Monica's Back, Did You Miss Her?

Monica Lewinsky is back in the news, this time of her own making. She's decided to tell her story after 20 years of silence in the new Vanity Fair.

She wants to set the record straight and take back control of her life. Her goal, she says:

Her current goal, she says, “is to get involved with efforts on behalf of victims of online humiliation and harassment and to start speaking on this topic in public forums.”


Here's the extent to which Monica accepts responsibility:

"Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship. Any 'abuse' came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position."

How so?

“thanks to the Drudge Report, I was also possibly the first person whose global humiliation was driven by the Internet.”

That's Monica. Perennial victimhood. Need you read more? The full version will be online to VF subscribers tomorrow.

< Monday Night Open Thread | Oscar Pistorius: Neighbors Closest to His House Back His Version >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It's official now (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 06, 2014 at 01:08:23 PM EST
    The 2016 Presidential race is off and running:

    "Monica Benghazi"

    Has a nice ring to it, dontcha think?

    Baa waa waa (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2014 at 01:11:18 PM EST
    I have to tell you that the GOP must be really desperate if they are going to revisit Monica and remind everybody of their creepy obsession of who touched who where. Man they came off as the biggest bunch of peeping toms on the planet during that whole espisode.

    And Benghazi--they picked a neoconfederate radical to lead the committee. He justifies every awful stereotype Americans have of the GOP. Pop the popcorn shooter!


    Especially desperate with Hillary.... (none / 0) (#7)
    by magster on Tue May 06, 2014 at 01:34:23 PM EST
    ... not having anything to do with what Bill and Monica did. How is this an issue for Hillary?

    Are you suggesting... (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by kdog on Tue May 06, 2014 at 01:53:16 PM EST
    the vast right-wing conspiracy has put her up to doing a Vanity Fair piece?  

    I wear as much tin-foil attire as anybody around here, but that sounds far-fetched to me...but I suppose it's possible.

    I got no beef with Monica, or Bill's sex life for that matter.  None of my business.

    His presidency I got big beef with, I'm with Dadler on that mess.  


    As long as we're mindful that Bill's presidency... (none / 0) (#10)
    by magster on Tue May 06, 2014 at 02:00:08 PM EST
    was a far sight better than W's and recognizing that Hillary will be infinitely better than Jeb's, Santorum's, Rand's or Cruz's presidencies, then I'm fine with lamenting Bill's progressive failings.

    Agreed... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by kdog on Tue May 06, 2014 at 03:47:49 PM EST
    but that's like saying a Green Bologna prison-issue sandwich is a far sight better than a sh*t sandwich.

    Yeah, well... (none / 0) (#23)
    by magster on Tue May 06, 2014 at 03:50:31 PM EST
    don't knock green bologna 'til you've tried it on dark rye with dijon mustard.

    Fungus... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by kdog on Tue May 06, 2014 at 05:05:18 PM EST
    can have psychedelic effects, perhaps I should not slander the green bologna. Is it sold retail or only wholesale to chain and cage distributors like CCA and their sales reps like Bill Clinton? ;)

    Agreed. and, (none / 0) (#20)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 06, 2014 at 03:26:32 PM EST
    we should be mindful of Clinton's major act: the defeat of Daddy Bush.   However, Clinton's success as president is often linked to the economic flourish stemming from his raising of taxes (retroactive to the first of that year) in his first, 1993, budget.  A "feel your pain" step undermined  by his subsequent claim that he raised those taxes too much-- to the glee of Republicans and to the consternation of Democrats who stuck their necks out to pass the legislation.  

    We will never know how the distraction of the Lewinsky matter may have affected his potential for doing more and better during his tenure in office. And, Clinton's personal affairs and problems, seemingly compartmentalized,  did not appear to impact his governance.

     His relationship with Monica was that, his relationship, but, for me, it did call into question his judgment when he left calls on Monica's telephone answering machine.  Keeping such messages from a president of the US might be expected to be too much for most to keep secret.  Enter Linda Tripp, stage right.  


    Bill (none / 0) (#191)
    by lentinel on Thu May 08, 2014 at 04:54:48 AM EST
    had to know that he would be caught - and the ensuing mess would follow.

    He said as much once - saying that he knew that Ms. Lewinski would have to tell someone. And she did. And she picked a pip of a confidante.

    Bill is not stupid in the usual sense of the word. He would have had to know that the conservatives were out to get him - and would pounce on anything they could to discredit him - especially going into an election season.

    So he gave them the ammunition they needed. Willingly. Knowingly.

    And then Al Gore, another educated guy who is slightly stupid, picks Lieberman as his running mate. A man with the personality of a slug. What were Lieberman's qualifications? He was a democrat who got up on the Senate floor to condemn Clinton.
    When Cheney met Lieberman for their one on one debate, I couldn't even say who looked worse. Cheney exuded elitist confidence, while Lieberman exuded ambiguity.

    Al Gore didn't even carry Tennessee.
    We wind up with W.

    And we are  likely never to recover.


    Some people's stories ... (2.75 / 4) (#13)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 06, 2014 at 02:33:43 PM EST
    ... are really best left untold, and I think that Monica's is probably one of them. I would guess that her "foolish ingénue" shtick has long since worn thin with most thinking Americans who thought they put all this behind them. It will be embraced only by those clowns on the right who so detest the very notion of illicit sexual activity that they simply can't stop thinking about it. That's been a hell which consumes them nightly for a long time now.

    Further, given that such internalized sexual deviancy is probably mirrored in the fact that "Red states" actually lead the country in per capita consumption of online adult entertainment by fairly significant margins, small wonder that Republicans have come to the conclusion upon watching Ron Jeremy in action for the quintumpteenth time that women are simply incapable of restraining themselves sexually even around the most physically repulsive of porcine menfolk, and that womankind must therefore submit to having their most intimate personal decisions about sexuality and reproduction decided for them.

    How's that for off-the-cuff pop analysis? ;-D


    Really, really crappy, I'd say (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by sj on Tue May 06, 2014 at 03:14:55 PM EST
    How's that for off-the-cuff pop analysis? ;-D
    Which you acknowledge by adding your ridiculous wink.

    And it's easy for you to say. Your story hasn't been written for you by critics or Democratic operatives or other people with an agenda. (hmm... change "Democratic operatives" to "opposition operatives")

    I think she's entitled to tell her own story and not have it be dismissed as "'foolish ingénue' shtick". If you and "most other thinking Americans" are not interested, then don't read it. Frankly speaking, I don't plan on reading it. So what? She is still entitled to speak her piece and shame on you for going the shaming route.


    Screw that. To hell with her. (2.83 / 6) (#31)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 06, 2014 at 04:49:02 PM EST
    As far as I'm concerned, Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton brought their troubles entirely upon themselves, and the rest of us were dragged unwillingly along for the ride by hypocrites all too eager to capitalize on the prurient nature of the scandal.

    The president clearly should've known better than to tap that piece, particularly at a time when Republicans were looking for something -- hell, anything! -- by which to get at him and undermine his administration. And he simply handed them an issue.

    As for dear Monica, she was the one who first chased Bubba down, not vice versa, so she can hardly be considered a "victim" in any decent and respectable sense of that word.

    Further, because dear Monica inevitably found herself in hot water as a direct result of her initial presumption of an undue air of sexual sophistication, in which she thought she could seduce the President of the United States without consequence or fallout, she is in fact the very antithesis of the word "ingénue," as it pertains to stage and screen. That's why I specifically used it.

    That dear Monica continues to falsely assume this role of ingénue, for the expressed and self-serving purpose of marketing her memoir, is indeed some seriously foolish shtick -- not to mention some smarmy schitt.

    I mean really, how naïve does a young woman have to be, to first willingly fool around with a powerful married man, and then insist afterward -- even when caught with her pants down -- that somehow none of this was her fault?

    And how craven does her older self have to be fifteen years ex post facto, to believe that she should now try to capitalize on her hopefully-fleeting notoriety, as it might relate to the prospective presidential campaign of the very woman she so grievously wronged in the first place?

    Good day.


    "tap that piece?" (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Anne on Tue May 06, 2014 at 05:15:12 PM EST
    along with a comment about when the last time MoDo "got any?"

    I think you need to consider the meaning of "smarmy."

    Worst part?  You're the father of daughters, as I recall.



    ... on something that is at best tangential to the overall issue under discussion, as though you consider it more important to play "Gotcha!" with me than to directly address what I'm actually saying. I'd really like to think that's not the case.

    If you're taken aback by my occasional use of such vernacular terminology, then I'm very sorry, and I would ask you to please accept my apology as sincere, and further realize that it's not my intent to offend. When I'm trying to convey my opinion, I tend to sometimes resort to very blunt language when it appears to me that I'm not getting through to people.

    What can I say, I'm a guy, and for all our best efforts, we guys can sometimes be such remarkably insensitive and inarticulate clods on these things. I'd like to believe I've gotten better over the years, but I'm still prone to backsliding in the heat of the moment. My original point was that Monica Lewinsky clearly made herself known to the president that she was available, and that Bill Clinton chose to partake of her offerings.

    I think you've read enough of my comments to hopefully know that sexism and gender bigotry is not a place where I'm either at or coming from. Sometimes, we should perhaps roll our eyes at the superficial, and remember to look to the actual heart of the matter and see the forest for the trees.

    As far as my own daughters are concerned, since you chose to invoke them, they both know exactly where I stand on matters of gender equality and women's rights, as does The Spouse and my own mother. And if all of them can both forgive and overlook my sometimes-inelegant and occasionally un-P.C. ways of expression, then I would only hope that you could possibly do the same.



    To he!! with you, frankly (4.20 / 5) (#36)
    by sj on Tue May 06, 2014 at 05:15:34 PM EST
    What gives you the right to judge? I had a lot more written, but it's wasted on you. In your usual judgmental and abhorrent fashion you have made a peremptory decision as to who is permitted to speak on what topic.

    You know what? On second thought, I think I'll just follow your example. Using your own metric, you have no right ever, to discuss any woman's issue. You have never been a women, and have never put in your time walking in women's shoes.

    If you want the right to speak about a woman's issues, I suggest you do summon up the moral fortitude to become a woman. And if that is too difficult for you, than at the very least you should start outwardly living the life of a woman.  Until you have been a woman publicly shamed for someone else's political purposes you should just shut the fck up and stick to being a Democratic operative. You haven't earned the right to have an opinion on this.

    Or should I assume that subjecting Ms. Lewinsky to more of the cr@p that she got when she was 22 (and a stronger 22 than you were based on your own descriptions) is what a Democratic operative does? Since she wasn't victimized the in the relationship, political operatives had to make sure that she was victimized by the press. And every one else with a mouth bigger than his brain.

    And what did those political operatives say? Never mind, it's easy to find. One of the many scripts has been repeated in your comment.

    Get over yourself.


    It's not about me. (3.60 / 5) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 06, 2014 at 06:07:48 PM EST
    I'm not the one who's trying to peddle a memoir about my role in a major political scandal. When I was her age, I was still playing baseball, and didn't have a mommy and daddy who could arrange a White House internship for me with a few phone calls.

    If Monica wants to enter the public arena again, then she best be prepared to take the bad and the ugly, along with the money and whatever good there might be, although Lord knows I find it the latter hard to see. Quite obviously, I am NOT one of her fans. My feelings about her really have nothing to do at all with my present involvement in Democratic Party politics, and everything to do with my personal opinion of those home wreckers traditionally known as "The Other Man" and "The Other Woman."

    I fully realize, as Anne said earlier, that it takes two to tango. But I have a very special scorn reserved for those persons who think it's perfectly okay to pursue another person's life partner. Monica knew the president was married, and even when he initially declined her first advances, she continued to go after him anyway. That sort of sexual chutzpah constitutes a clear lack of both good breeding and good character.

    I first thought Monica Lewinsky was nothing but a self-involved bum when this story first broke sixteen years ago, and her return to the limelight does nothing but further reinforce my initial impression of her.

    As for Bill Clinton himself, I'd really like to believe that he's since atoned for his personal behavior and all the pain he caused his family, but that's now ultimately between him and Hillary. If he knows what's good for him personally and Hillary politically, he'll keep his mouth shut and not rise to the bait that's presently being laid out by his wife's opponents as a means to compromise them both.



    What does "peddling a memoir" (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by sj on Tue May 06, 2014 at 06:27:58 PM EST
    have to do with anything. You're not a woman nor have you ever lived as a woman. You are not qualified to discuss anything to do with women's issues in general, nor in specific. In this case, it is "in specific".

    That is a restraint exactly like those which you try to place on others.

    What's good for the goose is good for the rest of us to take a gander.


    Oh, please! (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 06, 2014 at 07:11:05 PM EST
    Because I'm a man and has never lived as a woman, I'm therefore not qualified to express my opinion about a woman who knowingly sought to compromise another couple's relationship and marriage -- but yet you are, because you're a woman?

    Give me a friggin' break, sj. Monica's clearly inappropriate behavior with regards to her active pursuit of a very married president rendered her the catalyst for a wholly manufactured but still very real constitutional crisis that ultimately engulfed the entire country.

    You can therefore no more lay claim to this discussion as a "women's issue," than Bill Clinton's own tawdry behavior in this scandal can be blithely shrugged off by me and my fellow males as simply another "boys will be boys" matter.

    True equality among the sexes will be that much closer to realization, the day both men and women can come to finally accept their respective mistakes in such sordid but mutually consensual personal conduct as wholly of their own making and accord.



    How very interesting (none / 0) (#51)
    by sj on Tue May 06, 2014 at 07:15:10 PM EST
    You think you are exempt from the limitations you place on others.  On second thought, it isn't interesting at all. It's typical of you. My rules are good for thee but not for me.

