Corollary: Why was Lewinsky silent?
Theory #1 has to be: Monica and Monica acting alone as a free and independent woman in the modern world. She had her notoriety, which she attempted to leverage in various ways, and then she saw the limits of that approach and went low-profile, and now she believes she has a way to reconstruct her image (as a victim of internet humiliation, like Tyler Clementi, except that she resisted the impulse to respond to humiliation by jumping off a bridge, and she has gamely tried one thing after another from presidential "mistress" to Jenny Craig spokeslady to London School of Economics social psychologist — what a story of courage and survival in the face of adversity!)
But what are the other theories? Yesterday, as we were driving home from the dog park, I asked Meade the question in this post title, and his immediate response was: Hillary Clinton. You think the Clintons are using Monica Lewinsky, bending her to their will? Did they procure her 10-year silence too? Meade's thinking was: The Monica story is there, ready to spring forth, so inoculate yourself. Time it right where you want it.
I might not have blogged that conversation, but it came to mind when I read this Ruth Marcus column in The Washington Post this morning: "Monica Lewinsky does Hillary Clinton a big favor." Now, Marcus is all: "Monica Lewinsky may not have intended it this way, but she just did Hillary Clinton a big favor." Marcus isn't taking the next step: If it's a big favor to Hillary, then the Clintons procured the favor. That would be pure speculation, but given the questions — Who lured Monica Lewinsky out of her 10-year silence? and Why was Lewinsky silent for 10 years?— speculation should naturally involve analysis of who stands to benefit.
If it's in Hillary's interest to bring back the Monica story, wouldn't the Clintons have done that in 2008? As Marcus observes, the difference is that Rand Paul — a presumptive candidate in 2016 — "has already raised the question of whether Democrats in general, and Hillary Clinton in particular, should consort with a 'sexual predator' like Bill Clinton." And Lewinsky's new presentation stresses that she was a consenting adult, that her victimhood came as she "was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position" — whatever that means — and "It’s time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress." We're victimizing her if we remember her in the only form we would ever have known about her. So: Conversation over! Unless you're an abuser. Rand.
So that's Theory #2: Hillary and Bill Clinton.
Theory #3 — which was my original answer to my own question — is someone in the Democratic Party who wants to prompt Hillary to announce she's not going to run. Push her back. Scare the prospective grandmother out of the impending ugliness so the donor money can flow to somebody else. I can see the self-interest this other Democrat might have, but not how this person would get to Lewinsky.
Theory #4: Somebody on the GOP side. Who? Why? How?
Theory #5: Vanity Fair saw the money in a cover story on Monica Lewinsky. Obviously, we're all looking at Vanity Fair this week, so they'd have been right to see self-interest in this. And it's also easy to see how they got to Lewinsky. It's a direct arrangement: They paid her to write her story.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८५ टिप्पण्या:
"It’s time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress."
Back to blowing Bill.
Elizabeth Warren
Big Blowjob.
Has she written another book, and the publisher needs her to promote the book on the coat-tails of Hillary's presidential bid?
I assume she had to wait until a federal judge quashed a John Doe probe.
I think Liz Cheney nailed it... Clinton wanted this to be old news.
Rand Paul recently brought up Lewinsky, so Vanity Fair thought "hey whatever happened to her?" Of course, before publishing the story Vanity Fair asked Hillary and Bill if they were okay with the story. The Clintons said, sure, why not.
August 3, 1998, the John and Ken show
Ken: but anyway what's supposed to be coming down is it's supposed to take four days and it's been that long, it's just some FBI conclusions as to whether or not that is indeed a human stain of sexual encounter ...
John: ..A human stain..I'm sorry, we've found it's not a human stain... [announcer voice] In a bizarre twist in the Monica Lewinsky case, the stain apparently did not come from a human..
Ken: ..It could be the canine family or..
John: ..[announcer voice] We now go to our White House correspondent. [correspondent voice] Well the White House is now breathing a sigh of relief, as they've discovered that apparently some other mammal contributed the stain to Monica's dress..
It was dose ebil, ebil, Republicans.
Also, the other presumptive nominee for 2016 is Joe Biden. Bringing up this story when running against Barack Obama would probably have led to even more cries of racism.
Why?
The train logic I see (especially given Al Sharpton, et. al.) is this:
Monica and Bill did this.
A lot of black men and women do the same thing, and more. (Exhibit A: the 'Are you the father' segment on Maury Povich.)
So bringing the subject up is an attack on black people.
Therefore Racist!
Hillary does not have to be a sociopath or really anything to see the possibility of becoming President, and particularly the First Female President. If the idds look even 50/50, most people would endure just abput anything for that prize.
That said, Hillary may have the worst motives and plans. Regardless, it is just short of impossible to imagine a person that has made decisions that move towards becoming Presodent for basically her entire adukt life changing now. Even if she loses, she will have made history.
Dick Morris became useless to me when he predicted years ago, over and over again, that Hillary wpuld npt run. He lost all credibility then.
Put me down for absolutely no chance she sits it out.
As I commented yesterday, I predict a friendly news outlet will shortly do an extensive interview with Hillary and the Monica thing will be covered. I bet its already scheduled if not already in the can.
Hillary will tell us how long ago and far away all that seems now and how it was much ado about nothing in retrospect. She'll wish Monica well, holding no ill will. She'll tell us about the wisdom she's gained and how it all made her and her marriage stronger.
The MSM will marvel at Hillary's resiliance, suggest we could all learn by example and politely agree never to mention the subject again.
the Clintons. Monica is a squirrel. If we're talking about her, we're not talking about Benghazi.
Theory #4 (GOP/Republican operative) makes no sense, as there is no benefit to those parties from it. Given the Stupid Party's track record, therefore, it is entirely possible.
I'm with Meade, though, in that I believe the Clinton machine is behind it. I also believe they've double-blind isolated themselves, probably using a surrogate at Vanity Fair as initiator, to enhance the illusion that this was Monica's idea, and she's easy enough to manipulate that I'm sure she thinks it is.
Vanity Fair did it. Magazines are dying, and they need to get exposure where they can.
I think Liz Cheney nailed it... Clinton wanted this to be old news.
What's interesting is that, according to modern progressive logic, Lewinsky cannot declare herself to not be a victim. "Clinton was her boss, and a male and the power differential meant that Lewinsky had zero choice", goes the thinking. "If she thought it was consensual then that's just showing how badly the power differential was abused."
The Clintons, and Lewinsky's parents, rich Democratic donors to make the affair "old news" that nobody would be interested any more in 2015, and to divert attention from Benghazi which is the real Hillary killer.
Like it or not Lewinsky was the other woman, Hillary was the wronged suffering spouse most loser woman voters could relate to. Will get her the sympathy votes, we women together can conquer the world crap.
Benghazi, Hillary was an incompetent bureaucrat who botched her 3:00 am call, got Americans, one of whom was an ambassador, killed, and lied about the incidence. "What difference, at this point, does it make?"
Ann you've jumped the shark.
The word "procure" suggests a financial inducement. There are lots of non-financial ways to induce behaviors, and as I've said in the past the Clintons and their beady-eyed followers do possess a certain low cunning.
Hillary has a new book coming out. The conditions that control the release of Hillary's communications in the White are due to expire. Her whole book will be damage control on these releases.
Monica's agent isn't stupid. She's advised to get out ahead of Hillary's narrative. Vanity Fair is also not stupid. It will proudly carry any flag to draw in readers. It's a 150 page tabloid.
I went with #1.
I agree with her that it was consentual. I never though of it as non-consentual.
It doesn't harm or do the Clinton's any favors.
I actually think the Clintons went to Vanity Fair to ask Monica to do this essay. Vanity Fair didn't tell Monica, that the Clintons were behind it. I used to have a subscription to Vanity Fair until it turned into a magazine for the Democratic Party. Then I cancelled it.
Does not need to be only one. Monica likely wanted some limelight. Vanity Fair certainly wanted the story. Clinton may have "approved," in the sense I doubt Vanity Fair would go forward without checking with Clinton. I voted Monica, because no story without her wanting to do it.
"It’s time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress."
That's good. Hillary doesn't have to keep having the hem taken out on hers.
Ever notice that we're it not for the dress all "right thinking" people would self-righteously denounce anyone who believed her, and thought President Clinton was lying as extremist nut-jobs?
The inoculation theory makes the most sense. Monica, like many do, blame her post BJ treatment on the right wing, not on Bill and Hillary. She has no real animus towards them and in 2016 when this story comes up.."Dude, that was two years ago!"
The media will play along.
And Lewinsky's new presentation stresses that she was a consenting adult, that her victimhood came as she "was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position" — whatever that means — and "It’s time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress."
Before the blue dress came to (black?) light, there was a concerted political effort to portray Monica as unstable, obsessed and psychotic. At least some of the character assassins knew the truth. The scapegoating didn't totally work out for the Clintons, but it wasn't because they didn't try.
Consider that there are other women who could also tell stories about hookups with Bill Clinton.
The main thrust of the Vanity Fair piece was how the scandal has dogged Monica Lewinsky's life and career aspirations. That's the Vanity Fair message.
Also, Monica may not have told the full truth back in 1998. She may feel she deserves a payoff. That's Monica's message.
#6 Somebody drug a 100 dollar bill through a trailer park.
Obama. He doesn't want to be succeeded by Hillary. Benghazi will fall in her lap as well.
Given the propensity of Clinton's enemies to meet an untimely death (67 and counting) I'm surprised she spoke-up at all.
Given the propensity of Clinton's enemies to meet an untimely death (67 and counting) I'm surprised she spoke-up at all.
In 2008 Beyonce and Miley were not singing about Clinton & Lewinsky. It is now a laugh topic in the popular culture in a way it was not in 2008. So the Clintons are working damage control. Having Lewinsky present herself as an eager participant makes it sound like Bill was seduced. This presents the Clintons as almost the victims of the young seductress.
The whole "Hillary Clinton is an inevitable president" whistling past the graveyard and smart Democrats know it. She has many, many huge strikes against her:
1) Age
2) Presidential generational switch has occurred (cf. Straus and Howe on this)
3) Never run as a successful candidate for any office
4) Serious health issues that have largely been hushed up
5) Eight years of tawdry Clinton scandals to provide endless grist for attack adds
6) A "Royal Family" affect (also afflicts Jeb Bush)
7) Absolutely no indication she can appeal outside of core Democratic constituencies
8) Deep misgivings from the left/liberal wing of the party.
Everyone, the Clinton's, Vanity Fair, Lewinsky, benefit from having the remaining laundry aired this year rather than next. By the time Hillary needs to surface for the 2016 election, it will be old news. Lewinsky gets a paycheck and writes her story on her terms, rather than getting messed up again later on when she won't be able to control the narrative. Vanity Fair gets future issues about Hillary. The democrats will also see this as a playbook for getting Benghazi off the table.
Monica.
She looked at the political tea leaves and realized that Hillary is going to run for President, which would bring up Monica and the Blue Dress (c).
Monica wants to get this out and over with asap. Better never, but frankly better now rather than drag it out later.
Well yeah, Vanity Fair, but VF is notoriously friendly to the Clintons, so it's not too far-fetched to imagine somebody in the Hillary Clinton camp suggested a Monica interview to VF.
Tangentially related: does anyone actually think that Hillary got out-hustled in '08?
I can't help but think that she, viewing her negatives decided to "let BHO win" as a spacer, and also dive on the healthcare grenade.
The only fly in her ointment is Benghazi.
