The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: TheSarge on June 01, 2008, 05:17:32 PM
-
The Clinton camp responded today to Vanity Fair's long article on Bill with its own 2,244-word memo, which includes attacks on the magazine's "penchant for libel," on editor Graydon Carter, and on writer Todd Purdum and his wife, former Clinton aide Dee Dee Myers.
The memo (after the jump) calls the piece "journalism of personal destruction at its worst" and singles out, among other things, Purdum's suggestion that Clinton's heart surgery changed his personality.
Purdum "is not an MD," the memo points out.
The memo, provided by Clinton aide Jay Carson, also singles out Myers for this unexplained criticism:
Purdum's disclosure of [his marriage] in the piece does not, as Vanity Fair apparently concluded, remove the obvious conflict of interest. It's a conflict that would likely not be contemplated at more reputable publications, especially considering that, as a result of this relationship, at least one source's anonymity was revealed to others.
The memo also lists Bill Clinton's post-presidential accomplishments.
"Most revealing is one simple fact: President Clinton has helped save the lives of 1,300,000 people in his post-presidency, and Vanity Fair couldn't find time to talk to even one of them for comment," it says.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Clinton_attacks_Vanity_Fair.html
-
i read the full article online earlier this morning.. none of it is new news. why do the Clinton's even bother responding? the 'unnamed sources' are clearly people close to them. they should look around at their 'friends' and colleagues and see what those people are thinking, rather than lowering the boom on the reporter.
but its interesting sense of timing on VF's part..
-
Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone and others have been on the Obama Express for quite some time now - And like typical lib-leaning publications, instead of highlighing the good their candidate has done, they spend their time tearing down everyone else, including their own.
But, I suspect in this case the reason is there is only a paragraph or two of newsworthy Obama stuff to print. The rest of his career is platitudes and vapor.
-
but its interesting sense of timing on VF's part..
The only thing noteworthy about it is that this timing stuff USED to work in the Clinton's favor...now it doesn't.
-
why do the Clinton's even bother responding?
It's all about Billy Jeff's legacy--which gave us 9/11, as most of the planning was done, and most of the assets were infiltrated into the US, on his watch.
-
i read the full article online earlier this morning.. none of it is new news. why do the Clinton's even bother responding? the 'unnamed sources' are clearly people close to them. they should look around at their 'friends' and colleagues and see what those people are thinking, rather than lowering the boom on the reporter.
but its interesting sense of timing on VF's part..
Well, if they are looking for an insider leaking lies, the clintons should be looking for someone that looks like this:
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y95/armyyouhave/bartlett.jpg)
-
i read the full article online earlier this morning.. none of it is new news. why do the Clinton's even bother responding? the 'unnamed sources' are clearly people close to them. they should look around at their 'friends' and colleagues and see what those people are thinking, rather than lowering the boom on the reporter.
but its interesting sense of timing on VF's part..
it's silly to respond to something like that. it was a medium sized story until his irrational response; now it's a larger story.
-
it's silly to respond to something like that. it was a medium sized story until his irrational response; now it's a larger story.
+1, I hadn't even heard of the story till her outcry brought it to attention. I'm reading it now :-)
it was HIS outcry. SHE handled it pretty well. :-)
-
i read the full article online earlier this morning.. none of it is new news. why do the Clinton's even bother responding? the 'unnamed sources' are clearly people close to them. they should look around at their 'friends' and colleagues and see what those people are thinking, rather than lowering the boom on the reporter.
but its interesting sense of timing on VF's part..
it's silly to respond to something like that. it was a medium sized story until his irrational response; now it's a larger story.
yep.. it didnt even rate as 'news' until Bill Clinton responded with 3million words in a memo.. the entire country already knew Bill Clinton was a classless buffoon - he just confirmed it yet again.
-
i read the full article online earlier this morning.. none of it is new news. why do the Clinton's even bother responding? the 'unnamed sources' are clearly people close to them. they should look around at their 'friends' and colleagues and see what those people are thinking, rather than lowering the boom on the reporter.
but its interesting sense of timing on VF's part..
it's silly to respond to something like that. it was a medium sized story until his irrational response; now it's a larger story.
yep.. it didnt even rate as 'news' until Bill Clinton responded with 3million words in a memo.. the entire country already knew Bill Clinton was a classless buffoon - he just confirmed it yet again.
britt hume covered the response, but then covered the vanity fair piece itself as "background". :-)
-
i read the full article online earlier this morning.. none of it is new news. why do the Clinton's even bother responding? the 'unnamed sources' are clearly people close to them. they should look around at their 'friends' and colleagues and see what those people are thinking, rather than lowering the boom on the reporter.
but its interesting sense of timing on VF's part..
it's silly to respond to something like that. it was a medium sized story until his irrational response; now it's a larger story.
yep.. it didnt even rate as 'news' until Bill Clinton responded with 3million words in a memo.. the entire country already knew Bill Clinton was a classless buffoon - he just confirmed it yet again.
britt hume covered the response, but then covered the vanity fair piece itself as "background". :-)
was he giggling? he usually does in that last two minute segment... :-)
-
i read the full article online earlier this morning.. none of it is new news. why do the Clinton's even bother responding? the 'unnamed sources' are clearly people close to them. they should look around at their 'friends' and colleagues and see what those people are thinking, rather than lowering the boom on the reporter.
but its interesting sense of timing on VF's part..
it's silly to respond to something like that. it was a medium sized story until his irrational response; now it's a larger story.
yep.. it didnt even rate as 'news' until Bill Clinton responded with 3million words in a memo.. the entire country already knew Bill Clinton was a classless buffoon - he just confirmed it yet again.
britt hume covered the response, but then covered the vanity fair piece itself as "background". :-)
was he giggling? he usually does in that last two minute segment... :-)
I think he covered this in the segment just before "the grapevine".
-
I read it on-line last night. I'm with others, it was not worth the time. Basically he's a jet-setter who likes his billionaire friends while claiming he cares about the little people; limosine lib.
.
-
I read it on-line last night. I'm with others, it was not worth the time. Basically he's a jet-setter who likes his billionaire friends while claiming he cares about the little people; limosine lib.
.
it does make ya wonder what Steven Bing and that other billionaire want with the white house... more crappy hollywood movies? what could they need from Bill Clinton enough to fly him around the world?