    I think men (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by MKS on Tue May 06, 2014 at 09:26:55 PM EST
    can speak on women's issues.   The idea is that issues are really "human" issues, as opposed to women's or men's issues...

    You're missing the point (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by sj on Tue May 06, 2014 at 10:11:45 PM EST
    The comment is not directed to men in general, but specifically to Donald. For example, he has frequently chastised others for commenting on or criticizing Democrats when they, unlike The Donald, have not spent time working in/for the Party. And he does this not knowing whether or not his accusation had any basis. And several times -- I can tell you for sure -- his accusation was unfounded. Not that it was any of his business in the first place.

    I agree that many times women's issues are human issues. But not always. And slapping on a huge scarlet letter is generally pretty much a women's issue.

    But mayhap you're further right that The Donald deciding who is and and who is not entitled to speak is more of a human issue. Although, I have noticed that it usually women who get that from him. Even jim, with whom The Donald disagrees vociferously, is not told that he has not entitled to peddle whatever nonsense he is peddling that day.


    I thought this thread (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by MKS on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:44:36 PM EST
    was about an article in Vanity Fair.

    Lordy (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by sj on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:50:08 PM EST
    Apparently more men than Donald will do anything to miss a point in order to have the "conversation" they want instead of the one taking place.

    You are really stuck (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by MKS on Wed May 07, 2014 at 08:40:32 AM EST
    on categorizing by gender....

    The one thing that marriage equality has really emphasized is that gender classifications are too often an artificial way to divide.   Gay rights and marriage equality advocates were right that a victory for gay and lesbian people was liberating for those who were straight.  No need to live up to any ideal of being a "man" or a "woman."  Just be yourself.

    The thread was about a Vanity Fair article.  You decided to make it about Donald.  And you couch your disagreement in terms of gender.



    Again you are COMPLETELY (4.00 / 4) (#107)
    by sj on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:02:11 AM EST
    missing the point. Here's an easy one first, though. If you don't want your behavior to be classified as male then don't do stereotypical "man listening". Please note the word "stereotypical".

    The post is not just about a Vanity Fair article. I draw your attention to the Jeralyn assigned tag of "Monica Lewinski". Donald decided to get all in an uproar about "married man! married man!" and speak of her in the most despicable terms while ignoring the actual, you know, married man.

    For you, who constantly interprets things on a spectrum of inappropriately to incorrectly in order to have the argument you want to have instead of participating in the conversation in progress, to wag you finger at me about subject matter is laughable at it's very best.

    What your finger wagging is doing is showing your stereotypical "male" patterns in all its inglorious colors.

    So go on about gender! gender! gender! OTOH, maybe it's appropriate in this thread to make overbearing male behavior obvious. Thank you for being Exhibit A. Actually you're only Exhibit B. Donald is Exhibit A.


    You are really dishing it out (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by MKS on Wed May 07, 2014 at 12:35:29 PM EST
    with the insults....

    I am just talking about your posts in this thread....

    You appoint yourself as some type of Hall Monitor and personally insult people when they violate your rules....Overbearing obnoxious behavior?  Look in the mirror.


    You have a "very special scorn" (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Zorba on Tue May 06, 2014 at 07:12:43 PM EST
    reserved for those who would "pursue" another person's life partner?
    As opposed to the person who has taken vows and is actually the married one?  Who could, after all, have said "no"?
    Come on, Donald.
    Let's heap scorn at least equally, here.
    Monica was an idiot, and not at all an innocent.  But Bill was married, and she wasn't.  This is skating far too close to the "always blame the woman" meme, and I would like to think that you are smarter than that.

    As Anne said, it takes two to tango. (none / 0) (#64)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 06, 2014 at 09:17:39 PM EST
    You're right, of course. But if you read my other comments in this thread, I think I've made it pretty clear what I think of Bill Clinton's behavior in this matter. Clearly, especially given his own age relative to hers, he should have known better, and I hold him equally responsible. He had everything going for him, and he very nearly threw it all away.

    "What was I thinking? I have a wife and a good marriage. and to think I could have wrecked it and for what -- a piece of a**?"
    -- Teddy Pierce (Gene Wilder) talking to himself, "The Woman in Red" (1984)

    Personally, I happen to hold the institution of marriage in pretty high regard. It is my view that people who choose to formally exchange marital vows with one another in front of witnesses should subsequently and rightly be expected to uphold those vows.

    Conversely, if you either can't or are no longer willing to uphold those vows for whatever your reason, then it's perhaps best to admit that you've made a mistake and that you should both henceforth go your own separate ways. Having experienced firsthand that sort of rejection myself, I don't find anything wrong with that -- though I certainly couldn't admit to harboring that particular opinion way back then.

    That said, I tend to both pity and hold in contempt those persons who choose to remain married, yet continue to fool around on the side. And yeah, personally, I'll admit to having a real problem with Bill Clinton's behavior in that regard. The numerous rumors swirling around him 22 years ago led me to instead support Jerry Brown during the 1992 Democratic primaries.

    Not to make light of a rather serious subject, but I've never failed to be profoundly moved by the emotionally devastating confrontation between Max Schumacher (William Holden) and his wife Louise (Beatrice Straight) in Sidney Lumet's brilliant 1976 film "Network," in which he haltingly confesses to her his love for a younger woman, Diane (Faye Dunaway).

    That confession is probably one of the most remarkable scenes of its kind ever put to celluloid, filmed in only one take, and made all the more poignant because it resonates with viewers as an all-too-real and somber moment from a film that's probably otherwise best described and remembered as a scathing and cynical black comedy.

    (Not for nothing did Ms. Straight subsequently win the Oscar as best supporting actress, on the sheer strength of her powerhouse performance in that one scene, because Max's impulsive decision to leave Louise for Diane serves to haunt both him and the audience for the rest of the film.)

    In that regard, I also happen to believe that people who know or learn that the object of their affections is married should similarly respect those marital vows, and not intentionally undertake the pursuit of a personal intimate relationship which in most instances can only lead everyone involved to some serious grief and heartache.

    Again, I realize that Monica Lewinsky was young and probably pretty naïve when it came to the real ways of the world, but then I have to ask myself, why didn't she know any better? Perhaps in obvious retrospect, maybe it would be best if my ire and scorn were instead reserved primarily for her parents, who somehow conveyed to their daughter the belief that such inherently selfish behavior is acceptable, whereas I find it to be both deplorable and amoral.

    The only person I really came to admire throughout that whole sordid episode was Hillary Clinton. She did not deserve to be humiliated like that on a world stage, and yet she endured it all with such dignity, grace and almost regal bearing that we came to see through her what real leadership is all about. She'll make a great president.



    An article for Vanity Fair is not a memoir, (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Anne on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:27:26 PM EST
    but I'm sure in your mind she's trolling for a book contract, right?

    Gosh, Donald, I hardly know where to start.  You've made so many really offensive comments about women in this thread, and specifically Monica - all of which cast her in the role of a slutty, stupid, opportunistic, immoral piece of trash.  A self-involved bum, even. And all without knowing, really, a thing about her, other than the relentless, panty-sniffing garbage written about her years and years ago.

    That's a lot of anger for someone you don't even know.

    With Bill getting a little slap on the wrist in a way that feels kinda obligatory.  Like it pains you to have to admit that Bill was a jerk.  A womanizing, two-timing, marriage vow-breaking, lying, jerk.

    You'd like to believe he's atoned for his behavior, but I guess you don't want to believe the same about Monica; by God, you're going to hang onto Monica-as-homewrecker no matter what.  I mean, after all, she wasn't the leader of the free world, she isn't the giant of the humanitarian world, raking in millions wherever she goes.  No, that bum Monica is just so, well, common that there's no way she'd have spent one minute reflecting on her choices. Or regretting them.

    What the fk is wrong with you?  Monica's almost 41.  She's not married.  She's never had kids.  She wrote one book, a few years ago, and now she's written an article.  Isn't the fact that all of that, plus not being able to to get a decent job in the last 18 years, enough atonement for you?

    What would be enough for you to feel like Monica had "paid" enough for her transgressions?  

    Words can't adequately express my disgust.


    What is the authority for (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by oculus on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:32:04 PM EST
    "An article for Vanity Fair is not a memoir,..."

    I watched her HBO event in 2002 (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:50:47 PM EST
    I came away understanding that Bill was not her first May December encounter and that she felt molested and scarred by the first, and perhaps trying to come to terms using the second.

    Course by the time Linda Tripp and Kenneth Starr were done with her, she could only have become more scarred.

    I look forward to this piece with interest.  If she goes after those who really did the most damage to her, good for her.  In the end though Bill had to give her the trollop treatment too so he is in that column for me as well.  If Hillary Clinton is going to be our next President though, this is the time for Monica to declare her wholeness and wellness along with pointing out how she was used by the press and the Republicans.


    If she actually does that, then good for her. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 06, 2014 at 10:09:47 PM EST
    MT: "[T]his is the time for Monica to declare her wholeness and wellness along with pointing out how she was used by the press and the Republicans."

    Agreed that Bill Clinton should not get off lightly in this matter, even though she was initially the pursuer and he the pursued. Given his age relative to Ms. Lewinsky's at the time of the affair, as well as his position as POTUS, he was rightly expected to be the adult here and in that regard, he obviously failed spectacularly. And further, given his own longstanding reputation as a womanizer, the subsequent characterization of Lewinsky by his supporters as some sort of emotionally unhinged slutcase was dismaying to many of us who worked for congressional Democrats at the time, to say the least.

    As you've no doubt surmised, I'm hardly a founding member of Monica Lewinsky's fan club, but were she really willing to issue a true mea culpa from the heart for her role in this affair, and not simply assume the position that she was somehow a passive victim of circumstance, I can certainly be impressed.

    In that regard, I think it would probably serve her well to consider also using this article and whatever deal comes out of it as an opportunity to apologize to Hillary Clinton and Chelsea personally for all the pain, anguish and humiliation her relationship with Bill caused them.

    That would go a long way toward convincing people like me -- and I'm hardly the only one in the country who holds her in low regard -- that she's actually sincere and means well, and is not merely looking for a second helping of Andy Warhol's fifteen minutes as a means to a hefty payday.



    Mea Culpa? (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 10:15:38 PM EST
    Really Donald?  What the hell did she do wrong?

    Monica did nothing wrong... (5.00 / 7) (#96)
    by kdog on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:21:24 AM EST
    she wasn't married, she made no promises to be monogamous with anybody as far as I know.  

    Sh*t for all we know Bill didn't do anything "wrong" either, that's between him and his wife and nobody else.  Unless you consider workplace flings wrong in all circumstances...I don't, though personally I'm a fan of not f*cking where you make your bread.

    Certainly no business of any of ours, though the Republicans sure tried to make it society's business...the age old tale of Republicans butting in to other people's bedrooms or other places where physical affection transpires.  It's so tiresome, and here we are doing it all again like gas was 99 cents a gallon and AOL was king.  Will America ever grow up when it comes to sex?  


    Sorry kdog, I disagree (none / 0) (#103)
    by jbindc on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:57:58 AM EST
    It IS wrong to go after a married man.  Completely immoral.

    Not inherently... (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by kdog on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:26:22 AM EST
    what about open marriages?  Some married people are not monogamous.  Decepetion is immoral, dishonesty is immoral, breaking an oath is immoral.  In this case all that stuff is on Bill's end...Monica was a single woman, it's not her responsibility to police her potential partners promises to others.

    Your argument has a sexist tinge to it imo...like men who have made a vow of monogamy are somehow powerless to control themselves when the opportunity to stray arises.  That's bullsh&t.  


    Just so (4.00 / 4) (#145)
    by sj on Wed May 07, 2014 at 02:58:50 PM EST
    Not inherently... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by kdog on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:26:22 AM MDT

    what about open marriages?  Some married people are not monogamous.  Decepetion is immoral, dishonesty is immoral, breaking an oath is immoral.  In this case all that stuff is on Bill's end...Monica was a single woman, it's not her responsibility to police her potential partners promises to others.

    Your argument has a sexist tinge to it imo...like men who have made a vow of monogamy are somehow powerless to control themselves when the opportunity to stray arises.  That's bullsh&t.

    I should warn you, though, kdog, that what we are talking about here is a Vanity Fair article and not gender issues, doncha know. Or is MKS's attempted spanking limited to me?

    In any case, I agree. Why is the single woman (or man, for that matter) deserving of the scarlet letter? That isn't the person who cheated. Married people need to take some responsibility for the state of their marriages. If your marriage is so weak that "that harlot" can damage it, whose problem is it, really?


    sj, just let it go (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by MKS on Wed May 07, 2014 at 04:42:20 PM EST
    Why don't we just call it a finished conversation?

    If the conversation to which you are (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Anne on Wed May 07, 2014 at 05:15:56 PM EST
    referring is the one about what I will call sexual politics, I don't know that it will ever be over; the conversation that has taken place here has exposed fault lines of resentment, judgment, blame and bias.  I suppose the only positive, really, is that it hasn't been a case of the men all being on one side and the women on the other.

    Does that signify progress?  I have no idea.  Probably not, given some of what's been said.

    It's been kind of eye-opening, though.  People who claim to be so all about gender equity and women's issues and rights have said things, made jokes about things, that are reminiscent of the locker room, or the 1950's.  I think there was even a reference to "boys will be boys."  Ick.

    It's been pretty nauseating seeing how fast people resorted to slut-shaming.

    Maybe we'd be better off discussing the abominable Supreme Court ruling on prayer.


