Monica Lewinsky’s Story Isn’t a Clinton Hit Piece. It’s a Condemnation of 1998’s Feminists

She’s just trying to clear the air.

National Journal
Emma Roller
May 8, 2014, 6:37 a.m.

Don’t be­lieve the hype.

Des­pite the su­per­nova level of buzz that it has gen­er­ated in the polit­ic­al pun­ditry, Mon­ica Lew­in­sky’s Van­ity Fair piece — out now for sub­scribers — says vir­tu­ally noth­ing we didn’t know about Lew­in­sky’s 1998 af­fair with Bill Clin­ton. Nor is this a Mon­ica-versus-Hil­lary smack­down — al­though every­one knows the me­dia loves a good cat­fight nar­rat­ive. But what does it mean for Hil­lary Clin­ton in 2016?

Sorry to dis­ap­point, but to an­swer your ques­tion, “Very little.”

What Lew­in­sky’s story does of­fer, however, is a view in­to the world of a wo­man whose life has been ruined by the polit­ic­al cir­cus. Lew­in­sky read­ily takes re­spons­ib­il­ity for her ru­in, but is right­fully em­bittered that she’s the sole scape­goat.

It’s a weird time warp — the me­dia por­trayed 24-year-old Lew­in­sky as a con­niv­ing, power-hungry vix­en. Now, the 40-year-old Lew­in­sky is a limp pup­pet for the Clin­ton agenda. Lynne Cheney sug­ges­ted that the Clin­tons put Lew­in­sky up to this to get her story out of the way be­fore 2016. Oth­ers, like The New York Post‘s An­drea Pey­ser, ad­dressed Lew­in­sky more bluntly: “Shut up and go away.”

In The Wash­ing­ton Post, Ruth Mar­cus wrote that Lew­in­sky is do­ing a big fa­vor to the Clin­tons by dredging up the 1998 af­fair. As Jonath­an Chait put it, it’s hard to be­lieve that when she wrote the piece, Lew­in­sky was think­ing, “I really owe Bill Clin­ton a fa­vor.”

That is not to say Lew­in­sky ig­nores the Clin­tons en­tirely in the piece. She does take is­sue with Hil­lary Clin­ton’s as­ser­tion that she was a “nar­ciss­ist­ic loony toon,” and vaguely ref­er­ences the Clin­ton op­er­at­ives who tried to co­erce her in­to com­pli­ance.

What Lew­in­sky’s es­say does well is re­mind us of how shame­fully so-called fem­in­ists failed her when she needed them most. Maur­een Dowd — or as Lew­in­sky called her at the time, “More­mean Dowdy” — painted Lew­in­sky as a crazy bimbo, and won a Pulitzer for do­ing so. While they leapt to de­fend An­ita Hill, who ac­cused Su­preme Court Justice Clar­ence Thomas of sexu­al har­ass­ment, the fem­in­ists of the day treated Lew­in­sky as per­sona non grata.

Read­ing this New York Ob­serv­er story from 1998 — titled, hil­ari­ously, “New York Su­per­gals Love That Naughty Prez” — the big-name fem­in­ists quoted in it seem to per­son­ally re­sent Lew­in­sky for set­ting back their noble Cause. How dare she work her fem­in­ine wiles on the pres­id­ent! Clin­ton couldn’t help him­self — you know how he loved those South­ern beauty queens. (Lew­in­sky is from Los Angeles.) And be­sides, he’s just so gosh-darn charm­ing!

Look­ing back on this con­ver­sa­tion is pos­it­ively cringe-worthy. The wo­men com­ment on her in­tel­li­gence (“not so bril­liant”), her looks (“not that pretty”), and even the state of her dent­al hy­giene. To put a fine point on it, it’s Slut-Sham­ing 101.

Mean­while, they are happy to fawn over the oth­er per­son who en­gaged in that ill-ad­vised af­fair. “This is a pres­id­ent who takes risks,” says fem­in­ist writer Katie Roi­phe. “He is the most in­cred­ibly charm­ing man,” says fash­ion de­sign­er Nicole Miller. “He’s quite cute,” says former Sat­urday Night Live writer Pa­tri­cia Marx. (I won­der if Marx still thought of Clin­ton as “cute” after read­ing Sec­tion 272 of the Starr Re­port.)

It’s only made more up­set­ting that, 16 years later, the same fem­in­ist lead­ers who were so eager to as­sas­sin­ate Lew­in­sky’s char­ac­ter now con­sider them­selves ar­dent de­fend­ers against sex­ism — proud war­ri­ors who stand Ready for Hil­lary.

What We're Following See More »
IN ADDITION TO DNC AND DCCC
Clinton Campaign Also Hacked
6 hours ago
THE LATEST
1.5 MILLION MORE TUNED IN FOR TRUMP
More People Watched Trump’s Acceptance Speech
7 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Hillary Clinton hopes that television ratings for the candidates' acceptance speeches at their respective conventions aren't foreshadowing of similar results at the polls in November. Preliminary results from the networks and cable channels show that 34.9 million people tuned in for Donald Trump's acceptance speech while 33.3 million watched Clinton accept the Democratic nomination. However, it is still possible that the numbers are closer than these ratings suggest: the numbers don't include ratings from PBS or CSPAN, which tend to attract more Democratic viewers.

Source:
AFFECTS NOVEMBER ELECTIONS
North Carolina Voter ID Law Struck Down
10 hours ago
THE DETAILS

The US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday overturned North Carolina's 2013 voter ID law, saying it was passed with “discriminatory intent." The decision sends the case back to the district judge who initially dismissed challenges to the law. "The ruling prohibits North Carolina from requiring photo identification from voters in future elections, including the November 2016 general election, restores a week of early voting and preregistration for 16- and 17-year-olds, and ensures that same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting will remain in effect."

Source:
NORTH DAKOTA TO ILLINOIS
Massive Oil Pipeline Approved for the Midwest
11 hours ago
THE DETAILS

An oil pipeline almost as long as the much-debated Keystone XL has won final approval to transport crude from North Dakota to Illinois, traveling through South Dakota and Iowa along the way. "The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers gave the final blessing to the Dakota Access pipeline on Tuesday. Developers now have the last set of permits they need to build through the small portion of federal land the line crosses, which includes major waterways like the Mississippi and the Missouri rivers. The so-called Bakken pipeline goes through mostly state and private land."

Source:
×