper's Whitewater stories...] Did Nixon go to his grave waiting for an apology from Woodward and Bernstein? Nope, because he was too introspective

.