ADVERTISEMENT

Ellison's Must Read of the Day

Ellison must read
May 8, 2014

My must read of the day is "Monica Lewinsky does Hillary Clinton a big favor," in the Washington Post:

The Lewinsky affair never really came up in 2008; the subject was too raw and too fraught, and Clinton did not make it to the ugliness of a general election campaign. It’s clear, though, that the subject will not be taboo in 2016. Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) has already raised the question of whether Democrats in general, and Hillary Clinton in particular, should consort with a "sexual predator" like Bill Clinton.

Lewinsky’s account makes clear that her affair with the president was between two consenting adults. "Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship," she writes. "Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position."

So her piece defuses Paul’s line of attack. And it does so before any Clinton presidential announcement.

If and when a Clinton presidential announcement comes, Lewinsky will be old news. "It’s time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress," Lewinsky writes. That would be good news for both women.

I just finished reading Monica Lewinsky’s Vanity Fair article, and full disclosure: I bought the magazine because Jon Hamm was on the cover. Still, I diligently read the Lewinsky piece and, as I imagine most people were, was absorbed in the story.

In some ways, I understand how this is seen as "helpful" to Hillary Clinton, should she run in 2016. It seems to follow Lanny Davis’ golden rule: "tell it all, tell it early, tell it yourself." Lewinsky is out in the open early, and to have her reiterate that her relationship with President Clinton was consensual and a choice she knowingly made dampens a line of argument like Rand Paul’s (though I never thought that attack had any legs).

1998 was the year of my ninth birthday; not surprisingly, I wasn’t following the scandal in real time—or, for that matter, the Clinton administration in general. It isn’t rare that when I read something about it today I learn new details. When I read the Vanity Fair article, I didn’t get new details, but a different perspective. I did not conclude the article feeling that the issue is resolved—I just felt sorry for Monica Lewinsky.

She was blamed and derided while the person who should have faced that scrutiny went on to become increasingly popular—but who helped and acquiesced in the blaming, shaming, and defaming of Lewinsky? Hillary Clinton.

Sure, the Clintons might be able to point to this article as evidence that it is an old issue and one that neither the press nor the public needs to discuss. However, it also serves as evidence that what happened in the 90s is still pertinent because it partially undermines the image of a vehement advocate for women’s rights.

Hillary Clinton blamed Lewinsky—a woman, who even if she was wrong, had no obligation to Hillary and hadn’t taken marriage vows. The person who had all of that, she defended.

It makes it a little harder to take Hillary Clinton seriously when she decries sexism and misogyny, but when it comes to her treatment and labeling of Lewinsky, and the more appalling labeling of "all those whiney women" accusing Bob Packwood of sexual assault—everyone be cool, because that’s old and it’s fine.

The 1990s should make you wonder if Clinton was ever the feminist she purports to be or if she’s only one when it’s politically convenient. More than anything, this article drags up those kinds of questions.