Former Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Myer’s husband has a long and brutal piece in this month’s Vanity Fair about the post-presidential life of Bill Clinton. The most explosive part of it is that it alleges that Bill Clinton carried on an affair with Walter Mondale’s daughter while he was president. It also reveals that Monica Lewinsky suspected as much, which I did not know.
It is also possible that all these influences have combined to make the cavernous narcissism that has always driven Clinton, for better and worse, at last consume the man almost completely. It was Clinton’s political genius to position the Democratic Party, for the first time in a generation, as the champion of those who “work hard and play by the rules.” In his own life, he has always followed only the first half of that dictum, and has never been fastidious about appearances, in ways charming and not. At a private meeting in New York City in 1992, aids activists, who were lobbying Clinton to include a speaker with aids at the Democratic convention that summer, presented him with a big batch of condoms, and a participant told me at the time that Clinton instantly replied, “My staff thinks this is the last thing I need.” Less amusingly, in the run-up to the 1996 re-election campaign, when Clinton took one of his many fund-raising trips to California, I teasingly asked his press secretary, Mike McCurry, whether the president intended to go jogging with Eleanor Mondale, the daughter of the former vice president—as he had on a previous trip—after he was spotted with her (and Barbra Streisand) in the wee hours of the morning. The next day, as we boarded the plane at Andrews Air Force Base en route to Los Angeles, McCurry, whose effectiveness as Clinton’s spokesman was aided by the fact that he never fell in love with him, sidled up to me and told me that he had passed my question on to the president, and that Clinton had responded, in vivid terms he knew I could not print, that I should not confuse exercise with extracurricular activity.
Only much later would the world learn that no less an informed observer than Monica Lewinsky, whose judgment, in hindsight, has often seemed sounder than the president’s, had taken note of Mondale’s presence at his side. According to Andrew Morton’s authorized account Monica’s Story, Lewinsky flew into a swivet when she was once stopped at the White House gate on her way to a hoped-for meeting to deliver Christmas gifts to the president. While waiting, she learned that Mondale was with him in the White House.
“Do you think I would be stupid enough to go running with someone I was foolin’ with?,” Clinton later asked Lewinsky. Without missing a beat, she replied, “Do you want me to answer that?”
There’s a lot more in this article that makes one wonder what kind of bullet we may have dodged by not nominating Hillary Clinton. A lot more.
I read that article and was completely blown away. I must be really naive and he must be really stupid. Like you, I can just imagine all the fun the press and the Rethugs would have had with this. It does say alot about Hillary though. Most women wouldn’t put up with that crap, so did she do it out of love or political gain? Hmmmmmmm…… If this stuff is true, what a sad marriage, just my opinion.
there’s a reason that everyone from Karl Rove to Rush Limbaugh have been helping the Clinton campaign.
Yeah, they’re assholes.
The Vanity Fair article is interesting and all. But frankly, I didn’t learn anything about Bill Clinton that I didn’t already know, plus or minus a few new names and gory details.
I wonder if this stuff was Republican oppo research held back for the general election and now that H. Clinton isn’t “operatonal” this kind of gossip is just useful for the general Republican anti-Democrat propaganda. H. Clinton’s value inside the Party is over.
no. this is an example of the husband of one of Clinton’s former press secretary sharing something he learned from another one of Clinton’s press secretaries. It isn’t related to GOP oppo research at all.
Agree – someone was loyal enough to hold back while Clinton had a chance, but heck, there was money to be made. She wasn’t going to wait forever.
So when did the information get to Vanity Fair? That it got to Vanity Fair at all means it was going to come out between that date and November. It was ammunition to be used against H. Clinton the candidate or the Clintons generally, Clinton dirt would still smear the Democratic Party.
Okay, “Republican” is maybe too specific. Maybe “Republican-benefiting.” When I say something like “ruling class” or “corporatocracy” it gets a little vague. But these kinds of timed smears have an intention. In a sense, it boils down to whether this “leak” is “personal” or in any way intended as “political.” I suspect that it’s played as personal, but the political subtext is sometimes not immediately discerned and the ultimate hand behind such a move may not be who you think it is.
Amazing what comes out when you no longer need fear the wrath of the Clintonistas.
