It’s easy to forget how easy it was to knock Gary Hart off balance and ultimately topple his presidential ambitions. In 1988, he was caught having an affair with Donna Rice and ended his campaign a week later. He wasn’t even ratted out by a Republican operative or private investigator. A bikini model anonymously tipped off the Miami Herald because she thought Hart was leading her friend on and brazenly lying about his martial fidelity in the press.
[Dana] Weems thought Hart was “an idiot” and “a moron” for thinking he could get away with something like this, she told the Times, but also apologetic.
“I’m sorry to ruin his life,” she said. “I was young. I didn’t know it would be that way.”
Four years later, with a charismatic Arkansas governor running for president, the Republicans weren’t going to leave similar revelations to caprice. They sent their investigators combing for women that Bill Clinton may have slept with, or propositioned, or worse. They must have believed that Clinton would blow over as easily as Gary Hart had, but it didn’t turn out that way. Clinton served two terms as president and his wife is on the cusp of taking office in January.
The Republicans thought they had finished off Bill Clinton when they captured him on audio tape talking to Gennifer Flowers and released that information just prior to the New Hampshire primary. It didn’t stop him.
Shortly after he took office in 1993, Republican operatives financed by Richard Mellon Scaife formed The Arkansas Project.
Project reporter/investigators were hired, including David Brock, who later (after reversing his political stance) described himself as a Republican “hitman”, and Rex Armistead, a former police officer who was reportedly paid $350,000 for his efforts. Also assisting the project was Parker Dozhier, a bait shop owner who was reportedly obsessed with bringing down Bill Clinton. They were tasked with investigating the Clintons and uncovering stories tying the Clintons to murders and drug smuggling as well as adultery.
According to Brock, Armistead and Brock met at an airport hotel in Miami, Florida, in late 1993. There, Armistead laid out an elaborate “Vince Foster murder scenario”, a scenario that Brock later claimed was implausible.” Regardless, by the end of 1993, Brock was writing stories for the Spectator that made him “a lead figure in the drive to” expose Clinton.
If you’re interested in this sordid history, a great resource is Gene Lyons and Joe Conason’s book: The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton. Suffice to say, factual accuracy wasn’t a priority for this crew, money was no object, and the destruction of Bill and Hillary Clinton was their all-consuming goal. Women were found who were willing to make the worst allegations against the president, but assessing their credibility was impossible because their sponsors were cutting checks and Bill Clinton had undermined his credibility and wasn’t even wholly trusted by his wife or staff.
Along the way, the Supreme Court would make one of the worst decisions in its history when it overturned a lower court judge and ruled in May 1997 that a sitting president could be sued in civil court. President Clinton was forced to sit for a deposition in which he lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. When that lie was exposed by the infamous blue dress, most observers thought The Arkansas Project’s job was done and Clinton’s political career was over.
It didn’t work out that way.
I bring this up, despite it being unpleasant on all sides, because Megan Twohey of the New York Times has taken Donald Trump’s bait and run a front-page piece at the paper of record about Hillary Clinton’s role in responding to the women who were brought forward to destroy her husband.
That Hillary encouraged their political team to fight back against these allegations is taken to be proof that she’s no feminist, that she doesn’t take sexual harassment and accusations of rape seriously, that she was an enabler of her husband’s infidelity and (alleged) predatory behavior toward women.
To demonstrate the point, Twohey tries to determine if Hillary personally authorized a private investigator named Jack Palladino to dig up dirt on “the bimbos.” But she doesn’t determine whether or not this actually happened. Mickey Kantor, the campaign chairman at the time, said “he did not know whether Mrs. Clinton had specifically approved Mr. Palladino’s employment.” James Lyons, a campaign lawyer to whom Mr. Palladino reported, stated Mrs. Clinton “was not involved in hiring” him. And James Carville responded by saying, “Hillary wanted us to defend the governor against attacks. It’s just ridiculous to imagine that she was somehow directing our response operation. That was my job, not hers.”
This didn’t prevent Twohey from calling up feminist lawyer Gloria Allred, a Clinton supporter and delegate to the Democratic National Convention, and presenting the facts differently.
“Most people are not nuns, and most people aren’t Girl Scouts,” Ms. Allred said. “That doesn’t mean they’re not telling the truth.”