"Obviously, we're all looking at Vanity Fair this week." No, not all. I never pick up the commie rag myself.
How someone other than the Clintons would have "gotten to Lewinisky" is the same way the Clintons may have done it: Use their contacts at Vanity Fair (or a press agent). Monica may be blissfully unaware that someone was behind Vanity Fair's interest in the story. I don't think Monica needed to know that by doing the story she was helping the Clintons or some other Democrat.
She might have been willing to provide that kind of favor, but, if you were the person wanting the favor, why would you ask her for it? Asking her to help Bill or Hillary might have resulted in a firm "No!" She might have tweeted out: "Can you believe what the Clintons are asking of me?" Directly asking for the favor could have gotten ugly in a lot of ways.
Getting Vanity Fair to ask her for the story was less risky. They could have always asked her for the favor if she'd have turned down the magazine. Why not get someone else to ask her to do what they wanted?
I used to think I'd vote for a woman president only if she looked like Golda Meir. Old Hillary is getting there (but I won't vote for anyone from the Alinskyite party).
I think Monica knows she will be in play if Hillary runs, so she is just trying to get out ahead of it.
Well, the "how" of getting to her, no matter who is trying to do the getting, would be to use an intermediary in the media or publishing world.
I think theory #1 is most plausible though. It's not like the reaction to this is a sure thing- after all, you can argue that it either helps Hillary to get it out of the way or that it hurts or scares her off. Too iffy for an opponent to bet on it either way, I would think.
Vanity Fair and the Clintons are linked cheek by jowl. I dont' think separating them is worthwhile.
I hope she did this for herself.
Trey
Anne; You might wish to read this cautionary note on dog parks; http://leerburg.com/dogparks.htm
Mark Mazer
Hertford, NC
It’s time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress.
She's not burying anything – she's resurrecting the blue dress. Just one of the many contradictory items in the article.
I do not believe the Clinton's paid her off to keep her quiet or directly instigated the article through a surrogate at Vanity Fair because if such a thing were found out it could be damaging to them. It doesn't require any classic conspiracy or direct prompting by the Clintons for the MSM to know what to do for their favorite couple.
I voted for the Vanity Fair option. It was to sell magazines. That the article may or may not(I think not) benefit Hillary is simply an interesting byproduct of the situation.
Anne, Perhaps you might wish to read this cautionary note on dog parks: http://leerburg.com/dogparks.htm
Mark Mazer
Hertford, NC
Theory #6: Who cares?
"Vanity Fair and the Clintons are linked cheek by jowl."
Lips to butt cheeks, maybe.
"Also, the other presumptive nominee for 2016 is Joe Biden."
From your lips to God's ear.
I don't by the "she want this to be old news" as a reason to bring it up now because:
(1) This is too soon to bring it up for that purpose; and
(2) For Christ's sake, this is from '98 - bringing it up won't make it "older". Hell, it might make it "newer".
" Hillary doesn't have to keep having the hem taken out on hers."
She will, however, have to continue to let out the waistline.
To answer your question, why now versus 2008, Benghazi.
Silence was in their (everyone's, really) benefit indefinitely.
But Benghazi is a threat. It happened on her watch. The coordinated push-back right now is to dismiss concerns about Benghazi as some sort of conspiracy theory, to be lumped in with everything the grand "right wing conspiracy" has thrown at the Clintons before, according to them.
So you have Monica back in the spotlight. Yesterday, you had Hillary bringing up Vince Foster. You have Reid saying there will be no Senate investigation into some conspiracy theory. You have Obama saying either yesterday or today, that the right will have a hard time "proving Hillary was born in Kenya."
To me, these many threads fit together. Try and lump Benghazi in with all of that, and take advantage of the fact that people had tuned out all of the rest, and had turned hostile to the GOP for pushing those.
To answer your question, why now versus 2008, Benghazi.
Silence was in their (everyone's, really) benefit indefinitely.