Yeah, I was thinking this article is going to make things awfully uncomfortable for Dee Dee. But then I realized, they kept this secret until they knew it was somewhat safe.
If it’s making the rounds now, that means Vanity Fair knew it probably a couple months ago.
Publications usually are “sent to press” a month in advance because they not only have to be printed but sent into circulation via mail and distributors.
So we have to ask ourselves, a month ago was there a chance that Bill would become First Gent? My Magic 8 Ball says, “Highly Unlikely.” So VF was pretty darned safe being suggestive about Bill’s private life.
On the other hand, let’s say everything went Hillary’s way yesterday and she got full delegate support from FL&MI and was roaring about her “electability.” Putting this story up on the web today was a not so gentle reminder of what having the Clintons back in the WH would be like…
Is any of this news about Bill’s sex problems? He has a long history of this. Why would he change?
Yes, magazines typically have about a 3-month lead time or longer. The writer could’ve been working on this article for over a year. But so what?
None of this is new about Bill’s character flaws. Only the names are new. He continues to travel with a fast crowd, as the Vanity Fair article points out. So I doubt Walter Mondale’s daughter is his last affair.
The Clintons have a lot of baggage and, maybe it’s just me, but I think Bill’s sexual peccadillos are the least of them.
Bill is apparently really pissed about this story.
Well, if it’s untrue he can always sue for defamation.
I guess she can too.
Even Vanity Fair didn’t make it a headline. Since it is all speculation and there is no hard proof.
The Vanity Fair article was interesting and his jetsetting moneyed friends seemed far more problematical to me than these allegations about Ms. Mondale. But sex sells …
Wonder how she feels having her name dragged through the mud on speculation.
It isn’t speculation unless you simply don’t believe that the conversation happened. Someone will undoubtedly ask Mike McCurry soon, but if he was going to deny it I doubt it would have printed. We shall see.
There are no hard facts about Mondale in that Vanity Fair article. I read it this morning.
Maybe they did have an affair. But is this enough evidence for you to put HER in a banner headline?
I don’t give a damn about Bill, but I think it’s awfully disrespectful of Mondale. If Monica was having a conversation with Bill about it then any affair Mondale would have had would have been in the days when you could pretty much count on discretion. Pre-Monicagate. In other words she wouldn’t have gone into it thinking there was a risk that it would result in headlines.
And what if it really didn’t happen?
I don’t understand.
According to Monica, she suspected something and Clinton denied it.
The source for the affair is not Monica, it’s Mike McCurry quoting the president himself.
It’s not totally clear from the article but here is what I think happened.
Purdum asked McCurry (slyly) if Clinton was going jogging with Mondale. McCurry relayed this question to the president, who responded that there is a difference between jogging and boning. McCurry went back and gave the direct quote to Purdum, knowing it was too crude for him to use in print. And, also, probably knowing that he wouldn’t betray the confidence. That is basically what Purdum just reported, twelve years later.
If it isn’t true that this conversation took place then McCurry will deny it. Well, he may deny it anyway, but if he doesn’t deny it then that is confirmation.
I don’t understand you at all. I guess I’ve misunderstood who you were for a long time now.
I don’t care about evidence. That wasn’t my point in mentioning Monica. I feel sorry for Ms. Mondale that she is now going to suffer a loss of privacy she never could have expected when (if) she entered into this affair. Before Monica, women who had affairs with presidents received privacy – at least from sources other than gossip rags.
Out of that entire Vanity Fair article you picked this to write about? Vanity Fair didn’t even make it a headline.
What other item from the article do you think is likely to be more newsworthy?
The failed intervention?
Please don’t tell me it’s the dubious financial shenanigans because we all know what sells newspapers.
It doesn’t matter whether a blogger makes it a headline or not. What matters is that these types of stories are out there and represent a serious electability liability. I didn’t write the article and I have nothing to do with the ensuing loss of privacy for Ms. Mondale. The horse is out of the barn. You might as well blame me for Lewinsky’s loss of privacy every time I mention her.
I’ve endured endless guilt by association attacks against Obama, many pushed by the Clintons, even today. All the Clinton blogs argue relentlessly that Obama is not electable. But all along we’ve known that the Clintons have a lot of baggage. I have almost never mentioned that point except defensively. But it’s articles like this Vanity Fair piece that really give the lie to the argument that Obama has electability problems and Clinton does not. That’s my point. Accusing me of smearing Ms. Mondale is ridiculous. She’s going to be discussed extensively and I have nothing to do with it.
