<p>I think this is a very worthwhile article to read in Vanity Fair (if you haven’t already read it!).</p>
<p>[The</a> Comeback Id: Politics & Power: vanityfair.com](<a href=“http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807]The”>The Comeback Id | Vanity Fair)</p>
<p>This is old news. No one cares about Bill Clinton’s personal life anymore. They’re just selling magazines, story probably pushed by the Obama folks - consistent with their message of hope and change.</p>
<p>^ ^
Did you even bother to read the article?</p>
<p>When Clinton decided to become involved in US political affairs for person gain, it was no longer his “personal life”</p>
<p>"Even more troubling is Clinton’s relationship with the Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra. This winter, a lengthy investigative report in The New York Times disclosed that, in 2005, Clinton flew to the Central Asian country of Kazakhstan on Giustra’s MD-87 jet for what was billed as a philanthropic three-country tour. The two men had dinner with President Nursultan Nazarbayev, who has held the country in a vise-like grip for nearly two decades. At their meeting, Clinton expressed support for Nazarbayev’s bid to head the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which monitors elections and promotes democracy. <em>That position was sharply at odds with official American foreign policy and came in the face of stinging criticism of Kazakhstan’s record on human rights from many sources, including the junior senator from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton.</em> Within two days, Giustra’s company signed preliminary agreements allowing it to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstan’s state-owned uranium agency. And months after that the Clinton Foundation received a $31.3 million donation from Giustra that remained secret until a Giustra representative acknowledged it late last year. (Giustra has separately pledged another $100 million to the foundation.)</p>
<p>"The Office of President Bill Clinton responded with fury Sunday to a Vanity Fair article that attacks the former president and suggests he is out of control personally and consumed by “cavernous narcissism.”</p>
<p>The article, which hits newsstands next week, was distributed to the media and online in advance of its publication. The author, Todd Purdum, has covered Clinton for 16 years. He is married to former Clinton Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers.
“A tawdry, anonymous quote-filled attack piece, published in this month’s Vanity Fair magazine regarding former President Bill Clinton repeats many past attacks on him, ignores much prior positive coverage, includes numerous errors, and ultimately breaks no new ground. It is, in short, journalism of personal destruction at its worst,” reads a statement from the office of the president."</p>
<p>[Bill</a> Clinton Fights Back Against Brutal Vanity Fair Article - America’s Election HQ](<a href=“2024 Election Results, Latest News & Updates | Fox News Elections Center”>2024 Election Results, Latest News & Updates | Fox News Elections Center)</p>
<p>Just finished reading that article. Geesh, not only would Bill be a dangerous “first husband”- but, this gives Obama every reason not to offer Hillary the VP position.
Did anyone notice Todd Purdum as a commentator on one of today’s Political shows- either Tim Russert or George Stephanopolous? I found that interesting to see a Vanity Fair Reporter at the table. Now I know why!</p>
<p>I have been bring it up for months on the forum, but everyone seems determined to hum loudly while squeezing their eyes shut—Bill is a tremendous liability to anyone in his orbit. If Hillary were to gain the nomination, and then go on to win the Presidency, the scandal and controversy would start up almost immediately, and she would eventually become politically crippled by the blow-back from his messes. How quickly people forget the way the past Clinton Administration was dogged by almost weekly scandal, how we all became so tired of it all that, by the end of Bill’s eight years, we were willing to go for the likes of GWB…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>Even back when I thought that Hillary and Barack were both excellent candidates, I shuddered at the idea of Bill Clinton’s being back in the White House even if as first spouse.</p>
<p>He is a loose cannon. He could have been our greatest president, but his ego and libido caused him to go down as one of our worst.</p>
<p>Amazing to me that Vanity Fair, not a major, more serious medium, did the story. Given magazine’s deadlines, they probably thought the article would come out long after Hillary cinched the nomination. How much things have changed for the Democrats over the past months.</p>
<p>“He is married to former Clinton Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers.”</p>
<p>Payback, a la McClellan, for firing Dee Dee as Press Secretary.</p>
<p>As the New Democratic Party continues to demonize their only two-term President since FDR, one can only be thankful that they still have Jimmy Carter to remind voters of everything they dislike about Democrats.</p>
<p>I have a question for all of you New Democrats. Are you determined to drive all of the Clinton supporters out of the party and into the voting booth for McCain?</p>
<p>Do you think that this is the recipe for winning elections?</p>
<p>I have a question for you Interesteddad: Are you Hillary supporters going to cut off your nose to spite your face? Are you really going to vote for McCain so that he can select the next Supreme Court Justice?