Told of Mrs. Clinton’s support for hiring Mr. Palladino, she said, “If Hillary signed off on a private investigator, let’s call it a minus.” But she added, “It wouldn’t change my support for her because there are so many pluses for her, like her stance on abortion.”
“I’d like to hear from Hillary Clinton on the role she played.”
The only support Twohey found for her assertion that Hillary signed off on hiring Palladino came from “An aide to the campaign, who declined to be publicly identified because the aide had not been authorized to speak for the Clintons.” Given the New York Times‘s shameful and now thoroughly discredited Captain Ahab approach to Whitewater, you’d think they’d be a little more careful about going around soliciting quotes from people based on the erroneous proposition that they have proved Hillary’s involvement in anything based on a single anonymous source.
But, the context here is what’s most glaringly missing from Twohey’s article. For every allegation against Bill that was ultimately proven at least partially true, there were a dozen or more that were baseless, malicious, and cruel. The folks pushing these stories were also pushing the idea that Hillary Clinton had her best friend Vince Foster murdered, and even convinced Newt Gingrich’s Congress and the FBI to investigate it. If the Clintons hired one unsavory and ruthlessly aggressive private investigator, Richard Mellon Scaife and other benefactors hired dozens.
When Hillary Clinton said she believed her husband when he said that he didn’t have “sexual relations with that woman,” her trust was unfounded. But when she said, in the same interview, that there was a “vast right-wing conspiracy” against her husband, that could not have been more true.
Gary Hart went down like a house of cards from the slightest puff, but the Clintons were never going to let that happen. You can’t tell this history, as the New York Times does this morning, without that context.
As Gary Hart’s New England student coordinator, let me say once again to Gary: Fuck you.
You screwed up.
And then you showed that you weren’t close to tough enough.
Sorry – touched a nerve.
Is Maureen Dowd retiring? (Please god please please…) Because somebody’s sure auditioning to take her place.
>> somebody’s sure auditioning to take her place
showing once again that this has NOTHING to do with any individual reporter. This isn’t about MoDo or Megan Whoever going after HRC, this is about the whole NYT organization being directed to go after HRC.
The NYTimes goes after lots of people. As does the MSM in general. Very weird to claim that the NYTimes has a special animosity towards the Clintons when it endorsed WJC (general election) in 1992 and 1996 and HRC in 2008 (primary) and 2016 (primary and general election). (Endorsing the Democrat in general elections is practically a given for the NYT because it hasn’t endorsed a Republican since 1956.
NYTimes, March 2000
Was the NYTimes vicious towards GWB and kind towards Gore in the 2000 general election? Asked because I don’t recall that that was the case.
There’s this thing called the New York Times’ Whitewater coverage.
You should look it up.
I knew you could!
Indeed you could (“look it up”), that is.
Whatever makes you think that I’m not fully informed of the McDougal-Clinton Whitewater deal? Or that it was blown way out of proportion by the NYTimes and other publications. Or that I don’t give the Clintons a pass on being naively stupid in entering into the deal and not questioning for years how they didn’t have to make payments on the loan but could take tax deductions on it?
McDougal and WJC had been friends/associates for a long time by 1978. So much so that WJC appointed McDougal economic development liaison in the governor’s office in his first term as governor and all of that was before McDougal went on to purchase the Bank of Kingston in 1980 and Woodruff S&L in ’82. The FHLB was on his ass by ’84 (which was ahead of the curve on S&L failures). At least McDougal and others ultimately went down for their theft unlike say Neil Bush or any of the big cheese in the great financial meltdown.
Since you want to focus on the overblown coverage wrt Clinton over Whitewater, what about Wen Ho Lee? The NYT’s was vicious based on the viciousness of the Clinton administration.
It’s so weirdly, off-puttingly transparent. I guess it’s impossible to overestimate the naive cluelessness of the corporate media, but it feels so much like a Cool Dad telling his teenaged kids, “I’m down with MC Hammer.”
Just … what?
The problem with the Clintons is there always is some fire beneath the billowing smoke. And they nearly always respond in lawyer mode. The infamous “what the meaning of is is” being the most memorable case.
Cue endless:
Welcome to the next 4 years.
Given the polling today she is going to win.
congratulations, you’ve validated the Scaife plan by falling for it.
