One Year Ago: The Bill Clinton 'Scumbag' Scoop
It wasn't the biggest scoop of the 2008 campaign, but it produced some rather barbed, funny and unusual commentary. Which news outlets, in this day and age, would quote an ex-President, even on the Web, using the word "scumbag"?
In its account of the Huffington Post scoop on Bill Clinton's tirade against Todd Purdum for his Vanity Fair profile last June 2, The New York Times quoted some of the ex-president's epithets, including "sleazy" and "slimy" but drew the line at "scumbag." Other leading news outlets were not so coy.
Clinton, of course, was responding to the quite negative profile about him written by Purdum. He apologized for some of his "inappropriate" language, captured by Huff Post's Mayhill Fowler.
I would argue that he would not have done that if he had not used the word "scumbag." But he realized that using that word made him look like a, well, "scumbag."
The Times' Michael Luo wrote:
"According to the Huffington Post Web site, Mr. Clinton, as he worked the rope line at an event here, called Mr. Purdum 'sleazy,' 'slimy' and 'dishonest.' Speaking to a reporter for the Web site, Mr. Clinton said the article was part of a pattern of media bias against Mrs. Clinton and in favor of her rival for the Democratic nomination, Senator Barack Obama."
But Shailagh Murray and Anne Kornblut of The Washington Post went the full monty, explaining that Clinton "called Purdum 'sleazy' and a 'scumbag' in comments to a reporter for the Huffington Post, a liberal Web site, leading a spokesman for the candidate to issue an apology." Newsday also cited "scumbag."
National Journal's "Hotline" site noted: "Dem strategist James Carville, on B. Clinton calling Purdum a 'scumbag': 'I think he subsequently said he shouldn't have used that language.'"
The Chicago Tribune's popular The Swamp blog: "Reminded that Purdum is married to Clinton's former press secretary Dee Dee Myers, Clinton responded in part: 'That's all right -- he's still a scumbag.'"
The CNN web site: "Calling Purdum a 'scumbag,' Clinton said 'he's one of the guys that propagated all those lies about Whitewater for Kenneth Starr. He's just a dishonest guy -- can't help it.'"
But USA Today followed the Times' policy, explaining online: "Three of the words Clinton used that we can repeat here are 'sleazy,' 'dishonest' and 'slimy.'"
The Times' Caucus blog item also failed to mention the most loaded word.
*
Greg Mitchell's latest book is "Why Obama Won." He is editor of Editor & Publisher.
What is the point of this?
June 2, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Navel-gazing.
June 2, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bev, this is just a pathetic attempt to hawk his book. (see last line in italics).
Greg, your title says it all, it was "One Year Ago". Over, done with, gone. Maybe someone who is waxing nostalgic for a year ago(?) might be interested if it were an upbeat section you posted. But slamming Bill Clinton over the phrase "scumbag"? Now of all times when there are so much more pressing issues needing coverage?
Come on. This in an insult to the intelligence of all TPM readers.
June 2, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have a winner! Prize goes to Mage.
June 2, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you just persuaded me to never buy your book, you small-minded petty man.
June 2, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you sure you don't mean "small-minded petty scumbag"??
I, too, read this post and wondered WTF it was doing here on TPM.
-- ARG
June 2, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's with all the vitriol?
Ironically enough, "petty" seems to describe soem of these responses as well.
June 3, 2009 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know the election campaign fried my brain, but I can't even remember the scumbag story. Was it a big one?
June 2, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it wasn't a big story then. I clicked into this story because I was puzzled someone would even mention it.
June 4, 2009 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, just to sum up:
"Scumbag.. scumbag... scumbag... scumbag... scumbag... scumbag... scumbag... scumbag... scumbag... scumbag... scumbag... Bill Clinton."
Oh, and that's "Why Obama Won."
Wow, I know he thought he was talking off the record to a supporter, but he could have said something more quotable to Purdum like, "Fuck yourself..."
June 2, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note to Greg Mitchell:
You are currently experiencing a swarm from the TPM Dem version of the Reagan-worshipping Gopers.
They frenzy first thus missing the REAL scumbaggette who snookered the vulnerable Bill Clinton on a ropeline in South Dakota.
Remember lil' Mayhill Fowler, kiddies?
"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.
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."
.....and so on and on and on and on until the chic southern charmer of a certain age tried to tear herself away:
"Thank you, Mr. President," I said attempting to end the conversation.
But Clinton continued. "He can't help it," he said. "He still hasn't apologized to me for Whitewater."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/bill-clinton-purdhum-a-sl_b_104771.html?page=11&show_comment_id=13463747
Oh, "Thank you, Mr President" indeed.
Missy Mayhill is so well bred.
June 2, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mayhill Fowler is a real class act. LOL. I can't imagine anyone would trust her again. After all, she's a sneak who lies about who she is and secretly tapes people. Don't invite this kind of sneak over for coffee if you don't want to find her rifling through your papers (or garbage) for a "scoop".
June 3, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
A TPM party foul seems to have been committed here. But, I am definitely intrigued that Springsteen wrote a preface to the book... How'd you pull that off?
If Josh could get Bruce to guest blog here, he'd have about 500,000 new hits in a day. :)
""Greg Mitchell's new book is So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq. It features a preface by Bruce Springsteen and foreword by Joe Galloway, and has been featured this week in the TPM Book Club.""
June 3, 2009 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, you've had better posts!
June 3, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come on people, a little sense of humor here! The focus of the piece was on media response to that word, publish or not publish, NOT what a bad man Bill Clinton is. Sheesh. Tho I agree with latest comment, I have "had better posts."
June 3, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The media response when Clinton was called a scumbag wasn't hesitant and censored, but when one of their own is called that, they develop a refinement of manner. Sorry, I don't have a sense of humour in recounting tales of media response to anything. I despise them for their negligence, their complicity and their venality and don't get a lot of laughs out of anything they do.
June 3, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I've had better comments than mine above. But I made it to highlight the difference between media treatment of a Cheney vs. a Clinton (and they will publish most any word or phrase, at least online). Clinton's offhand remarks about Purdum was a 'gotcha' that should not have been reported anyway.
June 3, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, you've just run into the truly *bitter* Hillary dead-enders. They'll spend the next decade or so trying to construct the "we were cheated" narrative that can excuse the ugly, cynical and stupid campaign that they ran. Having that axe to grind is some kind of secuirty blanket at this point.
FWIW, I'm not defending the media in any way, especially sleazy unethical types like Mayhill Fowler. Any legit journo would have had press credentials and identified themselves. She's a dumpster diver.
June 3, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You haven't improved on reasoning since the primary I see. Your point that bitter Hillary deadenders would make sense if folks actually engaged in conversation about the media's treatment of Hillary and Bill. But no one did. Hillary and non-Hillary supporters alike are saying this is a pointless post about an insignificant event that no one cares about. :) But you of course are welcoem to continue engaging in Clinton (and Clinton-supporter) hate while most adults have moved on.
June 3, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Much more succinct that I could ever put it. :)
June 3, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you nailed it, dijamo.
I was just saying to myself, "What?" And then, "Why??"
-- ARG
June 4, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most adults have moved on? Look at the vitriol, including personal attacks.
So what if this post is pointless? If there's no point, move on. No reason to get angry about it.
I think some people need to grow up -- unfortunately, they are the last to know.
June 5, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink