Todd Purdham’s Vanity Fair profile of Bill Clinton has been getting some negative reviews, even from some non-Hillary supporters. For instance, in a post entitled “No There There,” Scott Lemieux objects to the article’s “guilt-by-association innuendos” and opines that Purdham’s
not-quite-an-accusation shtick becomes intolerable pretty quickly. So unless you're in the market for some reasonable-but-trite observations about Clinton's slightly rusty political compass and some questions about the financing of Clinton's post-presidential activities that the article does little to illuminate, I'd give the article a pass. It does serve as a reminder, though, that however problematic some of their recent behavior has been, when it comes to the press they have an entirely legitimate grievance.
I don't disagree that the press has long been in the grip of an irrational loathing of the Clintons and have often covered them in a manner that is grotesquely unfair. But I don't believe the Purdham article is the pure product of Clinton derangement syndrome that the Clintonistas have tried to portray it as. What's disturbing about the article is not the insinuations that Bill has continued with his tomcatting ways. I mean, is there anyone in America who's surprised by that? Or who cares?
No, what's unsettling are the details about Clinton's post-presidential financial dealings, many of which all but scream “sleaze” and “conflict of interest.” In Slate, Jack Shafer gives a partial run-down:
[Clinton's] many questionable business dealings, all gathered here, make for an eye-opener for those who haven't followed his adventures since the final days of his administration. There's the Marc Rich pardon and Rich's ex-wife's $450,000 contribution to Clinton's library fund, not to mention all the dubious donors to the William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation. There's Clinton's private-jet travel with investor Jeffrey Epstein, who was indicted on soliciting prostitution charges in Florida. Don't forget the $3 million in consulting fees he's collected from InfoUSA, or the $15.5 million he's earned from playboy magnate Ron Burkle, or Burkle's investments in the Middle East. A whole book could be written about Clinton's relationship with the Canadian mining financier, which the New York Times broke in January and Purdum reprises.
And that's just the beginning. There's also the matter of Clinton's unsavory ties to many governments with awful human rights records. Donors to his foundation include, for example, the governments of Dubai, Kuwait, and Qatar and members of the Saudi royal family. Clinton has also cozied up to despots like the former Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma and the current president of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, both of whom have ties to other powerful Clinton donors.
Clinton's public statements regarding the latter have been especially embarrassing. According to the article, Clinton “expressed support for Nazarbayev's bid to head the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which monitors elections and promotes democracy,” notwithstanding the fact that “[t]hat position was sharply at odds with official American foreign policy.”
The unseemly nature of many of Clinton's fundraising and business deals would undoubtedly have posed a serious threat to candidate (or president) Hillary. Bill Clinton’s choice to associate himself with the sleazy cast of characters described in the article is also distressing in another way; these associations are unbecoming to the stature of an ex-president of the United States. Among ex-presidents, Clinton is far from alone in this kind of behavior. It’s a good bet that George H.W. Bush’s relationships with the Carlyle Group and the Saudi royal family wouldn’t pass the smell test, either. And then there’s the matter of the speech H.W. gave, over widespread protests, for the Moonies in Japan, for which he pocketed a cool $1 million.
That said, you don't read about Jimmy Carter besmirching his post-presidency in the way Clinton has. I’m convinced the only reason we haven’t heard more about the more dubious aspects of Clinton’s post-presidency is that the Republicans were hoping Hillary would be the nominee and were holding off on releasing their negative info until the fall.
In nominating Barack Obama, the Democrats may truly have dodged a bullet this November. I don't know of evidence that anything Clinton's done is illegal. But many of his post-presidential dealings diminish himself, his wife, and their legacy. It's long past time someone called him on it.
—K.A. Geier
