Based on what I’ve heard about this article, I doubt I’ll read it. What would be the point? It’s all crap we already know. However, I get a perverse little thrill out of watching Bill get all purple-in-the face over it. But perhaps most interesting are the critiques of the article and the author and blah blah blah.
Here is an article on slate.com that is a critique of Clinton’s critique of the article itself. And of course I am adding yet another layer, by critiquing the critique of the critique… ad nauseum.
But I have to admit that the real reason I like this slate.com piece is that it spends more words taking Clinton to task than the author of the Vanity Fair piece, or so it seemed to me anyway. Maybe the real truth is that I skimmed the article to find the parts that poke Billy Boy. It’s just so much fun, especially when I am bored at work, which is much of the time.
Anyhoo… to begin with I agree that is pretty hypocrital of Clinton to attack the author on ground of tawdriness:
It’s true that the Purdum’s story is tawdry, but can any profile of the man whose name will forever be linked to Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Juanita Broaddrick, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Sally Perdue, Dolly Kyle Browning, and Kathleen Wiley could be anything but tawdry?
I mean, Bill does some to get some strange satisfaction out of referring to himself as the world’s most famous sinner. And so it goes.
And while I agree that the over-relliance on annoynymous sources is pretty crappy journalism, if you can cal lit journalism at all, I am with the slate article’s author that Clinton isn’t really in a position to point fingers, although the man does have a pretty impressive one to wag about, and does so at most every opportunity.
I’d appreciate Clinton’s declaration more if he and his administration hadn’t relied so heavily on anonymous leaks while he was president to manage the news to his benefit.
One of Clinton’s main gripes, which has turned into talking points for his and Hilary’s minions, evidence of which can be seen on a CNN appearance by James Carville, is that the piece is unbalanced. To which the slate author argues: Since when do individual stories have to be “balanced”?
That would be my point exactly. These sorts of things have never been and never will be balanced. To be so, especially in the case of an ex-President, one would have to a write a book of monsterous proportions, sort of like that unreadable door-stop that Bill penned some years back. Has anyone read that thing all the way through? Sheesh what a fucking blowhard.
Although the that the author of the slate.com aricles “… blame[s] the “fair and balanced” Fox News Channel for popularizing the idea that reporters must strive for some sort of Platonic equilibrium or they’re not producing proper journalism.” seems a little off. I mean, does anyone really believe that Fox News believe in fair and balanced reporting. That’s just some bullshit tagline that they came up with in order to spew their version of propoganda.
In the end, after all this bluster from the aricle itself to the response from Clinton to the slate article itself to my own pointless uh-huhing and yeah-ing and damn right-ing, I focused in a smaller point that seemed almost and aside by the slate article author. It was this:
If nothing else, Purdum’s piece makes a superb case for the means testing of presidential pensions. Between them, the Clintons have made $109 million in the past eight years. Why does this man deserve a government pension?
Excellent point. Why should we, the United States Taxpayers, continue to shell out a pension paycheck to some like Bill Clinton when he so clearly does not need it. The whole point of creating the pension in the first place was so that former presidents, after serving their country, would has some means to fall back on, an initiative inspired by Harry S. Truman who was not only broke when he left office but deeply debt, if I am not mistaken. A former US Pres should not be left destitute. Clearly, former Pres do not have such a problem anymore. Their first book deal out office will pretty much set them up for life.
So I here is what I propose. On this day in this place. A lobby to pressure Bill to stop taking the pension payments. Who’s with me?