If they tell enough lies, the compulsively even-handed can’t resist thinking “well some of it must be true”.
Where there’s smoke there’s smoke machines.
Hey, that’s my line!
“There is nothing new except that which has been forgotten”
–Marie Antoinette.
“Hey, that’s my line!”
— Louis XVI
In which the next 4 years is played out infinitely.
Pictures are worth a million words. (Recall that the story of Edwards’ love child was dismissed as baseless allegation until a photo surfaced.)
Scaife (before he died) and his primary henchman switched to backing/supporting HRC and in the case of Brock working for her.
I can’t stand these she said/he said stuff. Or the default position of most that is to believe the “he said” denials that get mixed in with partisanship to believe whichever actor conforms to what someone wants to believe. Overall, it’s the lying and false public faces of politicians (and their spouses) that disgusts the public. I can either accept what Betsey Wright told Carl Bernstein or that HRC is a naif that stood by her man.
Or you can accept that the Clintons are fighters who don’t fold like lawn chairs when you punch them in the groin.
Yeah, cause fighting back by lying is so admirable.
Nixon would have been someone that you admire because he never folded like a cheap lawn chair when he was punched. And oh boy did he ever blame the liberal media for all his troubles.
Booman,
The new rule is democrats are NEVERTHELESS allowed to fight back, no matter what Trump does.
Fighting back is worse that the original attack because bargle, bargle, bargle.
.
Well, isn’t this just the both-sides-do-it rigamarole? After all the recent reports about Trump’s tax schemes and abuse of women, the Times just had to show its “balance”.
But anyway, above: “HRC is a naif that stood by her man.” Really? No other possible interpretations? Perhaps Hillary and Bill decided they actually loved each other and wanted to try to repair their marriage. (Their marriage is their own business. Why is it necessary to point this out?) Perhaps Hillary takes Christian teachings about forgiveness and compassion to heart. And so on. “HRC is a naif that stood by her man” is a dismissive line that simultaneously attacks Hillary Clinton in a purely ad hominem fashion and rejects a large range of other possibilities.
Sex with an intern (a subordinate in the work place) is extremely inappropriate. And could get you fired from most jobs.
In appropriate, yes. Fired, not so much. Sex with a subordinate (and I’m only speaking of ostensibly consensual sex and not sexual harassment or rape), and if known, may lead to the resignations of one or both parties. But generally a lot more pressure is put on the subordinate to resign and say nothing. Particularly if the subordinate is a woman.
Having sex with the boss, even if the boss is married, often works out very well for a subordinate. It can also turn into a nightmare. It’s a risk that many people are willing to take.
Thanks for pointing out that l’affaire Lewinsky was inappropriate.
No one would have come to that conclusion otherwise.
I was responding to a commenter who felt their sex lives were nobody else’s business. When sex occurs in the oval office between the President and a subordinate it sure as hell is the public’s business.
non-sequitur, I closely, carefully, repeatedly read both your comment and the one it replied to.
I could find nothing in Joel’s comment that anything in your comment was responsive to (hence: non-sequitur).
Now you’ve given a hint about what you apparently thought you were being responsive to:
But that’s not what Joel asserted:
Bill’s extra-marital philandering is neither “their sex lives” (it’s Bill’s ‘alone’) nor “Their marriage“.
From the context above, it seems utterly clear to me Joel was saying (and I agree) that the private “internals” of the Clintons’ marriage — and specifically Hillary’s private decisions about how to respond to Bill’s transgressions against her and their marriage — were just that: private. I.e., “their own business”. And nobody else’s.
When sex occurs in the oval office between the President and a subordinate it sure as hell is the public’s business.
As a blanket statement, I don’t agree that it’s the public’s business. Or do you mean that sexual activity in Oval Office is always the public’s business? (Unlike planning wars based on lies, cutting off social/welfare programs, or federal gifts to elite individuals and corporations in the Oval Office are none of our business?) What about other rooms in the WH, AF1, and Camp David?
>> it sure as hell is the public’s business
that’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. Some of us believe that consensual sex is NOT the public’s business.
Even in the workplace?
Enjoy the next four years!
I will, thank you. I will enjoy them very much.
.
It’s just plain stupid to say HRC was a naif who just stood by her man. She did what she had to according to her principles, feelings, ambitions, whatever. But it wouldn’t be stupid at all to say something like that about my being naif because I can’t fathom why the NYT spends time and energy on this story. It endorsed her. why doesn’t it then stand by her? Salacious stories sell newspapers, like war, which the NYT is not shy to front page much too often. Calling Donald Trump supporters to the newsstand? Or imitating the Philadelphia Inquirer?
Did you not understand that this was coming? From the New York Times again? In spite of the endorsement of Clinton by their editorial board?
I think that if this story is true it shows a propensity not to delegate and trust that aides can handle it. Carville says it was delegated to him. I trust that to be true and that he would be much more vicious than anything that they could accuse Hillary Clinton of being. After all, we are beyond personal sensitivity to feelings here. We are talking about the effort to carry out a legal coup after an election that brought to power the opposition party. We are beyond the realm of normal politics; we are in a state of ideological war. Seems that the Bush family have also changed sides in this matter.
Bill Clinton was the hillbilly who deigned to seek the American Dream and not completely disdainful of the situation of the folks he came from. He was Bubba; he was Elvis. And in some quarters he was hated with a passion for being for desegregation. And his positions on race, abortion, and other culture war issues are where Republicans attacked. They weren’t interested in his womanizing or his lying on moral grounds; they wanted him out of office before he could do what FDR, LBJ, and Jimmy Carter did to destroy conservative power.
This article, my friends, is what is called a “Hail Mary”. They couldn’t make Bill’s behavior a disqualifying action; heck, even Gingrich was a Gary Hart sort of guy. (And just think of the resources the conservative movement invested in turning a naive White House intern into a honey pot sting, resources that included a leftover Bush staffer.)
I guess we’ll have some revisiting of the Vince Foster suicide and the allegations of Hillary Clinton’s orgies and lesbian domination propensities before this is over–more Drudge repeated through the New York Times. (Talk about a guy who made a mint off of lying.)
What we do know about this is yet another reporter to watch out for.
Now, for balance, will some reporter reprise the Republicans’ greatest affairs? We know how deep in the gutter we are. We just are wondering if equilvalency reaches that deep in the trough, or is it only for Democrats?
They weren’t interested in his womanizing or his lying on moral grounds; they wanted him out of office before he could do what FDR, LBJ, and Jimmy Carter did to destroy conservative power.
What did Carter do to destroy conservative power? Nothing!! Sounds like projecting to me. They’ve been the ones destroying liberal power, sometimes with liberal help(see ACORN).
“What did Carter do to destroy conservative power? Nothing!! “
That’s a little unfair. Carter’s legacy, though checkered, has some significant progressive achievements that cut conservative power. He signed the first FISA act, which provided substantially better oversight of the intelligence community. He removed nuclear weapons from South Korea, and signed the Salt II accords with the Soviets, reducing nuclear stockpiles. He pardoned Vietnam draft evaders. And of course, he brokered the peace between Egypt and Israel.
How has that reduced Conservative power though? Obama wants to spend a trillion dollars to upgrade our nuclear weapons. Besides, I think by conservative power the writer meant think-tanks and things like ACORN. That kind of power.
All of the listed achievements were blows to the militarists in our government.
… and, I should have added, to militarists in other governments (just as important)
Carter opposed segregation openly as governor and as President. Carter supported federal funding for abortion. Carter cut a deal that gave the Panama Canal to Panama. Carter granted amnesty to Vietnam War era draft dodgers that allowed them to come home from Canada.
The Democratic Congress was a restraint on Carter and encourage some of his more disastrous business-friendly moves, such as deregulation.
My personal opinion is that he’s gotten a bad rap for very short-sighted reasons, a bad rap that allowed Reagan to win.
Thanks. Many many valid points, especially why the long knives have been out for the Clintons since Day One. I have my own issues with the Clintons and don’t view them through rose colored glasses, but most of the shit thrown at them is crap.
Yes, this is a Hail Mary, for sure, but it’s been bubbling and brewing for quite some time. I’ve seen articles about Hillary calling Bill’s paramour’s “bimbos” and worse. Well maybe she did say that. So? Yes, it’s a million percent Bill’s fault, but one can understand a spouse who has been cheated on not feeling very charitable towards the person who’s been cheating with your spouse. It’s a natural, human response.
