« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
I Remember When TPM actually had some Integrity
I was saddened today when I saw Josh's piece on Bill Clinton on the front page. It used to be that when an sleazy reporter wrote a hit piece on a Democrat that listed ZERO named sources that TPM would actually talk about how that was a disgrace. Now Josh glosses over the hit job on Bill Clinton that Todd Purdum carried out in Vanity Fair. An article which names not a single person, nor proves yet a single allegation...
I realize that Josh and the rest of TPM have become shills for the Obama campaign, but still... One day when Purdum writes an unsourced hit on Obama who will be able to object? Not Josh.
Advertisement
Comments (16)
I just want to let everybody know, for historical reference, that June 3 was the day the week-long Zoot Suit Riots began, when a mob of 60 from the Los Angeles Naval Reserve Armory beat up everyone perceived to be Hispanic.
I just automatically think of June 3 as Zoot Suit Riot Day, in case that ever pops up in conversation and it seems inexplicable or inappropriate to you.
That's just how I remember it's June 3.
So don't freak out or make a big deal out of it if I bring it up.
June 3, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, Hillary Clinton and good old Bill have acted with great personal integrity? Funny thing about that Vanity Fair piece. A book is coming out today saying the EXACT same thing, only with a lot more names and a lot worse information. Bill has been dipping into things a married man and a former President should not have been dipping into, but once again it is OBAMA that is to be blamed for it?
What in the world did OBAMA do? He has allowed these two free reign to beat him up at every single chance and has been kind and way too conciliatory.
I am just glad that we dodged this Clinton bullet. They are going just where they should go. Back to nowhere.
I know, for a couple of weeks, Hillary's people will scream about the "popular vote" and how Obama STOLE this election from her. What else, OH, YEA, he is sexist, and she has been an utterly perfect human being for all this time.
I am a white woman and NEVER EVER have I been more embarrassed by the actions of another woman. Using us to firm up her rants about unfairness. Truth is, she lost. She lost because she voted for the war, was unable to personally apologize for any of her issues and in the end, she came off as a know it all who would not see reality.
She has turned into a parody of the woman I thought she was. Problem is, I think I was wrong about the Clintons all along.
June 3, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your absolute Hatred of anything Clinton is astounding.
June 3, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Todd Purdum is a well-respected journalist, married to former Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Myers. He is not "sleazy, slime or a scumbag."
June 3, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
If he wrote this piece. The words stand for themselves. He is no friend of anyone. Dee dee should be properly embarrassed by her husband.
June 3, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what journalists do for each other - they're like the mafia - without the charm.
June 3, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry but writing that Bill Clinton is womaizing and hanging out with scumbags is as hard to complain about as a peice that says Bush has problems with englis or Gonzales suffers from selective memory loss.
June 3, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't read the VF piece, but I feel as if I probably don't need to. Is it breaking the scoop that Bill Clinton is a womanizer? Golly, gee. Who knew?
Private morality is undeniably a virtue, but it is rarely much use in predicting permformance in one's job (unless one's job directly RELATES to private morality: Say a preacher, or an elementary school teacher, or an ace reporter, or a blog operator).
Every workman (including a President) should be judged first and foremost by his WORK - what he PRODUCES. If I hire a wood-cutter, I'll certainly appreciate his theories on chain saws and trees. I'll admire his nice truck, if he has one. I hope he treats his family well. All fine, and to his credit.
But mostly, I want a proper load of wood placed in the right place, at the right time, at a reasonable cost. If he can do that we'll get along. If he CAN't, none of that other stuff is going to save him.
What OTHER President in the modern era left a higher stack of wood, at better costs? What we HIRED him to do, he did. The rest of this foolishness is the stuff of busy-bodys and prigs: Unschooled in life's realities and the frailties of human beings, bereft of any sense of proportion or priorities.
Grow up, people. We're DROWNING in incompetence getting-by under the false cover of "ethics". Get somebody to drive this global truck, who knows how to drive trucks. Go elsewhere for spiritual guidance.
June 3, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
June 3, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it doesn't. In fact it says that there is no evidence at all that he has done anything wrong. What the article says is that he might have or he might - Purdum doesn't know, but he thinks it's a possibility. That's the new journalism. Rock Hackshaw wrote that reporters have been speculating for months now that the only way for Clinton to get the nomination would be for something to happen to Obama - so when she made that comment in May, (the same comment she made in March) they assumed that her thinking was as jaded, twisted and sick as theirs is - she must have meant what they were thinking.
Sick, isn't it?
June 3, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to ask the poster of this blog: Did you actually ready the content of the article?
Josh was writing about a quote that Bill Clinton said in reference to the Vanity Fair article, not about the article itself.
This is a quote made by Bill Clinton in a tirade against Purdum:
Specifically Josh was making a point about Bill Clinton using the word "movie" as opposed to "video" and how that made Bill seem out of touch with modern day politics. Nothing was said by Josh in defense of the Vanity Fair article nor about Clinton's philandering.
June 3, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. I understand Josh was responding to what Bill said in reference to the article. What Josh did not bother to say was that Bill had every right to be as upset as hell at that article which was a sleazy, unsourced piece of crap.
Josh used to take articles like that and expose the hackery behind them. Now -- if it is about Hillary or Bill -- he just lets it go.
June 3, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well then maybe he should also mention that Bill Clinton himself was making a disrespectful, baseless attack on Obama in that quote -- but he didn't because that wasn't his aim.
Josh was focusing on that one word "movie" and what it reflected to him, not about the content nor the validity of the attacks from Vanity Fair nor the former President.
June 3, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you continue to post here why?
June 3, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just more supposed friends and fans of the Clintons, stabbing them in the back.
June 3, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment