Despite numerous errors and flaws, Sally Bedell Smith book on Clintons largely escaped factual scrutiny
SUMMARY: Sally Bedell Smith's book For Love of Politics: Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years has largely escaped factual scrutiny, although Smith has appeared on several network and cable news programs to publicize the book. Media Matters has identified several errors and flaws in Smith's book.
Author Sally Bedell Smith, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair who has previously written books on the Kennedy White House and Princess Diana, has received media attention for her book For Love of Politics: Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years (Random House, October 2007). Smith has appeared on NBC's Meet the Press (October 21) and Today (October 19), MSNBC's Hardball (October 26), and Fox News' Hannity & Colmes (October 26) and The Big Story (November 1), but her book has largely escaped factual scrutiny. Most recently, on December 11, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Smith on the prospect of "Two Presidents in the White House[]" -- the headline of the piece -- if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton [D-NY] is elected president. In the op-ed, Smith wrote: "[G]iven the Clintons' long history of close consultation, their partnership could end up distorting the way the executive branch is supposed to function -- regardless of the talents each of them might bring to the White House." Below are several errors and flaws in Smith's book that have been identified by Media Matters for America.
1. John Podesta: On Page 301, Smith quotes then-White House chief of staff John Podesta quoting Bill Clinton as saying of Monica Lewinsky, "I did not screw that girl" and "she did not blow me." Smith's endnotes claim these quotes come from "Grand-jury testimony of John Podesta, June 16, 1998, vol. 3, p. 3311." That testimony is available here -- but it doesn't contain anything like the quotes Smith attributes to Podesta.
2. Minimum wage: On Page 254, Smith claims that "the President made no mention of the new minimum wage law" in his 1996 convention speech. This is false. During that speech, Bill Clinton bragged about "[t]en million workers getting the raise they deserve with the minimum wage law."
3. Webster Hubbell: On Page 255, Smith writes about a March 25, 1996, telephone conversation between former associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell and his wife, Suzy:
Suzy told her husband that White House aide Marsha Scott, another old friend from Little Rock, had warned he would receive no "public support" if he were to "open up Hillary to all this." "I'm hearing the squeeze play," Suzy added.
Replied Webb, "So I need to roll over one more time." When Suzy asked whether overbilling was "an area where Hillary would be vulnerable," Webb cautioned her, "We're on a recorded phone." Talking to Scott the same day, Hubbell said, "There are issues that I have to stay away from to protect others, and I will."
Smith's description of the phone calls mirrors the selectively edited excerpts released by House Government Reform and Oversight Committee chairman Dan Burton's (R-IN) staff. Burton's chief investigator, David Bossie, lost his job over the controversy that ensued after it was revealed that the edited transcripts omitted exculpatory comments, such as Webster Hubbell's statement that Hillary Clinton "just had no idea what was going on. She didn't participate in any of this."
4. Haircut myth: On Page 101, Smith writes, "Bill was caught by White House reporters holding up traffic at Los Angeles International Airport for forty-five minutes while he got a two-hundred-dollar haircut on Air Force One from ... Hollywood stylist, Christophe Schatteman." In fact, Clinton's haircut did not delay air traffic. In an endnote, Smith appears to cite several sources for her false claim, including Page 144 of All Too Human by George Stephanopoulos. But in fact, Stephanopoulos writes on that page: "The truth is that while the reporters traveling with the president were delayed, no other air traffic at LAX was affected."
5. Trouble with quotes: According to a New York Times book review by New York magazine contributor Lloyd Grove, Smith "also gets a few nuances slightly wrong -- for example, crediting Hillary's confidante Susan Thomases with coining the epithet 'white boys,' [Page 65] which, by the time Thomases used it to deride her male counterparts in the 1992 campaign, had been in circulation for several election cycles. Smith misstates what she calls 'the second-most famous quotation' of the Clinton presidency as 'It depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" means,' [Page 337] substituting 'means' for 'is.' " Additionally, Smith substituted "upon" for "on" -- meaning that she got wrong two of the 11 words in what she described as the "second-most famous quotation" of Clinton's presidency.
6. Gennifer Flowers: On Page 295, Smith claims that during his deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit, Bill Clinton "admitted sexual intercourse with Gennifer Flowers." She repeats the claim that Clinton "confirm[ed]" that he had "sexual intercourse with Gennifer Flowers" on Page 325. In fact, during the deposition, Clinton admitted only to having had "sexual relations" with Flowers once in 1977. Under the definition of "sexual relations" that was in effect for the deposition -- a definition that had been created by the Jones attorneys, not by Clinton -- the phrase included a wide range of actions that do not constitute "sexual intercourse," including "contact with the ... inner thigh." Smith knew how broad the definition was; she actually quotes it on Page 295 in the very paragraph in which she falsely claimed Clinton had admitted to "sexual intercourse."
7. Al Gore: On Page 386, Smith claims that, prior to his June 1999 presidential campaign announcement, then-Vice President Al Gore "had expressed his dismay about Bill's conduct to a small circle of advisors but had kept quiet publicly." This is false. Smith cites a 1999 Washington Post article by Ceci Connolly, but much of Connolly's reporting about Gore was wrong. Gore had publicly expressed his dismay about the president's conduct on numerous occasions. Indeed, Connolly herself wrote a September 1998 article that quoted Gore describing Clinton's conduct as "indefensible." On his blog The Daily Howler, Bob Somerby has explained this falsehood in detail.
8. Harold Ickes: On Page 390, Smith writes that Hillary Clinton "thought it best to keep Bill away from the event" kicking off her Senate campaign at then-Sen. Daniel Patrick Pat Moynihan's (D-NY) farm, "but somewhat surprisingly she also excluded Harold Ickes because he was 'too liberal.' " The confusing nature of Smith's endnotes make it difficult to determine which citation applies to this claim; either "NYT, July 8, 1999; LH, p. 507" or "NYT, Nov. 8, 2000." What is clear is that no New York Times article from July 8, 1999, or November 8, 2000, includes a description of Ickes as having been "too liberal" to attend the event. Nor does Hillary Clinton's biography, Living History.
9. Naomi Wolf: On Page 420, Smith claims that "feminist author Naomi Wolf ... had advised [Gore] to wear 'earth tones'..." Smith cites "NYT, Nov. 3, 1999 and Vanity Fair, July 2001." Neither of those sources directly supports Smith's claim.
The Vanity Fair article, which is reprinted in the book The Woman At the Washington Zoo by Marjorie Williams and Timothy Noah, simply states that "political reporters discovered that Wolf had been handsomely paid to advise Gore that he needed to ... adopt warm earth tones for his wardrobe."
There is no November 3, 1999, New York Times article that makes reference to Gore, Wolf, and "earth tones." That day, the Times did publish a column by Maureen Dowd that did so. Dowd wrote: "Time magazine revealed that Al Gore hired Ms. Wolf, who has written extensively on women and sexual power, as a $15,000-a-month consultant to help him with everything from his shift to earth tones to his efforts to break with Bill Clinton." Dowd simply wasn't telling the truth: The Time magazine article she described did not contain the words "earth tones." In a correction to a later article, the Times acknowledged that Wolf "was a consultant on women's issues and outreach to young voters; she was not Mr. Gore's image consultant and was not involved in his decision to wear earth-toned clothing."
Curiously, Smith did not cite the first news report that mentioned Gore, Wolf, and "earth tones" -- a November 1, 1999, Washington Post article in which Connolly wrote that Dick "Morris speculated that Wolf, who has long contended that earth tones are more 'reassuring' to audiences, is the person behind Gore's recent wardrobe change. Others confirmed that she has supported the vice president's shift to brown, olive green and tan shades."
That is the totality of the "evidence" that Naomi Wolf advised Al Gore to wear earth tones -- Ceci Connolly's paraphrase of Dick Morris' speculation, and her assertion that unspecified "[o]thers" confirmed that speculation.
In short: Smith's endnotes indicate that she based her claim on 1) a Vanity Fair article that contains no independent verification of the earth tones story and 2) a New York Times article that was really a Maureen Dowd column that falsely claimed that Time magazine had reported the earth tones story. Had Smith quoted the first news report that actually mentioned earth tones, readers would have seen that the whole story was based on nothing more than Dick Morris' speculation.
10. Travelgate: On Page 101, Smith claims, regarding the firing of White House Travel Office employees, that the "precipitous and amateurish dismissals [of the employees] became a damaging test of Hillary's honesty under oath before federal investigators." Smith continues: "She [Hillary Clinton] insisted that she did not know the 'origin of the decision' to remove the employees, that she had 'no role in the decision,' and that she 'did not direct that any action be taken.' But her recollection was a at odds with a report issued in October 2000 after a lengthy investigation by the Office of the Independent Counsel, which concluded that her statements had been 'factually false' and that there was 'overwhelming evidence that she in fact did have a role in the decision to fire the employees.' " However, Smith failed to note that Independent Counsel Robert Ray's report also stated, "[T]here is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Clinton's statements to this Office or to Congress were knowingly false." From Ray's report:
With respect to Mrs. Clinton, the overwhelming evidence establishes that she played a role in the decision to fire the employees and provided input into that decision to [former White House aide David] Watkins, [former White House chief of staff Thomas F. "Mack"] McLarty, [former deputy White House counsel Vince] Foster, and [Clinton friend Harry] Thomason. Thus, her statement to the contrary under oath to this Office was factually false. The evidence, however, is insufficient to show that Mrs. Clinton knowingly intended to influence the Travel Office decision or was aware that she had such influence at this early stage of the Administration. To a real degree, her interest in the matter was first generated by Thomason's intervention, and then overstated by him to others. Thus, absent persuasive, corroborated, and admissible evidence to the contrary, there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Clinton's statements to this Office or to Congress were knowingly false.














Ah, well, just another Corporate Media feeding frenzy at the Clinton trough - nothing produces quite the feeling of freedom to invent, mis-state, take out of context, and outright lie that finding a Clinton in the sights will serve. It is just too bad that there remains an audience of more than ten purported people in possession of funds to purchase this trash, and every one of them already knows all these lies by heart.
So sloppy, sloppy writing for Judas cash. More trees die for these future bargain bin wonders. Hey Rove Rangers, whatcha got planned for Oprah and Obama?
A fascinating thing, watching these little sleaze farmers plant their crops, then have the big sleaze merchants harvest the contaminated crop and process it into the 'mainstream' effluent.
MM should sponsor an annual awards show for discredited journalists. You can start with Friedman and Brooks, then work your way down (or up?) the food chain.
Sounds like Sally Bedell Smith is fully qualified for a job at Faux News....
Looks like she will be a regular on OReilly and Hannity, they love people who lie about the Clintons.
Why MMFA would want to bring up this subject now is beyond me, but thanks for reminding us of those wonderful Clinton years. :-)
Looking at the first point, MMFA says the words are not correct, but when I read the deposition, I see that Podesta did his best not to say those particular words while admitting Clinton used explicit language denying to Podesta his sexual involvement and oral sex. At least that is what I think it said... You know how lawyers can parse. :-) Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
I find it interesting, but not surprising that MMFA left out the actual deposition statement by Podesta in this critique. My guess is that they hope the faithful will not go read it but simply think the whole thing is a "right wing lie" as someone here has already said.
I tried cutting and pasting but since it is a pdf document it didn't copy well. Sorry.
Oh well. It is an election year. :-)
Why MMFA would want to bring up this subject now is beyond me, but thanks for reminding us of those wonderful Clinton years. :-)
By wonderful you must be referring to the fact that we had a robust economy that benefited most people and we were not bogged down in a neverending war of our own choosing...;)
Oh wait...you're a troll so all you concentrate on is the sex...
AA is not a troll he is a long time poster, people who disagree with us are not trolls.
but the Clinton years were wonderful, a good economy, peace in the world and America was respected.
Doris, well said. You are the classiest poster on this site.
Thanks Doris!
Happy Holidays!
Nice rant but bad putdown.
I noticed you have no comment regarding the gist of my post. Also, did you not notice MMFA had as their first point the Podesta item. Does your criticism about sexual preoccupation extend to them too?
Oh well. I hope your post made you feel better.
The Podesta item was pointing out a lie in the book. Why do you focus on the sex and not on the lies told in the book?
Perhaps you should remove the beam from your own eye before commenting on the motes that may be in others'.
Speaking of "wars of our own choosing", remember Kosovo? Who was it that attacked a sovereign nation under the guise of "humanitarian intervention" in response to a non-existent ethnic cleansing?
It's amazing how some people think the Clinton years were so great. Do you people read anything critical of those years and if you do are at all objective about it? I'm not talking about muckraking, yellow journalism-conservative trash but actual well sourced analysis.
Probably not.
People who defend Clinton as being a good guy are as delusional as those that do the same for Bush.
I'm not defending Clinton, but Kosovo as a "non-existent" genocide? Did you really just say that?
My family took in two children whose parents were murdered in Kosovo at the height of that non-existent genocide. I would really hope you would apologize to them for saying such blasphemy.
I guess you're going to say Slobadan Milosevic wasn't actually tried at the Hague either.
Pathetic.
I'll admit there was an ethnic cleansing in the sense that ethnic Albanians were being persecuted and subsequently were fleeing the country, but to say there was a genocide is flat out false. How many Albanians were killed under orders from Milosevic? Our government was touting numbers anywhere between 100,000 to 500,000 being "missing" and "presumed" dead. Don't forget there was a mass exodus of Albanians from the country. How many of these 100,00 to 500,000 "presumed dead" have been found? Their bodies have to be somewhere. Or does your analysis of the situation stop once the media stops talking about it.
The bombing campaign targeted electrical plants, water treatment facilities, TV stations, bridges, you know, civilian infrastructure. Which is a war crime in and of itself. Thousands of innocent Serbian civilians were killed during the bombing. Do you care about those people?
I'm sorry the parents of those kids you took in were murdered. I have kids of my own. But that being said, pointing to one example doesn't constitute a genocide. Come up with some real numbers. It's not as if the Albanians were innocent in all this. They vastly outnumbered the Serbian population and were trying to forcibly break off from greater Yugoslavia and start their own country. You know, secede, like the South from the North?
The Clinton administration was very supportive if the KLA (Kosovo LIberation Army). A group described as terrorists by U.S. Envoy Robert Gelbard. Not exactly choir boys.
[link to www.arhiva.serbia.sr.gov.yu]
Members of the KLA were indicted in crimes against humanity as well, but I guess that doesn't matter because it was Serbians they were committing crimes against.
So, what's happened since 1999. Hundreds of thousands of Serbians have fled the country due to persecution from the ethnic Almanian majority. Almost a million Albanians have returned to the country (so much for that genocide). The economy is and infrastructure are in ruins. But you probably don't have much to say about that because it doesn't fit into the narrative that you so easily bought into. Serbians bad, Albanians good.
Sorry but it's your analysis that's pathetic.
Speaking of "wars of our own choosing", remember Kosovo?
You mean the one entered into with the full cooperation of the UN, and not with an end-around play like the one Bush needed because the UN wasn't behind the invasion of Iraq?
You mean the one in which not a single American soldier was killed?
The one that actually stopped a war criminal from murdering his own people (Milosevic) as opposed to the one who "murdered his own people" with gas and helicopters that were supplied to him by the US (Hussein)?
I remember all these things. I am very sorry that to call your understanding "superficial" would inflate its worth far too greatly.
... and you prove yet again that it indeed EASY TO REFUTE WINGNUTS. Good job.
Hey, TEX.
Just because that's his/her screen name doesn't mean everyone they're responding to is a [right]wing-nut.
Remember what they say when you as(s)ume something.
Happy Trolling!
Actually it wasn't "entered into with the full cooperation of the United Nations", it was NATO that backed it. Two very different organizations.
And I'm not defending Bush's war, so I don't know why your bringing that up.
Actually there were U.S. casualties.
[link to news.bbc.co.uk]
I think your memory of those events needs a little updating. Talk about superficial. Jeez!
This is a ridiculous post since there are so many scandals that Hill and Bubba are involved with, yet the corrupt media continues to not properly report on them.
There's Travelgate, Whitewater, FBI Filegate, Rose Law Firm Filegate, Pardongate, Cattle Futuresgate, Vince Fostergate, Troopergate, Pardongate, Bergergate, Bin Ladengate, etc. etc. ad nauseum, so on and so forth, , blah blah blah.
I sincerely hope the Pig in a Pants Suit get the Dem nomination. The conservative new media will have a field day
This is a ridiculous post since there are so many scandals that Hill and Bubba are involved with
Wow your hate of the Clintons is really exposed on the first line.
"This is a ridiculous post"
It's amazing how well you put the rest of what you said in context.
"This is a ridiculous post ; since there are so many scandals..."
I appreciate, the disclaimer at the beginning of the post too.Real time-saver.
BTW, is that all it really takes to fool the dittoheads, just tack "-gate" onto the end of random words?
Quite clear that you have pre-publication reserved a signed copy of this tome. You must be one of the "more than ten" purported people with cash to spare for any lie that impugns any Clinton?
Strange ... I remember that it was George W. Bush who was in good with the bin Laden family, making sure that they were safely flown out of the country (and not waterboarded) in the days following 9/11, when almost the entire country was in FAA lockdown ...
You remember strangely. The Bin Laden family did not fly out until Sept. 20....one week after the air traffic ban had been lifted.
...and after 22 members of the Bin Laden clan had been brought in and questioned...
...Oh...and by the way...it was Richard Clark that gave approval to allow the Bin Ladens to leave...not Bush..
..just more lies from the left...it's what they do...it's all they have..
Stranger, you're nitpicking. He said "the days after 9/11" and yes, planes were no longer grounded, but the FAA still had everything pretty much on lockdown as America lost it's mind.