There is no response to this that I feel comfortable publishing on an open forum.
sorry.
I really am.
Bye.
This is what “properly vetted and more electable” looks like? Really? Are these people for real? Geeze–old, but not wise.
Look, we know he’s a whore. That’s been well-established. And it’s boring and it’s none of our business. But you’re right, Boo–sex sells and the rethugs “got nothing.” And in this case, sex with an impeached-because-of-it president on top of his shady financial dealings a heartbeat away from the Oval Office could have done the party a boat load of damage.
Does anyone on this blog REALLY think that this wouldn’t have been plastered all over the place and caused a colossal headache? Seriously?
I shudder at the thought. Really, I just shudder.
Earlier today in BooMan’s post on an Obama cabinet, I linked to this VanityFair piece as one of several reasons why the Clintons can’t be included in an Obama Administration….because this is what awaits – distraction.
Ben Smith has the Clinton’s reply – a 2,244 word memo.
I may add that (except for the Mondale affair) the nuggets in this VF piece, finances, the heart surgery that may have changed his personality, have been published in the WSJ Bloomberg News and elsewhere. So a threat of libel?
Agree. Did he deny it? I don’t think so. He’s already been down that road before.
by Henry Hyde.
May he not rest in peace.
Never thought I’d see so many self professed democrats jerking off in glee like Hyde and Lindsay Graham.
Times have changed. Apparently people have too.
But honestly, I am relieved. I praise God, Osiris, Buddha AND the Flying Spaghetti Monster not to have to re-live it.
The sex, shady “friends,” dictators, mystery donors to his library and foundation and what will be traded and/or given away for them–no. NO!
Yuck?
there’s really not much point to an article like this, other than the writers braggadocio via…“look at all the shakers and movers l know”, and reinforcing what everyone who pays attention already knew.
it just adds to the meme that the clintons are dysfunctional…on a lot of levels…and like bob said: who wanted this out now, and why?
a great big yawner.
2,200 word response from Clinton headquarters and not one word about the most explosive allegations.
since you channeled HST in your recent front page post, this one comes to mind re: their response:
as aggressive as it attempts to be, it appears to be an unspoken acknowlegement that they’ve lost and they’re re-evaluating their position[s] post nomination, and maybe, plotting a strategy for 2012.
my 2¢…just thinking out loud.
Seems to me that Vanity Fair has been dirtying Democrats in the past but off the top of my head I can’t recall. (The top of my head has gotten more and more distant over the years.)
I also wonder about the Clintons’ marriage. For a guy who’s been divorced twice I understand dysfunction. And I’m liberal enough to understand that couples have arrangements. But if Bill was such a horndog, and being the President he was going to get caught and embarrass his wife, I need to know what was in it for Hillary to stick around. There are women who stick around because they need the husband’s money, or they need the security. It appears that Hillary’s marriage has been a calculated exchange for future political considerations.
+++
Now imagine for a moment that Clinton won the nomination. How would this news affect her race against McCain?
This was brought out during the impeachment time.
The whole process of “choosing” a nominee is flawed to the point of being absurd. Look at who is left for the voter to pick from. One out of three ain’t good. We are living with precisely the kind of government that we allow to take control. We collectively act as though GW is somebody else’s problem. The whole country is as culpable as he is. I’m very afraid we won’t do any better next time around. The righties are salivating over the chance to continue to swift boat Obama. Wait till the week after the convention. BTW, the way things are going in the Democratic party, it seems as though the convention itself may make us finally forget about Chicago in 68. If we screw up yet another national election this fall, the consequences will be very dire for us all.
denver isn’t going to be another chicago 08ain’t gonna happen. l live up here, and there is no way that will be allowed to happen…regardless of what limpbaugh and hillary do.
this is in the hands of the sd’s, especially after tuesdays primaries…if they don’t end it, and end it unequivocally, then they’re ready for it.
as for the swiftboating…what makes you think it’ll work…it not like nobody’s considered that.
h/t: peter b.
obama’s people are ready and waiting…he’s not kerry, by a long shot.
jezeus…have a little
faithhope.