Haven’t we all said that on the issues, Obama and Clinton are not that far apart?
The interesting thing to me is that they are close on the issues and therefore it should be easier rather than more difficult to rally behind the winner. If there was a huge split, one could claim incompetence or such wide ideological differences that it would be difficult for one wing of the party to rally behind the nominee. But they are both highly qualified and quite similar.
I don’t understand why Hillary supporters would want to join the Hilllary haters among the Republicans. Because while there are some Hillary haters among the Obama supporters, the majority are choosing him because they prefer him, not because they hate her. Yet, the negatives Hillary had coming into the campaign were mostly among Republicans. And they’re still there.</p>
<p>Marite:</p>
<p>I haven’t decided if I will vote for McCain or not vote in the Presidential election. If he has any chance of winning Mass., I’ll vote for McCain. Otherwise, I’ll leave that one blank and vote against Tierney and Kerry.</p>
<p>McCain appointing the next Supreme Court justice is no skin off my teeth. I don’t anticipate needing an abortion. I don’t benefit from affirmative action. Those will be the two biggies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe I can explain it to you. The reason I have been a Democrat since I first voted for McGovern in 1972 is my strong belief in civil rights. It doesn’t sit well with me to be called racist by the New Democratic Party. I’m done with those fools.</p>
<p>Some “New Democrats” are fool, just as some Hillary supporters are fool. That’s a pretty sweeping generalization–and thanks for the compliment.
I wish you joy among the Hagees and the Parsleys, the Rush Limbaughs in the Republican Party, not to mention the Hillary haters.</p>
<p>Unless McCain picks that fraud Romney, which for me is the third rail, I have to say I am a Massachusetts Hillary supporter still undecided but leaning toward McCain. </p>
<p>I am more concerned with the appeasement of Iran than the Supreme Court. Obama just seems naive to me and he’s certainly unproven. </p>
<p>So far I find almost everything they all say on the Campaign trail kind of bogus, but if you look at their actual records, both Hillary and McCain are proven problem solvers, looking across the isle to find common ground. I don’t believe that McCain has ever taken an affirmative interest in pushing a religious right agenda. Sure, he believes in it, but there will still be a Democratic congress. He doesn’t look to antagonize like the current president. </p>
<p>Short of being the responsible adult on the gas tax holiday BS, I can’t find any case where Obama has ever broken ranks with the far left. Furthermore, his willingness to talk to Iran without leverage is just insane. I want a strong leader, not another Jimmy Carter.</p>
<p>As I said before, I really want Bill back in the White House. Hillary is the best way to get him there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think he’ll probably pick Governor Crist from Florida.</p>
<p>I’m with you. The naivete and inexperience in foreign policy and national security is a non-starter for me. I don’t vote for presential candidates who have failed to meet the commander-in-chief threshold.</p>
<p>I don’t think that Obama has said he would talk to Iran without leverage. And talk does not mean surrender. We can laugh at Carter (and I did and do), but didn’t the Camp David agreement achieve something?
My main reason for considering McCain would be providing a counterbalance to what looks like a heavily Democratic Congress. </p>
<p>Oh, and I won’t need an abortion or Affirmative Action, either. But I still care who gets to the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, the question was whether he would meet with Ahmadinejad (whose photo was shown during the question) within 12 months without precondition. The leader of the New Democrats said that he would and then confirmed repeatedly that he had not misspoken.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Was that before or after he threatened to bomb Pakistan!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From the New York Times in Nov
<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/us/politics/02obama.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/us/politics/02obama.html</a></p>
<p>Like Marite, I like counterbalance in my branches of government. I respect McCain.</p>