Also, you can't deny Bush's ties to the Saudi Royal family, and specifically to the Bin Ladens, who bankrolled a number of his failed businesses.
One last thing. Where's Bin Laden? Since the Bush administration failed to find him, maybe Morgan Spurlock will
Nit picking? Nit picking?.
Holy Cow...you cannot be serious. The country WAS NOT on lockdown by the FAA.Bush 43 had no dealings with the bin Laden family whatsoever. Nor did his father, Bush 41 did a couple of speeches to the Carlyle Group...which did have interests in bin Laden family business.
Lies..like I said..is what the left does. It's all they have.
So are you a MORON or a LIAR? The Ben Ladens were flown ACROSS the country BEFORE any domestic flights were allowed and out of the country beggining on the 14th.
Well, well...the lies...they just keep on coming.
Ahem...I bring you the truth about the Bin Laden family after 9/11.
See...the left lies...all the time...it's what they do...it's all they have..
ooops...
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp
Bush 43 had no dealings with the bin Laden family whatsoever. Nor did his father...
It's almost too easy to prove that you're wrong, Stranger. It's a well-known fact that Poppy Bush was having breakfast with Bin Laden's brother at the Ritx Carlton Hotel in Washing DC as the planes were crashing on 9/11.
And regarding Bin Laden's family being flown out of the US, here's a link to a story from CBS News that was written during September of 2001. Since the FBI was involved with their evacuation and the FBI Director reports to Bush, it's safe to summise that Bush ordered their evacuation:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/30/archive/main313048.shtml
boy you are such a liar and a propagandist for the Repuke party ... you would have had fun at Buchtenwald ...
Bush 43 - well established FACT (cringe - that's your Kryptonite!) that W was in business with ObL's brother years back ... they go way back ...
Of course, you'll go "but ... but ... but ... that was X years ago! How is that relevent..." You're the one who said that Bush had no ties to the bin Laden fam ... that's that "either/or" binary logic ...
Bunk they left between the 14th and 19th and do you REALLY expect us to believe Richard Clarke made THAT call on his own? RIGHT after a meeting between George W Gump and the guy his family calls Bandar Bush?
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?financing_of_al-qaeda:_a_more_detailed_look=binladenFamily&timeline=complete_911_timeline
There's Travelgate, Whitewater, FBI Filegate, Rose Law Firm Filegate, Pardongate, Cattle Futuresgate, Vince Fostergate, Troopergate, Pardongate, Bergergate, Bin Ladengate, etc. etc. ad nauseum, so on and so forth, , blah blah blah.
All of which the first Republican-appointed Special Prosecutor said were false charges against the Clintons before he was replaced by the peeping-Tom prig named Ken Starr.
I think I'll refer to posts like yours in the future as "Ignorant-gate." Every word in it is willfully and stupidly false. The only part of it that has any intelligence at all is "blah blah blah," and I'm sure you had to have help with that.
That is completely untrue.
More lies from the left
No just more stupidity from YOU. ALL those things were investigated unless you were on the dark side of the moon you KNOW that and are a liar as well as a fool. What criminal charges came out of them again? Oh thats right NONE.
Stranger,
You need better sources for your "facts." Try something like the GAO.
STRANGER gets an "attaboy" for reminding us JUST HOW PITIFUL the rightwing "scandal machine" was at actually FINDING a scandal.
The things he listed were, in fact, rumors, innuendo, suspicion, accusation, and supercharged (not to mention EXPENSIVE in tax dollars) attempts at smear.
ALL FAILED. No wrongdoing found. No charges filed. No substance to the accusations. No evidence, no validity, NO NOTHIN'!
So, Rightwingers are utter failures at the smear business when it comes to the Clintons, and STRANGER is so proud of their ineptness that he feels he must LIST their failures? Hilarious.
Next, STRANGER will be bragging about all the games his favorite team LOST, as if there's something to be bragging about.
Rightwingers: BIG LOSERS. STRANGER: One of the biggest.
I sincerely hope morons like you grow a brain some day, or at least become embarassed to put your ignorance on public display so often. ALL of those things were investigated to the tune of about 50 million dollars and two solid years. NOTHING came of any of them. If HALF the investigations were done on Bush he would most likely be wearing an orange jumpsuit right now.
Nothing, that is, except for the criminal convictions of about twenty members of the Hillbilly Mafia.
Money well spent in my book.
All the crimes, including the rapes by the fat hick, will come back to get them.
Sounds like this woman prefers the "dirty talk" to spice up her little article. Here we go again.