It’s clear the R Team will throw anything at the Clintons to see if it will stick. I doubt that this will make much difference. Who’s going to be swayed one way or another over “he said/she said” gossip like this? Really?
I think they already have 100% of the ‘women’s is bi#%hes’ cohort. What they need desperately is women to come over. I just don’t see how this will do that. But then, it originates with the Ailes, Trump, Giuliani, Christy contingent, so I’m sure that group thinks it resonates.
.
As far as the comment about HRC being a “naif who stood by her man” is concerned, I always said that HRC was damned if she did & damned if she didn’t. If Hillary had left Bill, then the rightwing media, including the NYT, would still be excoriating her today for not being a good, “Christian” wife who obeyed her marriage vows. Bank on it.
I can remember my rightwing fundie mom (may she RIP) ripping Clinton a new one bc she did NOT leave Bill over this. I had to read her the riot act bc, really? No matter what Hillary did, the rightwing media would’ve gone after her hammer & tongs.
It’s ridiculous. I don’t care whether HRC stayed with Bill or left him. It was a personal choice that she made for a huge number of reasons. Clearly, they’ve made their marriage work. Kudos to them. I don’t give a stuff otherwise.
Of course, it’s more rightwing hypocrisy on parade bc they’d be ranting and moralizing if she’d have left him.
Amen, Boo. When I read the story, it felt like an updated version of the “his wife’s a bitch” narrative they pumped so assiduously in the 90s. The Times was terrible when it came to the Clintons, and the near continuous innuendo filled stories were the templates for the WMD stories when Bush was president. Heck, it was my Times experience with the Clintons that made me skeptical of their WMD coverage.
I suspect that the Times has some solid Republican dark art connections. You saw it in Whitewater, WMD, and most recently, with Benghazi.
If I told my wife I had betrayed her with another woman who was now threatening to destroy my career, and my wife then sought to destroy the woman first, I would in fact take that as enabling my infidelity.
And if you told your wife that the woman who was trying to destroy your career was lying and/or was being compensated by billionaires and pro bono lawyers and PR flacks?
And if you were telling the truth about it in many cases?
And what if your wife didn’t really have a problem with your extramarital affairs but would destroy your political career if she admitted that?
Remember, even Flowers alleged a 12 year affair which has never been close to being proven. All Clinton ever admitted is that he’d slept with her once. Other women accused him of rape, sexual harassment, exposing himself, getting physical, etc. None of it proven, all of it paid for by Clinton’s enemies.
your feelings and your wife’s feelings about your relationship are your business.
if the Clintons felt and behaved differently than you might, why is that wrong?
relationships and how they work are deeply personal and surprisingly varied.
This.
All long term relationships are based on all sorts of both admitted and implied bargains, compromises, and promises. Nobody, not even the kids, have a clue of most relationships. Any attempt to make statements on what runs a relationship is just gossip. It’s one of the more maddening things that people try to do with the Clinton marriage.
They stayed married is all we know.
.
Bill was wise to tough it out during the 92 campaign, but then as I recall the political tenor of the times, he had some partisan backing to do so given what had happened to several of the Dem leading lights in the 88 campaign, all of whom stepped aside rather quickly (Hart via hysterical media overreaction, Biden from stupid self-inflicted wounds, and the Snow White lady, whose name escapes me, because … well something trivial that caused her to get weepy). Enough Dems were sick and tired of the scandal-mongering over personal missteps to finally stand up for sanity.
Bill was not quite as tough and smart as he could have been once in office facing the Paula Jones lawsuit and that awful SupCt ruling. He should have simply defaulted on it, paid the fine and other court sanctions, and been done with it. I suspect the public would have gone along. At least he wouldn’t have been put in the humiliating position of having to testify under oath in embarrassing detail about his sex life. Lousy lawyer he had.
Btw, I’m not going to click on that NYT piece. I had a full decade of Clinton pseudo-scandal mongering by the MSM in the 90s, enough to last a lifetime.
The Daily Howler blog of Bob Somerby has been tirelessly documenting the media offenses against the Clintons, Gore.
Has Krugman been alive on the planet? – September 28, 2016
Rip van Krugman arrives on the scene! – September 30, 2016
The New York Times (almost) gets it right! – September 30, 2016
The Times continues the Flowers craze! — October 3, 2016