The Best Monica Lewinsky Columns From Around the Web

We read everything on the resurfacing of Monica Lewinsky so you don’t have to — or maybe just because it’s fascinating.

National Journal
Lucia Graves
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Lucia Graves
May 8, 2014, 12:46 p.m.

Jimmy Fal­lon and so many oth­ers have joked about how Mon­ica Lew­in­sky’s Van­ity Fair piece is old news. Quoth he: “In the es­say she ac­tu­ally says, ‘It’s time to burn the blue dress, bury the ber­et, and move on.’ And Amer­ic­ans said, ‘Yeah, we did 15 years ago!’ ” There is vir­tu­ally noth­ing new in the piece — ex­cept per­spect­ive. And a great deal of that can be found in the piece it­self, which is now avail­able for sub­scribers and will hit news­stands May 13. But even more per­spect­ive (very smart, in­ter­est­ing stuff!) can be found on the In­ter­net, where the pun­dits have ana­lyzed it in­to a schol­arly pur­ee.

Fal­lon’s joke makes for a good punch line, but he’s wrong: Amer­ica has def­in­itely not bur­ied the ber­et, least of all some of our fa­vor­ite fem­in­ists. The best points from around the Web are be­low.

Aman­da Hess in Slate on how Maur­een Dowd painted Lew­in­sky as a crazy bimbo — and won a Pulitzer for it. “It didn’t take long for Dowd to buckle un­der the power of the Clin­ton nar­rat­ive and join the pile-on her­self. By Feb­ru­ary, she was call­ing Lew­in­sky ‘a ditsy, pred­at­ory White House in­tern who might have lied un­der oath for a job at Re­vlon’ and ‘the girl who was too tubby to be in the high school in crowd.’ At first, Dowd at­temp­ted to pass this nas­ti­ness off as a sly, satir­ic­al com­ment­ary on the ca­ri­ca­ture of Lew­in­sky that the Clin­ton ad­min­is­tra­tion had painted in the press. But soon, the ar­ti­fice dis­ap­peared, and Dowd de­voted her column to ar­guing that, come to think of it, Lew­in­sky was both nutty and slutty.”

Re­becca Tra­ister in The New Re­pub­lic on how Hil­lary and Mon­ica are in this to­geth­er.This Van­ity Fair story is not Lew­in­sky’s first at­tempt at re­in­ven­tion. In the years after the af­fair, she de­signed hand­bags, got that gradu­ate de­gree, shilled for Jenny Craig. Clin­ton, mean­while, has be­come a sen­at­or, a sec­ret­ary of state, a pres­id­en­tial can­did­ate, a wo­men’s lead­er; she’s cut her hair and changed her ward­robe. The reas­on that, no mat­ter what they do, neither wo­man can ever shake this old story is that it is nev­er-end­ing; and it is im­port­ant. It is the story of wo­men in the United States: mar­gin­al­ized, sexu­al­ized, and pit­ted against each oth­er since time began in an at­tempt to keep them at the fringes of a power struc­ture and very far from the top of it.”

Molly Lam­bert in Grant­land re­calls what it was like read­ing about Lew­in­sky as a fem­in­ist teen­ager and puts it all in con­text. I was 15 when the Lew­in­sky scan­dal broke, and it blew my mind, so to speak, on every pos­sible level. It was the ex­act age at which I nev­er wanted to talk to my par­ents about any­thing re­motely sexu­al, and yet there we were, watch­ing news an­chors de­bate wheth­er or­al sex should be judged dif­fer­ently from va­gin­al pen­et­ra­tion. Everything about the scan­dal seemed gray-shaded: wheth­er it was a pro­sec­ut­able of­fense, how and why Hil­lary Clin­ton would stay with Bill af­ter­ward, what it must have been like for the teen­age Chelsea to be so em­bar­rassed by her dad in front of the whole world. I was a ‘90s child with an ideal­ist fem­in­ist concept of gender roles, but the pres­id­ent was en­act­ing a scen­ario I some­how be­lieved had gone out with JFK.”

Dave Wei­gel in Slate com­plains Lew­in­sky’s aired this all be­fore. The ‘si­lence-break­ing’ head­lines made no sense. What si­lence was be­ing broken? The Huff­ing­ton Post notes that Lew­in­sky ‘is open­ing up about her af­fair with former Pres­id­ent Bill Clin­ton for the first time in years,’ but that’s not the same as break­ing ‘si­lence’….”

Jonath­an Chait in New York Magazine on the Lynn Cheney con­spir­acy the­ory. “Lynn Cheney has a the­ory about why Mon­ica Lew­in­sky wrote a long Van­ity Fair es­say about her ex­per­i­ence with Bill Clin­ton: It’s be­cause the Clin­tons wanted it. Cheney ex­plains her sus­pi­cions. ‘I really won­der if this isn’t an ef­fort on the Clin­tons’ part to get that story out of the way,’ Cheney, an­nounced on an in­ter­view on Fox News. ‘Would Van­ity Fair pub­lish any­thing about Mon­ica Lew­in­sky that Hil­lary Clin­ton didn’t want in Van­ity Fair?’ There may be a couple of holes in this the­ory. The first is that, while it does ac­count for the Clin­ton’s mo­tiv­a­tions, it fails to ex­plain the par­ti­cip­a­tion of Lew­in­sky her­self, who is the au­thor of the art­icle in ques­tion, and may not be in the mind-set of ‘I really owe Bill Clin­ton a fa­vor.’”

And our own Emma Roller in Na­tion­al Journ­al on how fem­in­ists failed Lew­in­sky. “What Lew­in­sky’s es­say does well is re­mind us of how shame­fully so-called fem­in­ists failed her when she needed them most…. It’s only 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 »
DEFERENCE TO PRESIDENT
More Republicans Trust Trump than GOP Members
32 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE
PAC WILL TARGET INCUMBENTS
Sanders Acolytes Taking the Movement Local
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"While Democrats nationwide have put the focus on President Trump, the Sanders wing of the party has engaged in an intramural fight to remake the party in a more populist, liberal mold." From Washington state to California to Florida, Sanders loyalists are making good on their promise to remake the party from the ground up. And just last week, a "group of former Sanders campaign aides launched a super PAC with the explicit goal of mounting primary challenges to Democratic incumbents."

Source:
THANKS TO MILITARY ROLE
McMaster Requires Congressional Approval
3 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Congress will need to vote on Donald Trump's pick of Lt. General H.R. McMaster to be his next national security adviser, but not for the reason you think. The position of NSA doesn't require Senate approval, but since McMaster currently holds a three-star military position, Congress will need to vote to allow him to keep his position instead of forcing him to drop one star and become a Major General, which could potentially affect his pension.

Source:
THE QUESTION
How Many Signatures Has the Petition for Trump’s Tax Returns Received?
7 hours ago
THE ANSWER

More than 1 million, setting a record. More than 100,000 signatures triggers an official White House response.

Source:
SENT LETTERS TO A DOZEN ORGANIZATIONS
Senate Intel Looks to Preserve Records of Russian Interference
7 hours ago
THE LATEST

"The Senate Intelligence Committee is seeking to ensure that records related to Russia’s alleged intervention in the 2016 U.S. elections are preserved as it begins investigating that country’s ties to the Trump team. The panel sent more than a dozen letters to 'organizations, agencies and officials' on Friday, asking them to preserve materials related to the congressional investigation, according to a Senate aide, who was not authorized to comment publicly. The Senate Intelligence Committee is spearheading the most comprehensive probe on Capitol Hill of Russia’s alleged activities in the elections."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login