Monica: We Still Hardly Know Ye
There are few public humiliations in modern American history bigger than that suffered by Monica Lewinsky. Nor, I believe, few people who have been more resilient in the face of a media gang-rape than the former White House intern has been.
As a reporter who covered the Clinton impeachment scandal, I became more familiar with Lewinsky than most people, and the more I learned about her the more fond I became of this smart, personable and utterly mischaracterized young woman whose youthful indiscretion happened to get the best of her.
Now comes Richard Cohen, the WaPo op-ed columnist, to try to set the record straight:
“In the various books I’ve read about the Bill Clinton impeachment scandal — a scandal because of what was done and a scandal because the president was impeached for it — the same story is told over and over again. When the prosecutors or lawyers or whoever finally got to meet the storied Monica Lewinsky, they were floored by her. She was smart, personable and — as the record makes clear — dignified. This is more than can be said about some of the people who write about her.
“I will not name names. But in recent days, Lewinsky has been back in the news. In December she graduated with a master’s degree in social psychology from the London School of Economics. Her thesis was titled ‘In Search of the Impartial Juror: An Exploration of the Third Person Effect and Pre-Trial Publicity.’ Her thesis might well have been called ‘In Search of the Impartial Journalist,’ because she was immediately the subject of more poke-in-the-ribs stories about you know what. The Post, a better paper than it was that day, called her ‘dumb-but-smart.’ It was more than could be said for that piece.
“It does not take a Freudian to appreciate why Lewinsky chose the topic she did. She is a victim of publicity, and her life has been a trial — enough to floor almost anyone. But in Lewinsky’s case, she took a bad situation and made something good of it. That hardly makes her ‘dumb-but-smart,’ but rather once young — and now older and incomparably wiser. An approximation of this befalls us all, but before we got to become wise and prudent in all things we were probably irresponsible, outrageous and wild — in other words, young.”
More here.
Meanwhile, Captain Ed at Captain’s Quarters named names and criticized the offending reporter — Libby Copeland– the day the story ran.
More here.
11 Responses to “Monica: We Still Hardly Know Ye”
Shaun I agree with the sentiment of your post. I find it absolutely ridiculous, how she as treated I mean. Something with casting the first stone I believe.
She erred, big time, but that was years ago already. She seems – I hope for her sake at least – to have learned from it, she didn’t let herself be ruined by it, she actually is becoming successful and focusing on other things… people should either respect her for that or they should not say anything at all.
Sorry for commenting twice in a row, but I am wondering: what did you exactly think of her and how did you – at that time – feel about the reporting about her? Did you object to it, in your articles?
Michael:
My initial instincts were mostly correct, although that has not always been the case when I dove into a story that was going to be a long slog.
I was enormously pissed at Clinton, whose womanizing was legendary, for screwing up again — with a White House intern, no less. I was unsympathetic to Monica, as well as Linda Tripp (who ratted her out) and I did a slow boil over the Republican pile-on in the form of Special Prosecutor Ken Starr’s pernicious investigation and then the impeachment vote and trial.
I never for a moment doubted that Clinton would be acquitted. Lying about blowjobs just doesn’t rise to the level of an offense that would demand the removal of a president from office. (On the other hand, I adamantly oppose impeaching President Bush, not because his offenses don’t rise to that level, but because such proceedings would be an enormous distraction at a crucial time. History will be the judge and jury and the verdict will be cruel.)
Where I did change my mind was about Monica, whom I — like Richard Cohen — sympathized with and still do.
Uhm, sleeping with your boss, even when your boss is president and married, can be considered a youthful indiscretion. Sleeping with your boss and then storing the dress with a semen sample of his shows purpose, shows intention to do harm.
I found the whole episode sordid and ridiculous (as if we didn’t have bigger issues than the president’s sex life). Frankly, I think it is an issue that should have stayed within the Clinton family. Monica is not to blame for the media storm, but she participated, and the “blue dress” showed that she wasn’t an unwilling passenger.
Cohen sure described Ken Starr right as the “creepy special prosecutor”. “Creepy” about sums it up.
Lynx:
Good morning.
I disagree with you insofar that the affair should have stayed within the Clinton family. While I find Linda Tripp to be a rather pathetic player, she did the Clinton family and nation a service.
The president owed his wife and the public an apology. We got one, however belatedly. That should have been the end of it.
I always felt that the whole affair reflected much more poorly on Clinton than on Monica. The public ridicule that she experienced was predictable and that’s exactly why an older, experienced man shows himself to be bereft of morals if he is willing to allow a young, star-stricken young woman to subject herself to the possibility of that consequence.
I agree with Cohen’s message, but disagree with his reasons. Simply dismissing Lewinsky’s act as a youthful indiscretion undermines his article. Cohen characterizes Lewinsky’s indiscretion as:
“Yet she did what so many women at that age would do. She seduced (or so she thought) an older man. She fantasized that he would leave his wife for her. Here was her crime: She was a girl besotted. It happens even to Republicans.”
I certainly can’t speak for MOST women at the “youthful” age of 23, but I suspect they would not appreciate the characterization of seductresses of older men. This is less about a youthful indiscretion than it is about a lack of self confidence/esteem on Lewinsky’s part.
Sanjay:
Well said. The more important point is that Monica appears to have grown because of the experience, not peddled herself to Entertainment Tonight, E! TV or The National Enquirer.
The greatest damage done by this entire fiasco was to “family values” and “we the people.” By forcing Monica’s mother to testify, Ken Starr forever destroyed the ability of parents to tell their children truthfully, “you can trust me. You can tell me anything.” Our children would be wise to remember that in Ken Starr’s America, children can never admit to their parents what they do not want exposed in court.
Or would the parents among us endorse perjury in that case; the same crime of discretion for which we rushed to judgment on Clinton’s decision not to “kiss and tell”? Well? Do you want your kids to tell you if they smoke pot or drink or have underage sex, or if they go along with a friend who breaks the law? They’d be wise to take the fifth.
Listen, I’m a big fan of Clinton. As far as president’s go he was one of the smartest and most capable statesmen we’ve had in the oval office. But getting a blowjob from an intern in the oval office was a disgrace. You don’t have to be a family values chestbeater to be offended by that. Its small potatoes compared to keeping the free world free, but nonetheless it is the first thing I think of when Clinton is mentioned now.
As for Monica, she got busted knowingly giving head to a married president in the most sacred office in our country. Guess what, you get to be on the news for a few years and live that disgrace down for the rest of your life. There is no such thing as fair in life, but what she got was pretty close. I’m sure she’s bright and going to go on to other things but I don’t think she was necessarily treated unfairly.