But Benghazi is a threat. It happened on her watch. The coordinated push-back right now is to dismiss concerns about Benghazi as some sort of conspiracy theory, to be lumped in with everything the grand "right wing conspiracy" has thrown at the Clintons before, according to them.
So you have Monica back in the spotlight. Yesterday, you had Hillary bringing up Vince Foster. You have Reid saying there will be no Senate investigation into some conspiracy theory. You have Obama saying either yesterday or today, that the right will have a hard time "proving Hillary was born in Kenya."
To me, these many threads fit together. Try and lump Benghazi in with all of that, and take advantage of the fact that people had tuned out all of the rest, and had turned hostile to the GOP for pushing those.
There is only one way to analyze this: how can "consensual sex" be anything other than the proximate result of "sexual predator"? Therefore, it's the Clintons
Nobody on that list, including Monica, benefits in the slightest by that language.
For whatever it's worth, I can't really see that crone, Hillary, running. This is probably more about BillyBoy legacy than about the old ball and chain. And what better time than when the field of potential ebil causation agents is so large?
- Krumhorn
She needed the money, pure and simple. Financial need trumps politics (either right or left) every time.
Vicki From Pasadena
Sorry Monica but for all time you will be remembered as a great blow-job artist.
I beleive Monica did it as payback for the way she was trashed by the Clinton machine.
I really hope she saw this as a way to screw Hillarys chances and to humiliate the Clintons.
I followed a link from AA to the Starr Report a couple of months ago.
Lewinsky lied to protect Bill, and appeared to actually believe they had a love affair with a future.
Makes me think of the woman accomplice in a crime.
Immediately after arrest, many will "stand by their man".
Talk to them in prison after a couple of years and it's more about how that man coerced her into being a criminal, and what a fool she was to love him.
It's LYNNE Cheyney, not daughter LIZ, who has been talking about this as a Clinton innoculation scheme.
My company's cafeteria shows CNN continuously on wall-mounted flat screens, and Ashleigh Banfield was brandishing the cover of today's New York Post while talking about how Monica "took it on the chin."
To my everlasting shame, my first thought was "no, where she took it was an inch or so higher on her face."
They called her a "nut and a slut". Unless the Clintons are banking on some sort of an "old news" angle, bringing up their pattern of branding inconvenient women "nuts and sluts" doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Also, I can kinda' sorta' see where people think there's a "Squirrel!" angle, but if Bill's treatment of women and Hill's enablement is "old news" and the Libya business is "old news", there has to be a point where people understand where there's that much old news, there might be fire, to mix metaphors ...
Esquire article a distraction from #BENGHAZI?
Was Monica involved in #BENGHAZI? #PRAY4BENGHAZI
Teaser from Monica and Bill: An Internship.
There I was
naked but resolute beneath the Resolute Desk. Somewhere above me, in the world of light, Bill's voice was working its magic on the Oval's unsuspecting occupants, foreign leaders or some shit like that, eating out of his hand. He was amazing, always.
Frustrated, I gave the little brass tab a good jerk, but slipped out of my fingers and I banged my head and cursed. I could be real idiot in those days. Instantly Bill's big right hand appeared and deftly dealt with the trousers I'd been fighting for several long minutes. He had to be annoyed. Bill was impatient with any form of incompetence. But his voice never wavered and in my mind I could see that famous look of sincerity no one seemed able to resist. Mother fucking Theresa would've sucked his dick if that's what he wanted. The thought made me a little jealous and I made up my mind that Bill would not remember a word of what he'd agreed to with these assholes, whoever they were.
This meeting was with me.
The non career of Mrs Clinton does not draw commitment fromto uncommitted voters. But the crimes of our beloved President Bill Clinton make us co-guilty for crimes of betrayed of the faithful wife Hillary. Ergo: we must attone for Lewinsky by making her President at last, thank god almighty, President at last.
NB. Vince Foster is the problem she cannot bury far enough.
