Forum Thread

The Return of Monica Lewinsky

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 96 1 2 3 4 5 .. 7 Next
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The intern who nearly brought down a Presidency is back in the news for the first time in over a decade after penning an article in 'Vanity Fair' describing her affair with President Clinton and explaining why she has stayed silent for so long. Ms. Lewinsky wants to clear the air about the affair and provide her side of the story about what happened with the former President.

    Ms. Lewinsky will say that her affair with Bill Clinton was entirely consensual but feels that she became a "scapegoat to protect his powerful position" as President. She writes that she felt under siege from all sides, including the media and special prosecutors who all seemed to brand her in a way that would benefit them politically and "that brand stuck, in part because it was imbued with power.”

    The Lewinsky scandal is something that is a black scar for our country for a variety of reasons, but I agree that she was made a scapegoat by political elites on both sides of the aisle. I will always believe it was a political witch hunt on the part of Republicans who wanted nothing more than to bring down a Presidency and not anything to do with infidelity. Presidents from both political stripes have cheated on their wives for the past two hundred plus years. When did that ever become grounds for impeachment? Not just that, but they also tarnished the reputation of a twenty-two year old woman in the meantime.

    After years of silence, Ms. Lewinsky has found a new calling in sticking up for those who have been shamed and humiliated like she was. She writes that the suicide of the 18-year-old Rutgers freshman Tyler Clementi was the straw that broke the camels back and decided it was time to share her story with the world.

    Is anyone planning on reading her story in this month's 'Vanity Fair'? What do you think about her deciding break her silence and reappear in the public spotlight?
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jared, why now? Why is she coming forward now? It's too early to have the most impact on the 2016 election. If she wanted to affect the 2016 election, she should have waited another year, at least.

    Yes she was used and abused by Bill Clinton, as were many other women. She says it was consensual between two adults, and she's right but that doesn't excuse the most powerful man in the world taking advantage of a very young girl (compared to his age) in his office while on the job. Just about anyone else would have, and should have been fired.

    He had decades of affairs, taking advantage of many women, so this was nothing new for him. A pro and a rookie...no contest.

    She was also used and abused by everyone in Washington and the national media who thought they could advance their own agenda by the story.

    To many of us, the cover up was worse than the crime, which is not uncommon.

    "I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN...MISS LEWINSKI." The lies and denies were much worse than the affair, and it has been happening for a long time with our presidents, but most famously with Clinton and Kennedy.

    Yes, Lewinski was a "scapegoat" but she did it to herself by her actions, just like Clinton did it to himself by his actions. They both deserve all the criticism that they received. Responsibility for ones actions? What a concept!

    As terrible a person as Clinton was, he was our last good president.



  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    This woman is garbage. Without Monica, Clinton may have one of the best presidents ever. No war. Stock market soared. Employment was good. Finished with a balanced budget. Not bad.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    You can't just blame the woman. Clinton was the one who was married. Lewinsky was single, less responsibility falls on her. But it all should have stayed as a personal issue. It wasn't a criminal thing and should not have been dragged out in front of the country. And certainly no hearings should have been convened on the matter.

    If the article is handy I will certainly give it a read.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Yes Clinton screwed up. Without question. However, Monica was a nobody. If she would have (gulp) gotten rid of the evidence..... this issue would have just gone away. She's getting her moment ('s) of fame that otherwise she would never have had. Forgive my directness. That blue dress that we'll all never know why it was kept..... was the thing that gave the repubs a gleaming hope.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Yeah, that was a bit weird
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The blue dress was the only way she could prove that she was telling the truth. That Clinton splooge on her dress was the only proof, and if she had dry cleaned the dress most people would never have believed her story. No proof, no story. She had the proof.

    For such a smart guy, Clinton was very stupid. He could have said just about anything other than lying to all of us about it. He could have said "It's a private matter', or "I made a personal mistake", or "It's no ones business", or he could have said nothing at all. The stupist move he could have made was to repeatedly lie to America while wagging his "finger of sincerity" at the camera.

    For most Americans, the lying was worse than the act itself. People NEVER learn rule number one: When you screw up always, ALWAYS tell the truth. Lying only makes the story bigger and eventually hurts you more. Smart people make that stupid mistake all the time.

    Such stupidity from such a smart guy.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    TJ Wrote: Yes Clinton screwed up. Without question. However, Monica was a nobody. If she would have (gulp) gotten rid of the evidence..... this issue would have just gone away. She's getting her moment ('s) of fame that otherwise she would never have had. Forgive my directness. That blue dress that we'll all never know why it was kept..... was the thing that gave the repubs a gleaming hope.
    I would take your argument more seriously if she had actually tried to capitalize on their relationship by either trying to bring down President Clinton or make millions by 'selling' her story. She did neither. If anything, she was trying to cover it up because she swore under oath in a 1998 deposition that they had no relationship.

    One could argue her life has been hell because of this affair. You can't blame a twenty year old because you liked the President. You can blame Clinton, Ken Starr, Linda Tripp, Paula Jones, House Republicans, and dozens of other people or groups, but it's wrong to blame her.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jamesn Wrote: For such a smart guy, Clinton was very stupid. He could have said just about anything other than lying to all of us about it. He could have said "It's a private matter', or "I made a personal mistake", or "It's no ones business", or he could have said nothing at all. The stupist move he could have made was to repeatedly lie to America while wagging his "finger of sincerity" at the camera.

    For most Americans, the lying was worse than the act itself. People NEVER learn rule number one: When you screw up always, ALWAYS tell the truth. Lying only makes the story bigger and eventually hurts you more. Smart people make that stupid mistake all the time.
    I don't necessarily disagree, but I would point out that he was under oath and giving a sworn deposition at the time of the finger wagging. He was asked a direct question and he had to either plead the fifth or answer the question. He couldn't legally say 'it's no one's business.'
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    To outright lie to the American people was not the best option. Lying is not usually the best course of action. The fifth would have brought on lots of criticism, too. But, the longer a lie lasts, the worse it sounds.

    I guess he didn't know at the time that she saved the "evidence". Who would've guessed it?

    And, he wasn't under oath every time he lied about it.


  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    You say it's not fair to blame Monica...... sure I see your point. However, why did she keep the uncleaned dress ? It should have been in the next days trash and she should have asked Bill for 125.00 to replace it. She sure didn't seem to mind getting it dirty. You say she's not capitalized on the subject....... I say she hasn't yet capitalized on it. If she pens a tell all book it would probably sell millions of copies. Every republican in the US would own a copy. 30% of democrats would probably buy a copy to hear the dirt. Worldwide many more copies would be sold.

    Funny thing on CNN just now.... A women said Monica Lewinsky is how the republicans used to pronounce Benghazi 16 years ago........... L M A O !!!!!!!
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    ..."why did she keep the uncleaned dress?"... She had to.

    She had to keep it. It was the only way people would believe her. It was her word against Bill's and who was going to believe a nobody against the word of the most powerful man in the world? Almost no one.

    If she had NOT kept the dress, Bill would STILL be lying and denying that it ever happened.

    I don't know why she is doing this and why she is doing this now. Writing a booK? Maybe. I think she would have plenty of offers.

    She already had her 15 minutes of fame, but that apparently was not enough. Is it because of Hillarys approaching coronation? Is she trying to help Hillary or to hurt her? Is it about influencing the election, or just about helping herself, or both?
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jamesn,
    She could have continued to deny it happened. What's wrong with that plan ? Unless she was trying to wreak the marriage - like there was 1% of a chance that she was going to be the replacement - no way. She may have been trying to bring Bill down...I don't think that was her intent. They showed how after the event/info came out.... she did a skit on Saturday Night Live (making fun of it all). That was self serving.
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Lots of things could have happened.

    She could have kept her mouth closed.

    Bill could have kept his pants zipped up.

    All we have is what we know happened back then, and we try to figure out why. And what she's doing now and why.

    Was she paid off by someone back then? Is she being paid off by someone now?

    When we are talking about the highest level of politics, personal scandals of the most powerful man in the world, there will always be people trying to exploit things to their own benefit. Where does Monica fit in to someones plan? Or is she REALLY doing all this on her own?

    I would not be surprised to see Monica, or a skit about Monica, make another appearance on SNL.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    TJ Wrote: jamesn,
    She could have continued to deny it happened. What's wrong with that plan ? Unless she was trying to wreak the marriage - like there was 1% of a chance that she was going to be the replacement - no way. She may have been trying to bring Bill down...I don't think that was her intent. They showed how after the event/info came out.... she did a skit on Saturday Night Live (making fun of it all). That was self serving.
    No, she could not have continued to deny something happened because she was caught on tape perjuring herself. Linda Tripp gave those tapes to Ken Starr, who then broadened his investigation. She was forced to say what happened once she found herself facing down contempt of court and perjury charges.

    Her SNL skit was done on May 8, 1999, three months after Clinton's February 12 acquittal in the Senate. Was she just supposed to stay quiet the rest of her life? What is so wrong with her joking about the media firestorm she found herself in? And don't you think she would have tried to 'sell' her story much earlier if she actually wanted to capitalize on this whole fiasco?