    He might be right, Anne (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by sj on Wed May 07, 2014 at 05:59:24 PM EST
    when he says:
    I have not offered an opinion on Monica or Bill, so no need to talk to me about slut-shaming.
    He's all about sj-shaming. Or trying to.

    When MKS responds to me, it's always personal. He never once addressed the substance of my (and others') disagreement with Donald. Ever. Come to that, he has never addressed the substance of any of the comments of mine to which he has responded. He harasses me, plain and simple. Fortunately I don't know him in RL so really, who cares?

    It must irk the heck out him when I uprate one of his comments, though. Too bad I don't have more opportunities to do that.


    Anne, your brush is a little broad (none / 0) (#159)
    by MKS on Wed May 07, 2014 at 05:37:19 PM EST

    I have not offered an opinion on Monica or Bill, so no need to talk to me about slut-shaming.


    It wasn't my intention to paint you with (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by Anne on Wed May 07, 2014 at 07:20:42 PM EST
    that brush, MKS - mainly because you weren't one of those engaging in the things I mentioned.  

    I actually did understand which conversation you were referring to - I suppose I was just trying to move it away from the personal level it had reached.

    The truth is that there is an element of the personal in these chats, and the further truth is that there are aspects of what sj was trying to say that I don't disagree with.

    For example, Donald has lectured us on why non-Catholics can't participate in conversations having to do with Catholicism.  He's lectured us on why we can't speak if we aren't involved in political activism to the level he's deemed appropriate.  To name just two.  But he doesn't hold himself to the same metric, never hesitating to weigh in on any issue about which he has an opinion, regardless of whether he's a member of whatever demographic is involved.

    Seems a little double-standardy to me.  And to sj, too, which is why I believe she made the comments she did about why Donald should be opining about women, and women's issues, since he's not female.  

    The reality is that Donald can say whatever he wants.  And just like he does when we're the ones expressing ourselves, we can weight his opinions on the basis of whether we believe he knows what the hell he's talking about.  I can't speak for anyone else, but I've never appreciated men trying to tell women why or how or what women can do or say or think about things that are just so central to women.  


    Why do you go there? (none / 0) (#172)
    by MKS on Wed May 07, 2014 at 07:51:57 PM EST
    I am sure Donald would couch his comments differently that your interpretation.

    And you mentioned Donald's daughters in a post disagreeing with his take on Monica.  Why did you do that?  How more personal can you get?


    Okay then, so much for trying to (5.00 / 4) (#174)
    by Anne on Wed May 07, 2014 at 08:13:02 PM EST
    have a rational discussion; sorry I fell for it.

    But just to refresh your memory, Donald had just made two fairly offensive comments.  In one, he made a reference to when the last time MoDo "got any" and in another, a reference to why Clinton decided to "tap that piece."

    Seemed to me that a father of daughters would not be referring to women that way - and as the mother of daughters, I was offended for them that we still have men who think it's okay to talk that way.

    Make of that what you will.  


    If one wants to engage (none / 0) (#173)
    by MKS on Wed May 07, 2014 at 08:08:50 PM EST
    in a conversation about gender, double standards and slut shaming, it seems to me that one should also leave the personal accusations behind....

    It could have been a rather interesting discussion.


    The conversation I was referring to (none / 0) (#161)
    by MKS on Wed May 07, 2014 at 05:41:55 PM EST
    was sj's personal insults hurled this way and that.

    tired of being an a$$, are you? (3.67 / 3) (#158)
    by sj on Wed May 07, 2014 at 05:28:07 PM EST
    Why don't we just call it a finished conversation?
    Nah, probably not. My guess is you just didn't like it that your obvious personal animosity is limned so clearly. And I don't see why should stifle myself just so you can blithely carry on -- I'm not going to cover for you. That's the passive side of an abusive relationship.

    I was being civil (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by MKS on Wed May 07, 2014 at 05:39:20 PM EST
    But you want to continue to throw out insults...

    Your issues are not with me.  Don't transfer onto me issues you have with others...


    The typical mantra of an abuser (4.00 / 4) (#162)
    by sj on Wed May 07, 2014 at 05:51:56 PM EST
    Your issues are not with me.
    In other words, "It's not me, it's you." very similar to "see what you made me do?"

    Remember, I didn't address you first. You chose to begin finger wagging about "gender!" and "Vanity Fair article!"

    I, on the other hand, foolishly addressed your first comment to me seriously and not as the verbal grenade you intended. I'll probably do that next time, too. I'll always give you a chance to behave yourself.


    More insults (3.50 / 2) (#164)
    by MKS on Wed May 07, 2014 at 06:04:07 PM EST
    more vitriol....

    Are you capable of discussing issues without insults?


    Not Likely (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2014 at 06:05:37 PM EST
    Speaking about being abusive...   funny, no?

    funny, YES! (none / 0) (#166)
    by sj on Wed May 07, 2014 at 06:22:34 PM EST
    Two peas in a pod doing nudge-nudge, wink-wink. I find that hilarious.  Don't you?

    Peas in a Pod (none / 0) (#167)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2014 at 06:36:59 PM EST
    Yes, I am certainly in agreement with this statement:

    More insults
    more vitriol....

    and think that this is an apt question:

    Are you capable of discussing issues without insults?

    So if that is what you are referring to you are 100% correct that MKS and I are two peas in a pod.


    hahaha (none / 0) (#168)
    by sj on Wed May 07, 2014 at 06:41:46 PM EST
    I know, right?
    Peas in a Pod (none / 0) (#167)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2014 at 05:36:59 PM MDT
    Yes, I am certainly in agreement with this statement:

        More insults
        more vitriol....

    I think that is hilarious coming from you and him who both throw out insults like rice at a wedding. You guys crack me up.

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2014 at 09:15:37 PM EST
    You have been foisting insults for some time here whenever someone criticizes you or calls into question a comment you have made. And your stock response appears hurling more insults.

    And then, you accuse the person who has not made any personal attacks on you one who routinely makes personal attacks.

    For one you are creating a defensive fiction, and for two how accusing others of personal attacks elsewhere justify your relentless ad hominems?


    That is the syndrome (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by MKS on Thu May 08, 2014 at 08:19:57 AM EST
    If you disagree or criticize, you are an abuser.   Nice way to avoid any contrary views.  Very controlling.



    I can't recall...did you actually agree (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Anne on Thu May 08, 2014 at 09:37:53 AM EST
    or disagree with the comments Donald was making about Monica Lewinsky, about her role, Clinton's role, whether she's taken or not taken responsibility, about the culpability of a single person with respect to the marriage of the married lover, and to which sj was responding?  Or did you more or less just critique how sj responded to what Donald was saying, and whether she had any reason to take issue with his comments?

    If I had more time, I'd re-read all the comments, but I don't recall your having much to say, other than that you thought this was a post about a Vanity Fair article.  Oh, you did say something about how the whole marriage equality issue had blurred the lines between what are men's issues and what are women's issues.

    Anyway, I guess my point is that no one really knows what your thoughts are on the issues that arose and ended up being discussed.  Why, for example, people seem willing to believe the best about Clinton - for the most part - but seem determined not to let Monica out of the slut box.  Why Monica is portrayed as the aggressor-who-wouldn't-take-no-for-an-answer, but Bill, who just happened to be someone with a long history of adultery, and who certainly had the power not just to say "no," but to end Ms. Lewinsky's tenure in DC, is the helpless victim of a raging Jezebel.

    He gets redemption - she doesn't.  Why?  Or why not?

    Maybe you agree with the way Donald characterized not just the original liaisons, but what Monica does or doesn't deserve almost 20 years later, but I feel like all we know is that you and sj don't get along, and you and squeaky are having a little bro time chuckling about it.


    More Time? (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by squeaky on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:01:27 AM EST
    If I had more time, I'd re-read all the comments, but I don't recall your having much to say, other than that you thought this was a post about a Vanity Fair article.

    Well, maybe spend less time pontificating with long winded tomes and you would have more time to make relevant comments.


    Too funny (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by MKS on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:56:56 AM EST
    I have said Monica (none / 0) (#199)
    by MKS on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:53:44 AM EST
    will not hurt Hillary politically and Democrats should not take the bait when Monica is brought up.  

    Speaking of syndromes (2.33 / 3) (#204)
    by sj on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:36:44 AM EST
    If you disagree or criticize, you are an abuser.   Nice way to avoid any contrary views.  Very controlling.

    Let's analyze this.

    Verbal abuse disguised as jokes: The abuser jokes about the [target] or things the [target] has done, causing humiliation and embarrassment to the [target].

    Blocking and diverting: The abuser purposefully creates barriers to block the [target's] efforts to communicate and will change the conversation to gain control.

    Accusing the blaming: The abuser blames the [target] for the abuse, thereby excusing the abuser's actions. This often happens when the [target] confronts the abuser about the [obnoxious] behavior.

    The abuser acts as though the [target's] opinions, thoughts, actions, or concerns are trivial or don't count.

    Thank heaven I can change "partner" to "target" and "hurtful" to merely "obnoxious". I'm not sure about the phrase "Accusing the blaming" but the description is pretty clear.

    Unfortunately, I have seen/heard plenty of verbal abuse in the past, and I refuse to accept it. There is more at that link that applies to your typical behavior towards me, but you demonstrate the first three right here in the comments for this post, and you and squeaky together demonstrate the fourth.

    Jeralyn may choose to delete this (and other) comments or not. But, after witnessing what I have witnessed, I decided that I would never passively accept that behavior directed towards me. And yes, this is very personal, but you are the one who has made it so.


    Not Just An Abuser (none / 0) (#194)
    by squeaky on Thu May 08, 2014 at 08:52:29 AM EST
    But an abused...  that is the irony

    Oy (none / 0) (#177)
    by sj on Wed May 07, 2014 at 09:37:09 PM EST
    I'm not excusing Bill (none / 0) (#121)
    by jbindc on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:40:04 AM EST
    His actions were reprehensible - more so than Monica's because, as you point out, he took a vow to be faithful. However, the fact that she never took a vow does not let her off the hook. It's not mutually exclusive.  But to say "she did nothing wrong", IMO, is completely off base.  OF COURSE she did something wrong - the whole world knows that.

    And if she felt like she did nothing wrong, then we would have a) heard that loudly from her at the time, and b) we would not have heard from her since then.

    Oh, and by the way - even she admits she was wrong:

    "I, myself, deeply regret what happened between me and President Clinton. Let me say it again: I. Myself. Deeply. Regret. What. Happened."

    We don't know... (5.00 / 5) (#125)
    by kdog on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:52:20 AM EST
    if Bill had a hall pass.  Nor should we care...all of this was never any of our business.  It's the exclusive business of 3 people and 3 people only, 2 of which made a commitment to each other the terms of which we will never know, nor should we.  NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.

    And just because Monica has regrets doesn't mean what she did was immoral.  

    I mean Jesus H. Christ nobody died...and for the life of me I will never understand how being in love with somebody came to equal possession of said somebody.  But that's another debate.


    I think she is demonstrating her (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 09:39:54 PM EST
    moral beliefs there, and that's fine.  It is also a commonly held moral belief as well.  I am all good with that.  Will you be good with that now?  She holds herself responsible for her choices, she agrees with you she did something wrong.

    Can her life get better now?  I mean Bill's did and as was just pointed out on the news so did Spitzer's life, their lives changed but they went onto other things, other opportunities.

    There is a double standard in this country in such scandals.  Often women must stay "ruined" while boys get to be boys and get to move beyond it.  They can make poor choices with the taking down of their britches without being forever destroyed, women not so much unless they want to go all Paris Hilton.  If they want to ever be respected though intellectually forgetaboutit, they thought with their gina once, and now they are sluts.  Sluts can only be stupid and useless.


    uhhhh, not quite (none / 0) (#181)
    by NYShooter on Wed May 07, 2014 at 09:52:36 PM EST
    the male examples you used who went on to other opportunities" went on to "other" opportunities. They did not rehabilitate, and, advance their lives and careers rehashing the activities that made their notoriety so public.

    I'm a big fan of women who got out of suffocating, debilitating relationships, and went on to new, exciting, and "self grown" activities. Arianna Huffington and Ivan Trump are but two examples I can think of right off the bat.


    They had a career first (5.00 / 4) (#183)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 09:59:10 PM EST
    She did not.  She is nicely credentialed now.  Can you guys just get the phuck over it already?  She hasn't been able to get a decent job because of her history....unless she wants to exploit it and she has refused that.

    My God man!  This is who she became at 22, and she hasn't been able to get beyond it, partially because she does feel responsible and partially because a vast number of us will not allow her to move beyond it as well.

    She could have really gone scumbag.  She could be a Fox contributor if she wanted to be.  Give the fricken girl a break, and a job that respects her intellect if we have one.  I mean those aren't exactly easy to come by for anyone right now.

    She will never fade into the shadows though.  She can't, it's impossible now and will be forever.  So stop expecting her to just disappear so you can not be bothered by her, because she has to live too.


    Have You Seen Her Wiki Page? (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:03:41 PM EST
    Looks to me like she has done quite a lot with her life since Bill. Tormented, well we all have our demons.

    And it looks like she has taken a new path, by getting a degree in London., which sounds pretty interesting to me.


    Wiki article details various circumstances (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2014 at 12:36:05 AM EST
    since l'affaire for which she was paid and which capitalized on her being known because of her relationship w/Pres. Clinton. She does not appear to have hit her light under a bushel basket.

    I do wish her well. Just don't see her as a lifelong victim.


    And how much moola (5.00 / 6) (#185)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:06:52 PM EST
    To reinvent themselves did Huffington and Trump leave their marriages with?  Talk about apples and oranges!  Their relationships weren't "Affairs" used to attempt to impeach Presidents with.  Jesus Christ what a bunch of dunderheads around here!