I think the Clintons could well be behind it, but indirectly. Someone from the Clinton camp contacted someone at Vanity Fair - possibly just asking leading questions or supposing - and Vanity Fair contacted Monica. So, basically, I'm agreeing with DK Walser.
It just seems very obvious to me that this does Hillary a big favor: stop talking about Bill's disreputable behavior and her enablement of it.
I think someone bought 10 years of silence. Now that it's over, she can cash in.
I think someone bought 10 years of silence. Now that it's over, Monica can cash in again as well as defend her character.
What's the difference between "Some Democrat" and "Vanity Fair"?
She loved Bill, thought he loved her. She also was twitterpated, swept up by the aphrodisiac of power. Ditto Bill and Hillary and ... and ... and .................
All senior executives have been alerted to the fact that it is now A-OK to get blowjobs from consenting staff including, especially!, interns. All that male dominance, hegemony, harassment in the workplace is now obsolete.
Hillary is not the spouse of an executive who took advantage of his power and appeal over a young woman with little appeal and no power. She is simply the spouse of a guy who needed a blowjob and got one from a consenting woman who worked for him.
To me it's just a reminder that if Bill Clinton had been a Republican he'd have been hounded out of office by the MSM and the Democrats as a rapist. And Hilary was complicit.
It is Clinton machine.
This is timed so that the Monica story does double duty. It is close enough to the election that it will be too soon to revive the story before the election, but it is early enough that no one is really paying attention enough that they will learn anything about Clintonian behavior.
The double duty is that this trivial story will be part of the meme that "Those Republicans have no ideas, they are just so scared of Hillary that they are dredging up this old TMZ tripe...and Benghazi...which is also old news."
Anyone who still cares about this stuff, blue dresses and internet videos, they must be a crank. Once this conflation is made, Hillary is innoculated.
"Corollary: Why was Lewinsky silent?"
This is a "framing" question. What could make Lewinsky behave this way?
Lefties like framing. Framing puts pictures in a box. Those dogs are just playing poker!
The real world is complex, and full of bad faith. Lewinsky is not worthy of admiration. She's trying to make some money. She worked for a Democratic POTUS who was an obvious asshole. She should have known better.
So who lured her out? The question does not interest me.
Why are you interested?
2&5. The Clinton's put Vanity Fair onto Monica to "draw the sting" and put a Clinton spin on it to help Hillary.
Naturally, the folks at Vanity Fair were all for it.
Of course the fact remains that Clinton got in trouble not for a blow job, but for perjury, and Hillary facilitated him.
Clinton was a serial aggressor. Hillary is her political partner, the 2 in the 2 for 1 deal. He ruined Lewinsky's life. Though she consented, as the prayer goes, 'Lead us not into temptation and deliver us from evil.'
Meade, you too have gone over to the dark side: at 9:27am
Vanity Fair is friendly with the Clintons.
"what a story of courage and survival in the face of adversity!)"
You don't think it took courage to actively seek and give blow jobs to a president?
Considering she's trying to blame Drudge for her notoriety, cui bono says Hillary for the double-whammy: first, as mentioned, she's consensual and takes the onus off Bill's predations; second, Drudge, that "conservative" was victimizing her. #waronwomen #evilrepublicans
Its surreal. For President, America is going to elect the wife of an impeached president.
Shame must have died. If Nixon had been impeached, he would have never shown his face in public again.
But the Clintons? Nah. They're just getting warmed up.
"It’s time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress."
Hee...the only thing that distinguishes Monica Lewinsky from Monica Schlubinsky is the blue dress. Embrace the suck, Monica!
The blue-stained dress is emblematic of whats wrong with the Clintons - Monica had to pull a cum-stained dress out of her closet to get them to finally be honest.
Anyone who votes for 4 more years of that is an idiot.
Does Ms. L. have regular employment? I don't know. Maybe she needed some income and Vanity Fair supplied it.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा