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
Add to Briefcase
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 »
FACES STIFF OPPOSITION FROM BOTH PARTIES
Trump Proposes 95 Percent Cut To Office of Drug Control Budget
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

Trump wants to move the two grants, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas grant and the Drug Free Communities Act, to the Justice and Health and Human Services departments, respectively. This would result in a $300 million plus reduction in funding, about 95 percent of the cost of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. "'I’m baffled at the idea of cutting the office or reducing it significantly and taking away its programs in the middle of an epidemic,'" said Regina LaBelle, who served as ONDCP chief of staff during the Obama administration. This is the second time the Trump Administration has proposed gutting the agency.

Source:
HOPES A DEAL CAN GET DONE
Schumer Meeting with Trump for Last-Ditch Meeting
3 hours ago
THE LATEST
BLURRY LINE BETWEEN BUSINESS/PRESIDENCY
New CREW Report Identifies 500 Conflicts of Interest in Trump’s First Year
3 hours ago
THE DETAILS

A new report assembled by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has identified more than 500 potential conflicts of interest in President Trump's first year. First, the report notes, Trump spent 122 days at his properties during his first year. He has been accompanied by 70 federal officials and 30 members of Congress. "Second, far from this signaled access to power being an empty promise, those who patronize President Trump’s businesses have, in fact, gained access to the president and his inner circle." Lastly, about 40 special interest groups and 11 foreign governments have held events at Trump properties.

Source:
BY SCALISE
House Told to “Stay Flexible”
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS
“NOT THE RIGHT TIME”
J.D. Vance Bows Out of Senate Run
4 hours ago
THE LATEST
×
×

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