    It did become our business (none / 0) (#129)
    by jbindc on Wed May 07, 2014 at 12:50:48 PM EST
    When the leader of the free world was getting serviced while, on our dime and our behalf, was doing things like talking to world leaders.

    It unfortunately became our business when $50 million of our money was spent (in our name) trying to leverage this into getting BC on something because they couldn't get him on land deals.

    I mean Jesus H. Christ nobody died...and for the life of me I will never understand how being in love with somebody came to equal possession of said somebody

    Well, I guess you don't put much stock in the people you love and who are closest to you when they make a promise.

    But how you can say "she did nothing wrong" is beyond me.  I can't imagine you'd feel the same if it was your spouse who cheated on you.


    Imagine it Pal... (5.00 / 5) (#132)
    by kdog on Wed May 07, 2014 at 01:30:22 PM EST
    If I demanded monogamy,and if my partner agreed, and later broke that promise...I would not be at all upset with the other dude/dude-ette...they didn't promise me sh&t, they owe me nothing, they are just a fellow human being trying to get laid...nothing to do with me.  The only exception being if they were a close friend of mine and they knew it would hurt me...that would be f8cked up.

    You're still assuming Bill broke a trust...why assume that?  Every married couple is different.  I know we make our politicians pretend they're living in a "Leave It To Beaver" episode, but it's pretend.  Make believe.

    And just because the president is a "public servant", that means they can't get laid and/or laid often?  Unless you have proof the sex effected his ability to do the work, I have no problem with that either...in fact I prefer a president who is getting as much sex as they desire vs. a sexually frustrated president.


    You and my husband are speakin (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 01:51:35 PM EST
    The same language on this.  And you know what I hear?  If I break my marriage vows he's going to hold ME responsible.  DAMN!!!! :)

    And on the flip... (5.00 / 6) (#136)
    by kdog on Wed May 07, 2014 at 01:59:39 PM EST
    he's to blame if he strays...none of this sexist double-standard of "that harlot made me take my d8ck out honey, it's not my fault!" that we're reading on this thread.

    Zactly (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 02:04:24 PM EST
    What About (none / 0) (#134)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2014 at 01:56:11 PM EST
    If he breaks his marriage vows, are you still responsible?

    I do remember a John Burns poem where the protagonist, who is a woman, about to be wed, tells her future partner that if he does not keep her happy in bed she is going to get pleasured elsewhere.

    Sounds fair to me.

    And in that case she would be cheating, and it would be his fault.



    Well, we took vows (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 02:03:37 PM EST
    I think I'm supposed to give notice when I'm not being properly taken care of.  If the problem persists, well, solutions will be sought but I have to negotiate that out with him :)

    But if he cheats on me, he knows he's going down hard.  When we first married he sounded like he was going to go much easier on me but wow not anymore.

    His first wife cheated on him though, he didn't want to lose a second marriage to cheating so I guess he started a little wimpy on this issue because he said long ago if it happened he would ask for counseling, not wimpy now.  If I cheat I'm going down :)  He will seek counsel :)


    RObert Burns (none / 0) (#141)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2014 at 02:21:54 PM EST
    Brahms # 4. John Burns. (none / 0) (#147)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2014 at 03:28:09 PM EST
    What's the difference between the (5.00 / 4) (#142)
    by Anne on Wed May 07, 2014 at 02:24:31 PM EST
    leader of the free world getting serviced by someone-not-his-wife, and the leader of the free world getting serviced by his wife?  Isn't it all still happening on our dime?  And do we know for certain that no president and his wife ever engaged in any sexual activity while the president was "on the job?"  Would we be outraged or offended if they did?

    Okay - here's one difference: the president getting a bj from a woman-not-his-wife risked plunging the country into two years of internal conflict and money spent on punishing him for it instead of doing the jobs they were elected to do.

    As someone who's been married for like forever, I don't understand people who cheat.  I don't pretend to know why they do it, or how they justify it.  How do they look their spouses in the eye?  How do they explain fidelity and loyalty to their children?

    In the case where one participant is married and the other is not, it's the married one who has someone to answer to beside him- or herself.  The single one doesn't answer to the spouse who's being cheated on.  The single one has no spouse to answer to, no vow to uphold - that's all on the married one.  Do some single people decline to have liaisons with married people because they think it's wrong?  Sure.  But the single person who decides to go ahead and have an affair isn't responsible for what happens to the marriage of the person he or she is involved with - that's a consequence of the decision the married person makes to cheat.  Single people don't break up marriages - the married people who have affairs, who lie to their spouses, who break their marriage vows are responsible for that.

    Do some single people pursue married people?  No doubt.  But the married person still has the option to say no, to decline, to make a different choice.  

    Maybe both of these people did what they did for no reason other than that they could.  Two people, same decision.  Both suffered under the withering glare of the media spotlight, both became objects of vilification.  But why did the married man who made the decision to cheat end up smelling like a rose, and the single person has ended up just smelling?  How is he more deserving of redemption than she is?

    I really just don't get it.  


    She deeply regrets their relationship (none / 0) (#146)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2014 at 03:22:51 PM EST
    became public.

    What is the authority for (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Anne on Wed May 07, 2014 at 03:30:27 PM EST
    "she deeply regrets their relationship became public?"

    I was critiquing her "mistakes (none / 0) (#150)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2014 at 03:34:48 PM EST
    were made" generic apology.

    To go after a married man? (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 02:28:07 PM EST
    You better run fast cuz we are gonna run you down and have you against your will.  Too funny

    Monica fooled around with a married man. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:34:14 PM EST
    Further, she knew he was married, and she pursued him anyway. And to his ultimate shame, Bill Clinton allowed himself to get entangled in what eventually became a full-blown, soap-operatic D.C. clusterphuque. And in the process, both she and her erstwhile and willing paramour eventually became the primary source of a lot of pain and hurt in the Clinton household.

    Now, I'll gladly hold Linda Tripp responsible for having breached Monica's obviously misplaced confidence in her friendship. Further, I'll similarly hold Ken Starr and the Republicans accountable for the deplorable manner in which Monica was threatened with arrest and imprisonment, were she to not cooperate with the I.C.'s ham-handed attempts to ensnare the president in a gotcha moment.

    But Monica really needs to also take ownership of her own less-than-stellar decision making in this entire tawdry affair, which eventually landed her in that hotel room with Starr's inquisitors in the first place.

    Now, I don't mean to be personal, but really, MT, if that had been your husband who was the object of Ms. Lewinsky's affections back in 1996, rather than POTUS, would you seriously be asking the same thing of me -- that is, "what the hell did she do wrong?"

    I'd like to think not, if only because I've come to regard you as someone who rightly holds herself in high esteem. I don't think you'd have put up with that sort of extra-marital carrying on for one nanosecond, never mind making excuses for the other woman.

    Personally, I believe that at some point in our respective lives, we all need to take responsibility for the decisions we make in our relationships with others. Further, we should embrace whatever mistakes or wrongs we might commit over the course of those relationships as fully our own. And if we end up hurting somebody because of our own personal behavior, inadvertently or otherwise, we should hasten to apologize. That's how my mother raised me, and that's how I strive to conduct my own life.



    She fooled around with a married man? (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 03:04:22 AM EST
    While Bill Clinton allowed himself to be entangled?

    I love  how Monica Lewinsky gets such a direct action verb while Bill gets such a passive action, he didn't directly do much....he allowed himself to get entangled.  He didn't intercede on his own behalf...too funny  

    Truth though is that people fool around with married people every day but it doesn't ruin their lives nor are their faces, names, and doings something that I know personally about.

    Monica Lewinsky was very very young, I probably would have been wowed by Bill Clinton at the same age and done the same damn thing.  You are being an uber misogynist jerk right now, and Monica Lewinsky has a right to the printed page because God knows the same page was used to destroy her in the past. She has earned the time, the place, the space.


    Exactly ^this^ Tracy (5.00 / 6) (#131)
    by Zorba on Wed May 07, 2014 at 01:29:03 PM EST
    Monica gets the "direct action verb," while Bill has been characterized with more passive descriptors.
    This is just veering way too close to the "always blame the women" mentality.
    What, men are so passive and so tempted by us, that they are not every bit as much to blame?  
    This is, if you think about it, as much of an insult to men as it is to women.
    We are temptresses, and men, I guess, are supposed to be so in thrall to their hormones and their "little heads," that they are less to blame???
    Give me a break.

    Monica fooled around with a married man, (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Anne on Wed May 07, 2014 at 06:03:21 AM EST
    who had a reputation as a man who wasn't exactly a stranger to fooling around, and not as a, um, perennial victim of seduction, so can you please stop talking about him as if he had no choice but to succumb to Ms. Lewinsky's flirtations?

    And are you seriously suggesting Monica hasn't taken ownership of the decisions she made almost 20 years ago?  What would make you think that, while at the same time being willing to believe Clinton has?  Do you imagine that he's fully redeemed because he's still married?

    It appears to me that you're holding her to an entirely different standard than the one you've set for the former president.  Not only in who's more responsible for what happened, but in who deserves to be, for lack of a better word, forgiven.  In who deserves to be heard.

    Both of these people made bad decisions.  One of them already had a reputation for taking advantage of opportunities to cheat on his wife, and made the decision to do it again.  The other one doesn't seem to have embarked on a career wrecking other people's marriages, which seems to suggest that perhaps she learned from her mistake.  Given all the doors that closed for her as a result, and the fact that she didn't end up pursuing, as so many do, a career as a D-list celebrity or a professional home-wrecker, I think it's possible she learned a great deal about herself, has paid quite a lot for making a decision that millions of people make every day, and doesn't owe you or anyone else a damn thing.

    I think what I find most disturbing about your comments is the zeal with which someone who claims to be such a champion of women's rights and gender equity descended into good ol' boy sexism, and why you did it - for the cheap laugh you always seem to go for.

    You should have quit when the hole got so deep you couldn't see out of it, but I guess you're determined to keep digging.  Good luck with that.


    She may not have had a career (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by vicndabx on Wed May 07, 2014 at 09:31:29 AM EST
    But she d@mn sure had to know the president was married.

    C'mon, she's just as much at fault as he is.  Her age is irrelevant, as is her gender.  She was a consenting adult.

    The only sexism here is those who believe Monica is somehow less at fault because she's a young woman, like she's a doll w/no mind of her own.  This person had choices, she made a bad one. That is the lesson here.


    I agree (none / 0) (#99)
    by jbindc on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:51:58 AM EST
    A 22 year-old woman (who previously had an affair with another married man) knew exactly what she was doing - she was not some wide-eyed naïf.

    It's kind of insulting to say that a 22 year-old can't make logical decisions - she made a decision to pursue a married man.  He made a decision to get involved with a woman not his wife.

    They are both to blame.


    She "pursued" the poor, helpless... (5.00 / 5) (#151)
    by unitron on Wed May 07, 2014 at 04:05:23 PM EST
    ...,constantly surrounded by Secret Service agents, President of The United States?

    If he didn't want her around, she wouldn't have been around.  Her first thong flash would have been her last.


    I haven't really thought about it, Anne. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 06, 2014 at 09:34:43 PM EST
    Monica Lewinsky's age, present marital status and what does with the rest of her life are of no concern to me. I don't even wish her ill, and maybe I even hope that she'll somehow find personal happiness somewhere down the line.

    But yes, I do believe that she's trolling for a book deal with this particular article, and none too subtly at that. No doubt, she'll be handsomely paid should she be so fortunate as to secure one with some crackpot wingbat publisher like Regnery.

    Now, I really don't know what motivated Monica to do what she did back in 1996, any more than I can really understand what motivated Bill Clinton to do the same, given his standing at the time as POTUS. He should have known better, and should rightly be ashamed of himself for what he did to his family, and by extension the rest of the country, given the nature of his political adversaries. They were looking for an issue, and he handed them one.

    But if you want to continue to be disgusted and rend your garments because you think I called Lewinsky "a slutty, stupid, opportunistic, immoral piece of trash" -- which are actually your words, and not mine -- well, then hey, have fun and knock yourself out. As for me, I'm content to just call her a bum.



    Don't sell yourself short (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:52:23 PM EST
    Words are doing a pretty good job.

    This comment is ad hominem (none / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Wed May 07, 2014 at 08:42:49 AM EST
    hahahaha (3.67 / 3) (#113)
    by sj on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:13:16 AM EST
    This comment is ad hominem (none / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Wed May 07, 2014 at 07:42:49 AM MDT
    This coming from you is really, really funny. I know you like to throw that word at me while being really, really insulting towards me. What you haven't figured out is that you can never, ever insult me or hurt my feelings. And you have tried mightily in the past.

    I may or may not call you out for your obnoxious behavior at any given time, but I've got you figured out. There is a bit of intelligence in you that is really hampered by the giant chip on your shoulder and your tendency to attempt to bully women.

    You may have the last word. I've had enough of you for the month of May.


    Attempt to bully women? (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by MKS on Wed May 07, 2014 at 12:27:23 PM EST
    Where do you get this stuff?

    You are the one throwing around insults....making this personal....


    Don't quit your day job, Donald. (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by Anne on Tue May 06, 2014 at 03:53:05 PM EST
    Let's start with why Monica's story is best left untold.  Is it because you don't care what that story is, wouldn't be inclined to buy it if it doesn't fit the one you've decided best fits her, or do her feelings just not count because her moral fiber isn't up to snuff?

    Given the number of stories you've shared of your own foolish youth, and the relish with which you tell them, I'm struggling to understand why Monica doesn't get to show how she's grown, what she's learned, who she is now versus who she was then.  You may not care about her own personal evolution, but why her story - more than yours or mine or anyone else's - is better left untold.

    As for what the right will do, if they use this for anything, it won't be to pillory Monica - she will just be, as she was before, the means by which the right gets to drag the Clintons through the mud again - they never tire of that, do they?  

    I think it's important to remember that it took two to tango (and Monica wasn't his first dance partner), and I just find it kind of disgusting the way people have more or less returned Bill Clinton to the venerated status of exceptional human being, but still have a rather disquieting need to relegate the object of Clinton's dalliance to the trash bin, as if she belongs there and he doesn't.

    The double standard sure is alive and well; we haven't come as far in our evolution as enlightened human beings as we'd like to think.

    Wink, wink?

    More like barf, barf.


    Well, for starters, my own foolishness ... (2.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 06, 2014 at 05:32:55 PM EST
    ... didn't directly lead to a president's -- or even a governor's or mayor's -- impeachment. Secondly, given what I've read thus far, Ms. Lewinsky certainly doesn't sound like she learned much if anything at all from that rather harrowing legal ordeal and experience.

    That Monica's since become a national punch line along with Ken Starr for a very unsavory and sordid story, well, who's fault is that, ultimately? We can point to the GOP, Mr. Starr's investigators, Linda Tripp, and / or even the president himself, but when all's said and done here, who was the one snapping the strap to her thong in front of a married man / notorious horndog?

    I save my empathy and sympathy for those persons who truly deserve it, and in my estimation, people who willingly choose to pursue and seduce another person's spouse generally tend to fall well outside my own definition of victimhood.

    As for Bill Clinton himself, I don't think I'm the only Democrat who says that my overall estimation of him as a political leader fell markedly as a direct result of this scandal. While I respect both the man's superior intellect and his innate capacity for showing real empathy, all too often his personal judgment was found sorely lacking in those episodes which Betsy Wright, his own longtime chief of staff back in Little Rock, inelegantly called "bimbo eruptions."

    And ultimately, that rather striking deficiency in judgment, which repeatedly reared its head at times when it was least needed or desired, is what probably keeps Bill Clinton from being considered a truly great president, as opposed to merely being a pretty decent one. (And there, but for the grace of the Lord, once also trod Jack Kennedy.)



    She didn't stay bought? (1.00 / 5) (#30)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue May 06, 2014 at 04:41:02 PM EST
    What a big surprise, to no one. Telling her story was always the alternative to never really working another day in her life.

    Or is the president porking an intern and lying about it in the new category of "phony scandal"?


    Can you substantiate (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 06, 2014 at 05:38:32 PM EST
    the allegation that Monica's silence was bought?  Perhaps, with an expiration date?   A serious allegation to express blithely. And, what in the world are you intending to convey in your insensitively expressed "blind item?"  

    Monica Lewinsky was no longer an intern ... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 06, 2014 at 06:32:29 PM EST
    ... at the time she first got personally involved with the Bill Clinton, when she was 22 and he was 49. She was a 20-year-old intern when they first met at the White House. Those two points are not one and the same. At the time of their first get-together, she had already long been transferred out of the White House by the Chief of Staff, when it became apparent to the president's staff that she was making it known to him that she was available.

    While the Lewinsky-Clinton coupling constituted a very real personal scandal and failing on the president's part, it became a patently phony political scandal given what we subsequently learned about the personal lives of those Republicans who were pursuing the matter for political gain.

    For example, while he was pursuing possible impeachment of the president for his affair with Ms. Lewinsky, a very married House Speaker Newt Gingrich had already long since placed his girlfriend Calista Bisek (now his third wife) on the official House payroll, where she ostensibly served as a GOP staffer for the House Agriculture Committee. Where's your outrage over that?

    If you're determined to resurrect this story as a political issue, then you best get all the details down solid, one of which is her actual status at the time of the affair itself, and another of which is the affair's actual timeline. Another fact to consider is that the Lewinsky-Clinton affair has already ended 18 months earlier, when the story first broke in the media in January 1998.

    Otherwise, you're just another Republican expressing a fact-free and politically motivated opinion, by which you get yourself all lathered up over your party's own disingenuous propaganda on the subject.



    It is in that category (none / 0) (#43)
    by Yman on Tue May 06, 2014 at 06:07:38 PM EST
    Or is the president porking an intern and lying about it in the new category of "phony scandal"?

    But it's hardly a "new" category ... particularly for conservatives.


    Well (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2014 at 01:08:30 PM EST
    I wish her luck getting her life back. She might have been long ago able to move on if it wasn't for the world's worst best friend Linda Tripp.

    Wasn't it Tripp... (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by unitron on Tue May 06, 2014 at 07:37:16 PM EST
    ...who advised her to save the dress?

    I wonder whether that dress kept her from getting "turbulent priest" treatment from an overzealous junior staffer.

    It certainly kept Carville from being able to say anything about dragging money through trailer parks.


    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2014 at 07:39:47 PM EST
    but Tripp wasn't thinking about Monica. She was thinking about herself like in everything else.

    Good advice... (none / 0) (#58)
    by unitron on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:26:19 PM EST
    ...is good advice, regardless of the motives of the giver.

    I don't think she's been living her life.... (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by magster on Tue May 06, 2014 at 01:14:13 PM EST
    milking "perennial victimhood". With Hillary's Dem nomination seeming almost inevitable, the pressure on Lewinsky to come out with her tell-all account is already mounting, and (assuming this is the last big statement on the past) with her getting it out of the way now.... I don't have a problem with it.

    Does she have a book deal? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by oculus on Tue May 06, 2014 at 05:38:39 PM EST
    I don't miss her anymore than I miss... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Dadler on Tue May 06, 2014 at 01:15:08 PM EST
    ...Bill Clinton. When I was younger and less critically liberal, I thought he was great. Now that I'm older and more critically liberal, I realize he was largely a piece of nothing, a corporate Dem to the core. I wish I didn't think the same of his wife, aside from the fact I would LOVE to have a woman elected president. But I will only vote for Hillary if it looks like a close race. Which I doubt it will. But then again, the Clintons are very typical when it comes to their utter lack of political imagination, and the not-so-subtle sexist bullsh*t will come flying from the right, so nothing would surprise me. The timing of Lewinsky's mea culpa, however, is interesting, if that's the right word. Perhaps it's just the tinge of mortality's fear that you get when you turn 40, I don't know, but something about it seems beholden to her own effing psyche. But Bill's was wildly eff'd up too, so whatcha gonna do?

    We humans are the strangest creatures of all.

    the not so subtle (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by ZtoA on Tue May 06, 2014 at 01:35:42 PM EST
    sexist BS came from all sides, not just the right.

    Good lord, what more could she have to tell? (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by ruffian on Tue May 06, 2014 at 01:19:42 PM EST
    I already know more than I ever wanted to know about her.

    If the Monica story (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 06, 2014 at 02:20:04 PM EST
    is to be resuscitated by Republicans as a part of the 2016 political landscape, it may be necessary, as painful as it may be, to refresh memories as to the tactics and overreach of the Office of Independent Counsel, and the partisan prosecutor, Ken Starr.  It did not end well for them despite their best efforts.  It is unlikely to do so in re-runs.

    Critical to review is the backbone of a young woman (age 25), Monica Lewinsky. It was Monica Lewinsky  (cf. Clinton v Starr, Ken Gorley), who thwarted Starr's sting operation to enlist Monica to their cause.

    Linda Tripp set Monica up with a lunch at the food court of the Pentagon City Mall during which FBI agents working for Starr took her to the Ritz Carlton hotel in the mall, held her there and interrogated and scared her for over 11 hours.  

    The goal was to have  Monica wear a wire and trap President Clinton, Vernon Jordon and Betty Curie.  According to DOJ rules, interrogation was not to occur if the person had a lawyer (which Monica did, in preparing an affidavit (false) in the Paula Jones case.)  But Starr contended that she was not represented since Jones was a civil case and this was about crime(s).

     Intimidation included exaggeration of charges and potential jail time (27 years).  The OIC agents would not let her call her lawyer, saying he was only a civil lawyer, not a criminal lawyer (untrue).  Monica called her mother who was in NYC who hurried to her side, arriving by Amtrak that afternoon.  However, OIC added that her mother, Marsha Lewis, might also be charged and go to jail.

     It was only after Monica got in touch with her father in California who secured the services of his friend, the medical malpractice lawyer, William Ginsberg, that Monica and her mother were free to go.  

    According to the author, Ken Gormley, Dean of Duquesne Law, Ginsberg's lawyerly bombast  and use of TV put Starr and his team off kilter for the next six months, losing their bearings all the more.    Despite Monica's long and stressful day at the Ritz, she would never agree to what Starr's people asked her to do.

    Ken Starr (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2014 at 02:32:17 PM EST
    completely trashed his reputation with all that and he even admits what he did was a mistake.

    Well, his reputation apparently (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 06, 2014 at 02:41:59 PM EST
    is terrific in some (expected) quarters.   Starr is now President of Baylor University--a fine institution that deserves much, much better.  Although he is probably a wiz at fund-raising from those same quarters.  His latest efforts seem to be defense of Hobby Lobby--arguing that Obamacare shackels  freedom of religion.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2014 at 02:45:31 PM EST
    color me surprised NOT that he's involved in the Hobby Lobby case.

    That ruling is going to be interesting. If Hobby Lobby wins most of corporate America is going to lose and I wonder what kind of circular shooting match that is going to set off.


    Well, yeah, given that ... (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 06, 2014 at 03:49:28 PM EST
    ... Starr's name became something of a national punch line, in an "Inspector Jobert, meet Inspector Clouseau" sort of way. There's no doubt that both he and his Republican friends completely misread the mood of the American people on this issue, and were sideswiped by the angry public reaction to this unnecessary and wholly unwarranted intrusion into other people's personal lives.

    The Lewinsky saga actually caused the GOP a significant amount of serious structural damage over the long term, of the type which wasn't initially apparent when the story first began breaking back in early 1998.

    Hustler publisher Larry Flynt's willingness to also "go there," and successfully undermine the integrity of Speaker Newt Gingrich and the House GOP leadership with his own deep-pocketed investigation into their peculiar private activities, subsequently cost Gingrich and his successor Bob Livingstone their jobs and further tarnished the personal reputations of a number of prominent Republican House members, such as Henry Hyde and Bob Barr.

    I'd also offer that this, coupled with the gratuitously prurient nature of Mr. Starr's investigation and the subsequent release of the cartoonishly graphic The Starr Report, probably did much to alienate large swaths of young and early middle-aged voters from the GOP cause, while the political damage to Democrats proved negligible.

    If President Clinton's impeachment by the House represented a political victory to Republicans, it was a Pyrrhic one at best. The fallout from the Starr / Lewinsky scandal didn't necessarily drive these voters immediately into the Democratic fold, but it did leave the GOP looking terribly suspect, like a bunch of old harpies and hypocritical scolds.

    Simultaneously, overall public perception of sex- and gender-related issues has continued to evolve rapidly, while the Republicans remain stubbornly tethered to an increasingly ossified political position on such matters, which was first staked out by their party forebears well over a generation ago.

    This has since left Republicans overly reliant politically on a select white fan base that's now rapidly becoming incapacitated by its collective advancing age. Granted, the GOP's ability to once again gin up this base and turn them out this fall will probably stave off disaster over the short term.

    But the changing demographics of the U.S. electorate, from a white-majority society into a multi-ethnic and culturally diverse one, portend a devastating electoral future for the GOP, if Republicans don't soon cease their pandering to the worst fears and instincts of the Geritol Generation, at everyone else's ultimate expense.



    Nice comment. (none / 0) (#27)
    by magster on Tue May 06, 2014 at 03:53:57 PM EST
    The impeachment was a disaster for the GOP. An epic overreach that rightfully labeled the GOP as the cuckoo party to this day.

    I'm not (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2014 at 04:20:08 PM EST
    even sure ginning up their base is going to work in too many places outside of the south and some other small square states.

    Even here in GA the GOP is looking to become extinct within the next 20 years unless it changes.

    Some of the GOP is already trying to rewrite their history over the last 50 years. They are talking about how they always supported civil rights etc. ignoring Nixon and Reagan's behavior on that account.


    I think it's possible to be involved in a (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Anne on Tue May 06, 2014 at 02:36:42 PM EST
    consensual relationship in which you do not consider yourself a victim, and also be victimized by the media because of that relationship.  Seems to me the media is relentless in its pursuit and exposure of people engaged in private, personal activities, isn't it?

    The media's certainly had a field day pawing through Monica's underwear drawer, constructing the person they wanted her to be out of what they found and flogging the prurient details to death.  So, it kind of seems only fair that she be able to speak, and that her choice to speak not be viewed through the lens the media built out of blue cloth and bodily fluids.

    Bill's had a lot of time and gotten involved in a lot of good works in an effort to redeem himself; I'm struggling to understand how people can begrudge Monica the opportunity to get out from behind the slut-shaming to which she was subjected.

    All that being said, if I were Monica, I wouldn't bother; whether it's Vanity Fair or a less glossy publication, she's just setting herself up to be savaged all over again.

    Really (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2014 at 02:43:48 PM EST
    I don't understand why she wants to put herself out there either but again, maybe she thinks this will help her but to me honestly I had forgotten about her mostly and now we get to see her again.

    She was 20 years old at the time. She deserves to have a life and everybody to leave her alone.


    Generally agree, however she was 22 when the (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by ruffian on Tue May 06, 2014 at 03:50:44 PM EST
    affair started, and not an intern.

    If Monica wanted that opportunity, then ... (3.67 / 3) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 06, 2014 at 06:46:29 PM EST
    ... to redeem her name and make amends for all the embarrassment, pain and harm she caused -- along with the president, to be perfectly fair -- then she should have pursued that option well over a decade ago.

    But why now, some fifteen years after the fact? You must admit that the overall timing of her revelations only fuels public speculation about her true motives, and renders them justifiably suspect.

    Now, whether or not Ms. Lewinsky and / or her editors actually intend to court further personal controversy in order to motivate book or magazine sales, I haven't a clue nor do I care. If the woman really wants to take another dive into the fetid swamp that passes for the Beltway media, she's welcome to do so. I just don't want to hear her complain afterward about the stench.



    For someone who supposedly doesn't care (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by sj on Tue May 06, 2014 at 07:18:42 PM EST
    ... I haven't a clue nor do I care.
    you have written paragraphs -- almost pages -- expressing your self-righteous indignation.

    Whatever. (2.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 06, 2014 at 07:57:51 PM EST
    Given that you're not exactly all that shy and demure yourself when it comes to expressing your own self-righteous indignation, I respectfully suggest that you might consider heeding your own earlier advice to me, and get over yourself, too.

    After all, I'm not the one who's presently hunting down your comments and troll-rating them because I perchance disagree with you. Knowhutahmean, jellybean?



    I'm not troll rating because I (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by sj on Tue May 06, 2014 at 10:01:11 PM EST
    disagree. I'm troll rating because you're trolling. And contributing to the indignities that have already been heaped upon this woman. You don't know her, but you are condemnations are long and loud. I don't know her either, but I know that everyone is entitled to tell his or her own story themselves.

    Everybody makes mistakes. Some of them are big ones. I don't want to be judged based on the worst or most embarrassing thing that has ever happened in my life. So who am I to judge another's past? I don't condemn you for yours, after all.

    You frequently proclaim when you think 15 minutes of fame should be over. And then you get "louder and louder" about it. Someone else's "fame" and how long it lasts isn't for you to decide.

    I don't understand the fascination with the Kardashians. But I don't begrudge them the place they have carved out in popular culture. I'm not sure but that may be first time I have ever typed out that name. If I'm not interested in something I ignore it.

    One thing I am interested in is each individual's ability to carve out his or her own path and to write their own story whatever way they chose to do so. I don't have to believe it, or even read it. But I'm not going to go the Archie Bunker route and say, in essence, that they should stifle themselves.


    Who cares about the Kardashians? (none / 0) (#74)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 06, 2014 at 10:51:17 PM EST
    I certainly can't stop other people from doing or thinking what they want, and I'd be wasting my time if I tried. But if I think they're slumming and otherwise taking up valuable space, I'm going to say so.

    You've certainly never hesitated in that regard, so why do you now begrudge me that right? You could've simply stated your disagreement politely, even pointing out that what I said could possibly be construed as sexist, which in turn may or may not have caused me to reconsider my initial remarks.

    But instead, for whatever your reason, you decided to take grave offense at what I initially said half in jest, first by attacking me personally, and then by troll-rating my other comments, as though you somehow felt compelled to further punish me for having the audacity to not kowtow to whatever passes for conventional wisdom with you today. If you bothered to notice, I didn't troll-rate you, even though you were obviously tracking my comments with me lined me up in your rhetorical crosshairs. That's fine, because you have your right to your opinion, and we probably could've at least just agreed to disagree, had you not carried on so.

    But the bottom line is this, as far as I'm concerned: If I express my opinion that I think Monica Lewinsky was wrong for doing what she did, you have every right to counter that by pointing out things that might cause me to reconsider. But for you to insist that your opinions as a woman with regard to this Lewinsky matter somehow trump mine because I'm a man and sexist to boot, that's a totally bogus nonstarter.

    Further, you are not the final arbiter of what's constitutes trolling here, and what does not. Remember, you were the one first responded to me, and then I in turn retorted. And in our subsequent exchanges, it was always you who initiated, which invited a response on my part, just like I'm doing now. Disagreements, even when they're vigorous as this one is, do not constitute trolling and should not prompt accusations thereof.

    Now, if you have a serious problem with what I initially said, to the point that you believe I should be reprimanded or censured, then please take it up with the host. I'm perfectly content to let Jeralyn determine the validity of your complaint, and will defer to her judgment accordingly.

    That's the very last I'll say on this matter. Tomorrow, it will be forgotten by me. In the meantime, please have a nice evening.



    Way to miss the point (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by sj on Tue May 06, 2014 at 11:40:07 PM EST
    I didn't need to read past your comment title to know that. Overall, any mea culpas that need to be said here should be coming from you.

    Final arbiter yadda yadda. Whatever. In my opinion you are trolling. So I troll rated you. When, in my opinion, you are sensible or contribute substance to a conversation or give me something worthwhile to think about, I uprate you.

    And I don't have a problem with what you initially said. I have a problem with what you continue to say.


    i have some sympathy for her. (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by cpinva on Tue May 06, 2014 at 02:40:19 PM EST
    bear in mind, she never willingly accused anyone of anything, she was dragged into all of it by ken starr. mr. starr should have been disbarred, if not criminally charged, for many of his actions during his "investigation", which, at best, violated legal ethics. at worst, they plainly rose to the level of criminal acts, committed under color of law.

    yeah, she displayed poor judgment, what 20 something year-old doesn't? for that, she was unfairly vilified as some kind of wanton harlot, by such as the clinically insane Maureen dowd.

    C'mon, let's cut MoDo some slack. (1.40 / 5) (#25)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 06, 2014 at 03:51:27 PM EST
    She probably hasn't gotten any since the Broadway premiere of "Hair" and the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.

    Donald, please stop this line of attack. (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Anne on Tue May 06, 2014 at 03:56:21 PM EST
    It's so utterly sexist, as if all women's problems can be traced back to how much sex they get.

    Just stop.


    Point taken. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 06, 2014 at 04:49:47 PM EST

    Overplaying the hand ... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by christinep on Tue May 06, 2014 at 06:14:26 PM EST
    Based on history, I'd fully expect the hearings to boomerang.  Thinking of former President Bill Clinton's sayings that captured so many Repub overplayed moves, the so called incriminating email cannot even be pretzel-formed into anything resembling conspiracy or even wrong behavior.  At most, said email looks like what WH responses do to characterize situations confronting any Administration ... that is, a WH will always put the best spin on something.  Politics in a WH? My, I don't think that will evoke mild surprise from anyone.  Spin is standard operating procedure for any WH for as long as I can remember (and, surely, as long as American history would record.)

    Actually, as a Democrat, I'd like to see the Repubs be foolish enough to call in Hillary Clinton.  Talk about the Repubs getting in way over their heads, as it were.  And, for anyone who did not see Jon Stewart's strong, forthright segment Monday on the Repubs' faux "outrage," a look (with popcorn and whatever) is highly recommended.  Rarely can one see a superb satirical rendering on hypocrisy ... saw it via HuffPo this morning; but, one can probably go directly to the show's recaps.

    Oh ... and, as for Lewinsky:  Whatever the driving motivation for the Vanity Fair article, that is for her to know.  For me, I expect that any hype or push or falling for a rehash of lets-get-Clinton bait will produce the same results as the late 90s did:  Boomerang, backlash against those foolhardy enough to step in the trap ... with an increase in admiration and position for Hillary Clinton.  A fang=face attack--whether "Benghazi" or 90s rehash--will inevitably favor Secretary, Senator, First Lady Hillary Clinton.

    I'm so glad there's nothing serious... (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by unitron on Tue May 06, 2014 at 07:45:04 PM EST
    ...going on in the world that the various media should be covering instead of providing free publicity for a Vanity Fair article.

    The NYT now includes summaries of (none / 0) (#149)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2014 at 03:33:15 PM EST
    the latest earthshattering developments of TV shows. And I gotta pay for that!  

    Sometimes your attacks (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:53:19 PM EST
    On other women worry me, and sadden me.

    The way this site formats comments... (none / 0) (#152)
    by unitron on Wed May 07, 2014 at 04:09:58 PM EST
    ...I'm not really sure to whose attacks on other women you are referring.

    There's nothing wrong with the formatting, (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by NYShooter on Wed May 07, 2014 at 06:51:42 PM EST
    MT just didn't click the "reply to" link before writing her comment.

    So much bad behavior on all sides (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2014 at 08:51:44 AM EST
    Personally my own bad decisions at 22 make me cringe, and I am glad they are not on the internet, so I sympathize with Ms Lewinsky on that score, however I would never have been so bold as to do what she did and try to play in that league. I'm sorry she was blinded by ...whatever...and did not foresee the obvious consequences.

    Also many people relate to Hillary on a personal level as a wronged woman and further understand the political need to protect her turf, and do not blame her for her any personal insults to Ms Lewinsky - forgiven as part of the game.

    Bill behaved horribly and he and the country moved on. The GOP tried to make too much hay out of bad personal behavior. Yes, maybe he was less than totally forthcoming about his own sex life in a deposition. He paid the price for that.

    The country has long since made their decisions about these people.

    It will only be interesting if she really does try to do something about online bullying in general. That I would pay attention to.

    I agree with all of that (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 09:12:12 AM EST
    But I don't think Bill escaped any blame nor should he.  Whatever else he was the one in charge.  His famous lack of self control was not just a disaster for his family but for the country.  I have wondered many times, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, what could have been done in those years considering his popularity and the success of his policies if he had not handed the republicans a club to beat him with.
    Having said that I suspect. I suspect  one knows that better than him.  It shows on his face.  
    As for Ms L.  IMO anyone who believes her reappearance at the time of Hillary's ascendency is a coincidence is wrong.  I agree with ruffian, what she does with her new 15 minutes will tell all.  Will she really try to so good?  We'll see.  I will welcome it and be surprised if that's true.

    Are you blaming the victim? (none / 0) (#182)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 07, 2014 at 09:52:50 PM EST
    ....however I would never have been so bold as to do what she did and try to play in that league. I'm sorry she was blinded by ...whatever...and did not foresee the obvious consequences.

    I know, I know (none / 0) (#184)
    by NYShooter on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:00:50 PM EST
    I hardly ever disagree with you, Jim, but, I gotta make a small, teeny weeny adjustment here. Dontcha think "victim" is a little bit too "out there?" Wouldn't "young, naïve co-conspirator" be closer to the mark?

    But, if you still think I'm wrong, I'll change my opinion immediately.


    She's damned if she does, damned if she (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by Angel on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:26:46 AM EST

    Well I wouldn't mind seeing (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by ZtoA on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:47:00 AM EST
    Anthony Wiener lounging on a couch dressed in white. Wonder why he has not done that so far.

    But, I agree, Go Monica.

    ZtoA: so you want her to look like a victim? (5.00 / 3) (#206)
    by Anne on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:50:42 AM EST
    And what are "people like her?"  Sluts?  People for whom no redemption can be allowed?  Why not invoke the name of Eliot Spitzer?  Does it bother you that "people like him" have gotten book deals and TV gigs and are taken seriously and allowed to have lives?

    Where is your derision and scorn for the many photos of Bill Clinton in non-public moments - Lord knows we're going to see reams of those soon enough, so everyone's sure that he's a man in love with his wife and walking the straight and narrow.  Will you find yourself looking at a photo of Bill and Hillary gazing at each other and feel slightly uneasy because you know he's cheated on his wife over and over and over?

    Or is he allowed to move on, but she isn't?  Is she condemned forever to the life she had in 1998?  And if so, why?  Or is it a case of, she can have a life, but you don't want to have to see it?  But you're okay with Bill Clinton being everywhere you look?  Is that "different?"

    Golly, this place has teemed with the kind of double-standard judgment that I had really hoped was becoming a thing of the past.  Guess not.

    squeaky, on the other hand, has (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Anne on Thu May 08, 2014 at 12:19:46 PM EST
    nothing to do.  Or so it would seem.  

    For what it's worth, I don't agree with lentinel's characterization, either.  And what I said to ZtoA applies to her, as well.  Happy now?

    Guess I missed your response to lentinel while I was reading your response to ZtoA.  


    Zto A; and I asked, do you want her (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by Anne on Thu May 08, 2014 at 02:17:57 PM EST
    to look like a victim?  Not does she look like a victim, but is that what you want her to look like.

    And sorry, but you did say "people like her," as in "people like her and Anthony Weiner."  Whom you think it would be best if they didn't publicize their private moments - which this was, because, as you note, it stressed her intimate nature.

    Whatever that means.

    Let's face it: she can't win.  No matter what she does, people will find a way to make it into something negative.  If she looks bad, she's "trying" to be a victim.  If she doesn't, she's "denying" who and what we all know she really is.  If she does it now, she's in cahoots with the Clintons, who want to clear the decks before Hillary runs.  If she waits, she's in cahoots with the anti-Clinton crowd.  If she wants to write a book, she's being greedy.  

    Have you not been reading the comments here?

    She may want to move on, but she's not going to be allowed to.

    What a sweet photo, (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by Nemi on Fri May 09, 2014 at 07:50:11 AM EST
    the one of Monica Lewinsky in the white dress. Can't imagine any woman not wanting to see herself portrayed like that. I for one wouldn't.

    How others can see anything but a beautiful woman in a pretty dress on a couch is beyond me. Seriously!

    jbindc - Not everyone sees her as (5.00 / 2) (#216)
    by Angel on Fri May 09, 2014 at 10:28:29 AM EST
    "just being the former intern who gave the president a bj."  And for the record, I don't see the white dress on the sofa photo as being "come hither." I think she looks beautiful and happy.  

    Jb, I just hate the double (5.00 / 4) (#218)
    by Anne on Fri May 09, 2014 at 11:19:56 AM EST
    standard of your comment.  

    The problem for Monica is one she, herself, mentions: Clinton had a fully-formed life to go back to.  A wife, a child, a career; he kept getting up every day and going to the Oval Office and meeting with members of the elite power structure and heads of state.  What did she have, who was she even?  She's apparently said in the article,

    Looking back, Lewinsky muses on how difficult it was for her to move on. "Unlike the other parties involved, I was so young that I had no established identity to which I could return."

    "If you haven't figured out who you are, it's hard not to accept the horrible image of you created by others," she observes. And also one of frustration "I remained 'stuck' for far too many years."

    And we're going to tell her, "oh, no...tsk, tsk...you can't look like that.  You can't be a beautiful woman reclining on a sofa in your apartment because people will think you're, you know, still the same slut who seduced the president."

    People will take issue with the other photos that accompany that article.  The two of her in the white shirt with her boobs front and center - those will be the "come and get it" photos.  The one of her in the rain, wearing a prim and proper coat: that will be the "what, are we supposed to feel sorry for her, all alone in the darkness?" photo.

    She can't win.  She won't be allowed to win.  Bad girls are just always-and-forever bad girls, out to get other women's husbands.

    Meanwhile, Bill Clinton, the man who serially cheated on his wife, who broke his vows and lied and lied and lied - he gets the charmed life.  The one with good works, and money, and redemption.  I'll never, ever understand that.  

    How utterly absurd. (5.00 / 3) (#219)
    by Angel on Fri May 09, 2014 at 11:50:26 AM EST
    If you're trying to show the world you're a person who should be taken seriously, then you act and dress accordingly.  Otherwise, why bother?

    jbindc - So she needs to wear a turtleneck top covered with a jacket, some loose-fitting slacks, flats, granny panties and a cross-your-heart Playtex bra. Ankles need to be crossed, hands folded in her lap, no smile should cross her lips, and absolutely no makeup or jewelry allowed. Got it!!

    jb (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by sj on Fri May 09, 2014 at 12:13:00 PM EST
    Even if she were photographed like this or like this people would criticize. They'd call her a phony or who knows what.

    I don't see it as "trying to repair [her] reputation". That is never going to happen. Ever. I see it as reclaiming her life and writing her own story.

    jb, where you and I don't see eye to eye, (5.00 / 3) (#222)
    by Nemi on Fri May 09, 2014 at 12:23:56 PM EST
    is in regarding Monica Lewinsky as "the other woman" who needs to repair her reputation. It's what I would call the "Fatal Attraction"-syndrome: Vilifying the single woman who is attracted to and have an affair with a good looking - more than willing! - male, who conveniently just so happens as to have a beautiful wife, sweet child, adorable dog, living in pittoresque surburbia. I don't easily hate, but I hated that movie and how it made the woman out to be the villain, the homewrecker of such a beautiful home/ marriage while simultaneously making the married man out to be close to innocent victim. And I hated how it made married women, worldwide as it seemed at the time, squirm in anguish over "the other woman" and fear what 'she' might do to their own marriage. Instead of taking a closer look at their husband and what dalliances he might, willingly, decide to engage in.

    I don't see neither "come hither" nor "sexy" in the photo. But even if I did see 'sexy' I wouldn't have a problem with that. What I see is a modern, beautiful woman anno 2014, who actually seems to be confident in herself and in her own skin. I hope she actually is and if so I say Good for her.

    jb (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by sj on Fri May 09, 2014 at 01:12:23 PM EST
    The fact that she admits she turned down jobs that would have paid her tens of millions says that ...[she] had the luxure to turn them down.
    Maybe she had the integrity to turn them down.

    Would you? If you were offered tens of millions of dollars but you would have to sacrifice your dignity and feelings of self-worth would you take the money? If you turned it down, would it be because you had that luxury or because you had integrity?

    As for this:

    Even if she was on a couch with her feet tucked under her ... That to me would have said..
    Ugh. Just, ugh.

    And rinse and repeat: Enough of "repair her reputation". That is YOU. Stop putting your [dirty] mind in her head. Either find something new to say, and pretend you are reading what is being said, or stop talking.

    Apparently according to you, if people don't behave the "right" way (according to jb) they shouldn't be taking seriously. How shamefully judgmental. That's like deciding the "right" way for people to react to trauma, or the "right" way for people to grieve.

    Your comments here are perfect examples of why her life will never be normal.

    The picture of Monica Lewinsky (5.00 / 3) (#224)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 09, 2014 at 01:14:05 PM EST
    That Vanity Fair has up says nothing, absolutely nothing.  Did those of you who find that photo so "telling" notice that they have a very similar one of Barbara Walters up too?  At least they did yesterday.  I noticed it because I thought it was poor editorial choices to choose two photos so similar to run so close together.  It is most often visual differences that create visual interest.

    The only huge difference between those two photos though is that you don't who Barbara Walters blew when she was in her early 20's nor do you know who what when where someone spooged on her clothes or if she ever smegaed anyone or their belongings for fun.  That's it, that's the only difference and your own minds did it, your own premeditated scornful hyperjudgementalness....and that's it, it is all on you guys!

    Barbara Walters (5.00 / 3) (#225)
    by Nemi on Fri May 09, 2014 at 02:39:10 PM EST
    reclining on a couch. Any Objections? ;)

    Why Clinton should have resigned (3.00 / 2) (#213)
    by unitron on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:52:11 PM EST
    Bill Clinton could have gone on TV and said "I am not going to discuss the young lady's private life, so don't bother asking about it.", and I'd have been fine with that.

    (I'd even have put up with him remaining silent about it because he refused to discuss his own personal life, although that's kind of a hard sell when you're talking about the person holding that office.)

    Instead he out and out lied to us, when not discussing it at all would have been taking the high road.

    (Of course as soon as I heard him call her "that woman" I knew it was a lie)

    I know it's naive to think that one can believe anything a President says, but if he'd stepped down at least we could have maintained the illusion with his replacement, instead of spending the last two years of his second term knowing that he's laughing at us, figuring he can say anything and get away with it.

    Which way will the story go? (2.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue May 06, 2014 at 05:03:00 PM EST
    I recall Monica saying she was in love and thought she had a future with Bill Clinton. Could be the story is about feelings and not flesh.

    Start the popcorn, the next two years are going to set new standards for how low political campaigns can go.

    We're (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2014 at 05:21:04 PM EST
    already popping the popcorn because of the GOP putting a neoconfederate to head up the Benghazi "investigation". It's gonna be a regular clown show and this is before we even get anywhere near time for general elections.

    The problem is that the media's going to (none / 0) (#38)
    by Anne on Tue May 06, 2014 at 05:26:19 PM EST
    treat the clown show like Shakespeare, allowing it to have some measure of credibility.

    I love popcorn, too, but we need to be careful we don't choke on it.


    I don't (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2014 at 05:36:27 PM EST
    know it might for a little while but if you know who Trey Gowdy is there's no way he doesn't become a punching bag for the late night comedians. Let me put it to you this way Daryl Issa and his ridiculous conspiracy theories are tame compared to this nutjob.

    Will the Dems (none / 0) (#66)
    by MKS on Tue May 06, 2014 at 09:27:52 PM EST
    participate in the hearings....

    There are pros and cons....


    I don't think (none / 0) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2014 at 08:08:30 AM EST
    they are and honestly why should they participate in this clown show?

    Overseer Gowdy (none / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Tue May 06, 2014 at 09:43:51 PM EST
    seems like a perfect spokesperson for the Lost Cause.

    Gee, won't you be disappointed (5.00 / 6) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 06, 2014 at 10:06:08 PM EST
    To discover that Monica Lewinsky doesn't have a tale of Bill Clinton woe to tell, but a story about a women over coming Republican shaming and becoming strong and confident in herself and her life.  That's the tale I believe she is going to tell but what the hell ever.

    Mikado, it won't work (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by MKS on Wed May 07, 2014 at 08:24:42 AM EST
    The implied threats.....

    One thing you can learn by going to the cesspool that is Fox is how they intend to run against Hillary.  Short answer:  they don't; they hope, hope she does not run.   You hear that from conservative pundits when discussing Hillary's chances....and they point out how unpleasant it would be for her to run and say she may not want to go through that again.  Implied threats.

    So, this "popcorn" comment from Mikado is along those lines...

    It won't work.  Hillary can take it.  She will run.  She will be President.


    Sure, but again (2.00 / 1) (#221)
    by jbindc on Fri May 09, 2014 at 12:23:02 PM EST
    Have you ever seen a man, who trying to repair his image for whatever reason, posed like that?  Answer:  NO. It's not a double standard, except for the fact that SHE is making it a double standard.

    The fact that she admits she turned down jobs that would have paid her tens of millions says that, unlike many people who have to repair their lives from divorce, scandal, floods, whatever, says that she really has had many choices and for whatever reason, had the luxure to turn them down.

    I know you will disagree, but I think it would have been a much, much more powerful picture if it was just a beautiful head shot and smiling, or one of her in a different pose.  Even if she was on a couch with her feet tucked under her - like she was chilling out to read a book or watch TV. That to me would have said - "Here's a woman who has been through the wringer, but is strong and has come through the other side wonderfully."

    Maybe, just maybe (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Wed May 07, 2014 at 07:30:23 AM EST
    This piece is coming out now as a sort of apology to Hillary Clinton.  Rand Paul has already thrown down the gauntlet on this topic, so this is getting this back out there, where it will be dissected (again) to death, and then it will be old news if and by the time Hillary decides to announce she's running for President.  

    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2014 at 08:29:21 AM EST
    But more likely that someone wants the American public to remember that having a Clinton in the WH means bad judgement, and by association questionable morals.

    Too early (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by jbindc on Wed May 07, 2014 at 08:43:38 AM EST
    It that was their intent, then I think they missed their mark.  If they thought it would work, this article would have come out after Hillary declared and closer to the election to keep the conversation off policy proposals and would make her play defense. As it is, she is a private citizen and can completely ignore this and have this old news by this weekend.

    Lynne Cheney (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by christinep on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:13:02 AM EST
    takes to the airwaves today to say also that this was planned to help the Clintons.  She uses the usual conspiratorial tone.

    Whatever reason for Vanity Fair article--as I mentioned earlier--it probably will work to Hillary Clinton's favor if only because it reminds older voters (who have high voting percentage turnout) of the Inquisition led by the Repubs in the late 90s.  To the extent that those Repubs, who remain ensnared in Clinton conspiracy/scandal type thinking, attempt to "use" the Lewinsky re-emergence attempt, my prediction is that they will go down the same losing rabbit hole ... especially for younger voters who would have been toddlers when the matter was news and would have no reason to see anything associated with the "impeachment" as anything other than old, silly news.


    Lynne Cheney....snort (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:53:25 AM EST
    Could Be (none / 0) (#97)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:32:29 AM EST
    In any case it is hard to believe that this is any coincidence. At the very least, Monica realized that the upcoming election is a fertile time to get some traction for her business.

    And she, or whoever, chose NOW, because it is going to be a topic and may as well get the racehorse out of the stable first.


    What if she is attempting to get out (none / 0) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:45:58 AM EST
    In front of the insanity?  Can you imagine the press demands every time a Clinton freakin sneezes?  If Hillary is running for President, and I want to be left alone as much as possible....I doubt that it is completely possible but....this is what I would do and do it now.  Let it run completely out of steam by showtime, and I'm no longer fresh meat or even interesting to the press vampires.  I have neutralized the garbage questions before they are even asked.

    I think (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:59:14 AM EST
    that is what she is doing. Getting it all out there now so if Hillary runs, her pat response can be I've said all I have to say now leave me alone and let me live my life.

    Are you serious. Reminds me of people (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:00:34 AM EST
    whose 15 minutes of fame includes a.m. news 'magazine' appearance w/a plea for respect for their privacu.

    Do you think she has privacy now? (5.00 / 5) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:06:29 AM EST
    Because I don't think she does, and if Hillary runs she will be swamped with press at all times.  Does she have the Secret Service as a buffer?  Does she have any buffer at all?

    The Clintons have had access to great buffers, and she's...well she's just been surviving.

    How much do you think Larry Flynt offered her or Playboy?  Do you doubt they didn't?


    I think (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:18:07 AM EST
    that is what people don't understand. If Hillary runs she is going to be in the news. Better to get it all said what you have to say and be done with it. I really think she wants whatever privacy she had back. Not that it's ever going to go back before Ken Starr got a hold of her but she can get some semblance back.

    And I think when I read this article for free (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:49:54 AM EST
    I am going to find new respect for Monica Lewinsky that I did not previously have.

    I haven't a clue, don't know where she is or has (none / 0) (#112)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:11:11 AM EST

    Last I heard of her (none / 0) (#119)
    by jbindc on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:23:22 AM EST
    She was invited to the Vanity Fair after-Oscar party a few years back.

    What a bunch of haters (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 12:02:31 PM EST
    She can never go back to being Monica the girl next door. Never!  The day she dies her obituary will say Bill Clinton bl*wj*b

    Haters gotta hate though


    What haters? (none / 0) (#130)
    by jbindc on Wed May 07, 2014 at 12:56:07 PM EST
    That's really the last I heard of her.

    And if she didn't want her obituary to say BC / BJ, then maybe she shouldn't have gone swimming in that pond, and then turned down, in her own words, "tens of millions of dollars in job offers because the jobs didn't 'feel right'".

    I hope she's gotten on with her life. My guess is she could have had lots of jobs, or done lots of things quietly, but it wasn't as fabulous as she wanted.  She could have changed her name and gone off and lived quietly somewhere.  I hope she finds peace.  But how anyone blindly defends her as the innocent or as someone who has done nothing wrong, is delusional.  


    When is it enough though? (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 01:57:06 PM EST
    I can't believe the vitriol.  So she's the only person you know who fooled around with a married man?  This is your standard for dealing with everyone who fools around with someone who is married?  You hate them forever?  You can see nothing else there after that? When can she be something else in the public eye? Because she will always be in the public eye now.

    Do you appropriately hate, shun, scorn Marilyn Monroe too?


    Both Bill (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2014 at 02:11:49 PM EST
    and Monica have admitted what they did was wrong. If people can't forgive that and move on then I guess there's not much you can say.

    Listening about the article on MSNBC (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 02:18:29 PM EST
    It sounds like she was deeply scarred by what she was put through.  I'm willing to give her this time and space to reinvent herself.  She has had a very difficult time gaining appropriate employment.  Either they don't want her because of her history or they want to exploit her history.

    I can imagine (5.00 / 6) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2014 at 02:39:13 PM EST
    I mean yes, she made a mistake but everybody makes mistakes but they don't haunt them for the rest of their life. And it's caused a lot of pain to a lot of people herself included. This is usually what happens in affairs of this sort.

    I truly hope she finds peace. You know, if Ken Starr had not got involved, she would have been able to have a life, to go on. A lot of women make mistakes like she did but they don't have it all over the tabloids


    Well said, MT (5.00 / 4) (#170)
    by sj on Wed May 07, 2014 at 07:00:42 PM EST
    There is a whole of "my guess is [this]" this and "my guess is [that]" going on here. As a society, we have so not advanced from the puritanical and the male dominated. The judgements are even worse, IMO, when it comes from other women.

    Right here, on this web page we have a microcosm of why Ms. Lewinsky can never have a normal life. As you can see with this demonstration, she is still reviled and people will do and say anything in attempts to prevent her from having her own opinions or claiming her own life.


    I think (none / 0) (#106)
    by jbindc on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:02:02 AM EST
    She's shopping a book.

    Not that I care - if she wants to write a book - more power to her.


    So do I. W/photos. (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:04:37 AM EST
    Hahahaha (none / 0) (#100)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:52:18 AM EST
    How kind of you to think that she has no agenda but to clear her good name.

    This is about money and power, not about clearing a name, imo.

    If Monica is a lamb here and the instigator of the story, then there is most definitely a wolf somewhere who is advising Monica.


    How can her name ever be (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:57:16 AM EST
    Cleared Squeak.  She'll never have that for the rest of her life.

    Take a moment and contemplate how her life is every day after Ken Starr.

    Also, I'm a little shocked at some of you guys and how little you grasp that if Monica was a vampire how she would have played all this.  Think about that for a minute, and realize that she did none of the things she should have done if she wanted to play her Bill involvement up, play it to the hilt.

    She seems to me to have only wanted to have a normal life after her Clinton affair, but that is impossible for her now and always will be.  You don't think the press hounds her to death?  


    Until this week, when did the very existence of Ms (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:03:53 AM EST
    Lewinsky enter your thoughts?

    Not mine (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:09:47 AM EST
    But do you believe she hasn't been asked about fetal Clinton yet?  I bet she has been, someone has been standing outside her house shouting those questions.

    Getting a photo of Monica snapping is big money, even if she was only snapping because you won't leave her alone.

    As long as the Clintons are a commodity she is because half of this country will pay big to see Bill's ex mistress lose it or say something stupid.


    Really? I figured she has been superseded (none / 0) (#114)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:14:17 AM EST
    By Prince Harry

    As long as we have rabid rightwing (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:18:27 AM EST
    Nutjobs who still talk about her and "the impeachment", she is not forgotten by anyone but the Left.

    Why are we so intimidated by this woman?  Because we think she will harm Hillary's chances?  What if this about none of that and furthers America's growing up, and what if the rabid right leaves Monica Lewinsky mostly alone during Hillary's run because she has her ducks in a row and there is nothing to be gained there?


    "We"???? Not me n (none / 0) (#118)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:20:44 AM EST
    The whole world does not revolve (none / 0) (#122)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:42:50 AM EST
    Around us, if it did I would be a lot happier.

    Name Cleared (none / 0) (#115)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:14:34 AM EST
    People can reinvent themselves, mitigate past indiscretions, or at least profit from their infamy. If she has a business going, and it certainly sounds like she does:

    "thanks to the Drudge Report, I was also possibly the first person whose global humiliation was driven by the Internet."

    She, if she is behind the Monica promotion, is using the inevitable resurfacing of her history to get a business going.

    And regarding clearing her name: Certainly if Bill, who lied and was an adulterer, could reinvent himself, so could Monica.


    Well, not as long (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2014 at 11:48:10 AM EST
    As we keep freaking out every time the woman wiggles.  I would hate to be her right now.  The right just wants her, prays for her to do something stupid.  And the Left, we fear her.  Jesus, what a place and space to have to inhabit.  

    As I said before too, Bill has buffers, always has. In this goofy culture we aren't interested in Monica for any reason other than bl*wj*b.  One set of us hopes to exploit her and one set of us despises her because we perceive her as a threat.

    If you want Monica to reinvent herself, for God sakes let her then.


    Dear Gang (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 07, 2014 at 08:16:43 AM EST
    First of all, thanks for the laugh to the ones of you who claim that the evileee Repubs have brought this up. I mean, really. Even for dedicated Repub haters that is silly.

    Secondly, to stop the back lash I'll remind you I have long said it was wrong but really not our business to condemn on a personal level. That was Hillary's.  And yes, while it takes two to tango the thought of Monica lashing Bill to a chair while taking advantage of him leaves me wondering if those who claim it was all her fault has advanced beyond the 16th year in emotional development.

    Finally, I will remind you that feminists have long, and accurately, noted that a "boss," be h/she a manager at MacDonald's, the CEO of a Fortune 500 corporation, or POTUS, is a power figure and should never never never enter into a sexual relationship with a subordinate. It is just wrong on so many levels. And in the commercial world it often results in the firing of the senior person.

    Bill escaped by telling lie after lie although he did lose his law license for 5 years in, I think it was, Arkansas for perjury. The punishment doesn't seem to have bothered him.

    As to why, "now?" I think it is simple. Back then Hillary and her troops destroyed Monica as effectively as they had other members of the "Bimbo Eruptions."

    Monica's actions are called pay back. Will it work? No. Bill escaped and Hillary has played the cookie baking faithful forgiving wife to a lovable rascal while Monica remains wounded with her emotional life permanently damaged.

    And that's a shame.

    Monica never hurt (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by MKS on Wed May 07, 2014 at 08:27:39 AM EST
    Bill Clinton or the Democrats politically.   Bill never had a higher job approval rating than during the Republican impeachment circus.  The Democrats gained seats in the 1998 off year elections.

    Democrats should avoid taking the bait when Monica comes up.  She will not hurt Hillary politically.



    Let me agree with you (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 07, 2014 at 08:44:11 AM EST
    but the reason is this.

    Bill was shown as a victim.

    Hillary understood that and did her part masterfully. Pun intended.

    It demonstrated that many people are willing to allow their "betters" to do such things because it titillates their senses and gives them an excuse for their bad acts.

    And that defines the country in its presence state.


    When (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2014 at 08:54:52 AM EST
    did you become a psychologist? I love these Republican amateur psychologists.

    All Republicans bringing all this up is to remind 2/3 of the voters why they dislike the GOP so much. You know sanctimonious moralizers are disliked way more than reformed sinners.

    Yeah, I expect lots of condescending moral lectures from the GOP should she run and I also expect same sanctimonious moralizers to be smacked down at the polls.


    You didn't know I was a (2.00 / 2) (#179)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 07, 2014 at 09:49:27 PM EST
    psychologist? Let me analyze you.

    1. You continue to make things up that I never wrote.

    2. I never gave a condescending moral lecture.

    Now let me dig through my diagnosis list.

    Yep, here you are... under "Lies."

    Fancy that.



    3. Everything Ga6thdem said ... (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Yman on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:16:50 PM EST
    ... was absolutley true.

    1.  You are the last person who should ever call someone a liar.

    2.  Your "diagnosis" is as accurate as the rest of your claims, making you the blog equivalent of a quack.


    Ya see (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:19:24 PM EST
    Jim that's because you don't realize how it comes off. Don't worry. You're not the only one. It seems to be an epidemic with people who vote Reublican.

    That is a shame (none / 0) (#175)
    by Yman on Wed May 07, 2014 at 08:32:53 PM EST
    That such an imagination chose to go into sales rather than writing fairy tales or children's books.

    Me and my shadow... (1.00 / 2) (#180)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 07, 2014 at 09:50:45 PM EST
    walking down the avenue...

    He can't help himself so he follows me

    And makes inane remarks..


    Close (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Yman on Wed May 07, 2014 at 10:09:55 PM EST
    I respond to inane remarks.

    Hence, your paranoia about being "followed".


    Just think, if Bill had had the grace... (none / 0) (#153)
    by unitron on Wed May 07, 2014 at 04:18:10 PM EST
    ...to resign just after the first two years of his second term were up, we could have gone into the 2000 election with President Gore eligible for 2 4 year terms and with the advantage of incumbency behind him.

    Huh? Why should he have resigned? (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by Angel on Wed May 07, 2014 at 04:25:36 PM EST
    I got a few reasons.... (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by kdog on Wed May 07, 2014 at 05:09:27 PM EST
    the crime bill, a federal prison population that doubled during his two terms, finance deregulation, unprecedented offensive in the war on drugs...and many more, but this nonsense is not amongst the reasons.

    I didn't (none / 0) (#192)
    by lentinel on Thu May 08, 2014 at 05:02:51 AM EST
    read the Vanity Fair article - but I read excerpts.

    There was an accompanying photo - taken by a professional photographer especially for this article - with Ms. Lewinsky fetchingly stretched out on a sofa.


    It doesn't do much for the victimhood scenario.

    I don't know what to think.

    Wow that picture says a lot (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by ZtoA on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:25:48 AM EST
    It does? What does it say to you? (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by Anne on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:51:14 AM EST
    As I see it, had the photos shown her in the equivalent of sackcloth and ashes, looking sad and beaten-down, that would fuel the cries of "perpetual victim!"

    The photos showing her as a happy, attractive woman are generating cries of "See? She's still a slut, trolling for unsuspecting married men, pretending to look all virginal and pure in that white dress - how dare she!"

    Apparently, the prevailing thought is that Monica can't be allowed to have anything resembling a normal life.  Ever.  No matter what she does, no matter what she says about why she's doing whatever it is she's doing, it's to be considered a lie - because that's what sluts do: they lie -  meant to mask her true agenda, one that involves - gasp! - making money.  Or worse - making trouble for the Clintons - or, as Lynn Cheney has posited, making sure she doesn't make trouble for the Clintons, by getting all of this out of the way now.

    "Wow," indeed.


    Anne (none / 0) (#201)
    by ZtoA on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:23:12 AM EST
    what that photo says to me is "come hither". It is a professionally taken photo of a rather intimate moment. It stresses her intimate nature.  She doesn't look like a victim. It's an at-home pic, not a professional out in the world pic. It might be best for people like her and, say, Anthony Wiener, to not publicize their private moments.

    ZtoA (none / 0) (#203)
    by squeaky on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:35:48 AM EST
    Look at the set of photos, 5? of them. These are highly professional pictures crafted to present Monica as a powerful sexual woman, who is poetic, smart, and in charge.

    GO Monica!

    German (Russian) Jewish stock is not to be trifled with.

    All the slut BS is for the older generation, so not surprised it gets so much traction here....  IMO, she seems to have done quite well for herself over the years according to her Wiki entry.

    Anne (none / 0) (#207)
    by squeaky on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:59:56 AM EST
    Anne seems to have the knives out for ZtoA but missed lentinel's
    comment, which expresses similar sentiment... I am sure is because Anne is so pressed for time and can only read one comment now and then...


    with Ms. Lewinsky fetchingly stretched out on a sofa.


    It doesn't do much for the victimhood scenario.

    I don't know what to think.

    Anne (none / 0) (#209)
    by ZtoA on Thu May 08, 2014 at 12:27:19 PM EST
    I said she does NOT look like a victim. Where did you get that I wanted her to look like a victim? I don't. "People like her"? I did not say that. I just mentioned two people who became famous because of a sex scandal.

    How about...? (none / 0) (#210)
    by jbindc on Thu May 08, 2014 at 12:35:34 PM EST
    They put a nice picture of her in a nice dress or other nice outfit NOT lounging on a couch - maybe just sitting on a bench, laughing?  Or in a library or coffe shop?

    We haven't seen a picture of Bill Clinton, lounging on a couch in a sexy pose....

    wow, what a thread (none / 0) (#212)
    by The Addams Family on Thu May 08, 2014 at 03:18:10 PM EST
    Jeralyn said: "Monica's back, did you miss her?"

    apparently so

    now can't we just go back to how Obama did Hillary wrong?

    Nemi (none / 0) (#215)
    by jbindc on Fri May 09, 2014 at 09:05:24 AM EST
    She is a beautiful woman in a pretty dress, but when you are trying to repair your reputation as "the other woman" or more precisely, as  "Monica Lewinsky" and you are asking people to take you seriously and for having more to your life than just being the former intern who gave the president a bj, then it stands to reason you should present yourself in a way that maybe isn't so "come hither" and sexy.  

    Angel (none / 0) (#217)
    by jbindc on Fri May 09, 2014 at 10:31:16 AM EST
    We disagree.

    If you're trying to show the world you're a person who should be taken seriously, then you act and dress accordingly.  Otherwise, why bother?  

    We're pver tje 200 comment limit (none / 0) (#226)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2014 at 02:10:16 AM EST
    This thread is closed, no more comments please.