August 21, 2021

"To me, the crime is that Monica, Linda and Paula had no control over how they were perceived... It was unbelievable, the hate."

Said Sarah Burgess, a producer and writer of most of the 10-episode series "Impeachment," quoted in "'Impeachment' Focuses on the Women Behind Clinton’s Scandals/In a group interview, Ryan Murphy and the stars and creators of the FX drama discuss why they made Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky the stars of the show, and why we still care" (NYT).
Set in the 1990s, the 10-episode series revisits the miasma of scandal and innuendo that shrouded the Clinton White House: Paula Jones’s sexual harassment lawsuit against President Bill Clinton; Clinton’s sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky; Lewinsky’s friendship with Linda Tripp; and the tangle of lies, half-truths and illicit recordings that were ultimately detailed in the Starr Report, the infamous and lurid document prepared by the independent counsel Kenneth Starr....
From the group interview with Annaleigh Ashford (Paula Jones), Sarah Paulson (Linda Tripp), Beanie Feldstein (Monica Lewinsky), and Ryan Murphy (who isn't really identified in the article/we're just told it's "Ryan Murphy's 'Impeachment'):
Clinton’s popularity soared. Lewinsky became a punchline. Why did we hate this woman so much? 
ASHFORD Some of it has to do with how uncomfortable people are with sex. People can’t handle not making a joke about it. 
PAULSON I wonder if it’s what we’re unwilling to look at in ourselves, in terms of this hatred toward Monica. I would have gone into that back room [Bill Clinton’s Oval Office study, where he and Lewinsky engaged in sexual activity], without question. 
MURPHY I would have done it, too. 
PAULSON It’s just the whole patriarchal story of accepting his desire, and it being celebrated and understood. And she’s really punished for giving in to her own desire. There is something about vilifying that when it comes from a woman. 
BEANIE FELDSTEIN To Monica’s credit, even in the Barbara Walters interview, she doesn’t shy away. She doesn’t apologize. She just states the fact. She holds her ground in saying it was mutual. Now we obviously see there was a deep imbalance of power and a very nuanced situation. But why should she be shamed for that, when he, the President of the United States, was never shamed for that? I’m getting a little emotional because I love her so much — I really care about her as a character and as a person. I think it’s just devastating. And it doesn’t get less devastating the more we talk about it. I hope that the show undoes some of the pain.

As long as we're talking about feminist issues, why does this article expect us to know Ryan Murphy?! The NYT normally identifies everyone the first time they're mentioned in an article, even when they are very very famous. 

I had to look Murphy up in Wikipedia:
Ryan Patrick Murphy (born November 9, 1965) is an American television writer, director, and producer. He is best known for creating and producing a number of television series, such as Popular (1999–2001), Nip/Tuck (2003–2010), Glee (2009–2015), American Horror Story (2011–present), Scream Queens (2015–2016), American Crime Story (2016-present), Pose (2018–2021), 9-1-1 (2018–present), The Politician (2019–present), 9-1-1: Lone Star (2020–present), Ratched (2020–present), and American Horror Stories (2021-present).
So is he the writer, director, or producer of "Impeachment" AKA "Ryan Murphy's 'Impeachment'"? Or does he stick his name on other people's projects, so that the NYT can't even say what his role is? But then, why include him in the interview, especially an interview full of women talking about women as depicted in a TV series focusing on the perspective of women?!

And consider his contribution in the little snippet of the interview I quoted: "I would have done it, too." I presume that means he'd have had sex in the White House with Bill Clinton too, just like Monica. 

44 comments:

Limited blogger said...

wasn't it Bill Clinton's impeachment?

WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...

democraticals get to do what they want. celebrated for their exploits and out and out corruption (Biden-Pelosi families)

Imagine if Trump boinked a young intern in the oval office?

Imagine if Trump's sons behaved like Hunter Biden.

WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...

Clinton’s popularity soared. Lewinsky became a punchline. Why did we hate this woman so much?

The left adored this man. Bill could do no wrong. The phony feminists wanted to line up to give Bill a blow job. Trashing other women - all standard leftist-feminist operating procedure.

Drago said...

"nd the tangle of lies, half-truths and illicit recordings that were ultimately detailed in the Starr Report, the infamous and lurid document prepared by the independent counsel Kenneth Starr...."

Ah yes, its not the actions re: Clinton that were documented that were infamous and lurid, it was the document and the document preparer that were lurid.

Ken Starr "Pounces"!

Temujin said...

"Why did we hate this woman so much?

Who is 'we'?
Find the answer to that and you'll have your answer.

But here it is. Why did you all hate her so much? The answer is (D). Bill was a Democrat. Just like Andrew Cuomo in today's news. Or Joe Biden. Years have passed yet no lessons have been learned except one: Party Uber Alles. Everybody knew it and protected him because he had a (D) next to his name. Had Bill been a Republican, his earlier rape of Juanita Broaddrick would have been taken seriously and shown by all media, not just by one slip of NBC, one time only. You all know this. Somehow the people who scream the loudest about feminism or women's rights still don't get this.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Our elite media agreed with and promoted Clinton’s famous “nuts and sluts” attacks disguised as a defense of him. How they loved to mock Linda Tripp and fat-shame her. Women who crossed the Clintons were treated like scum and an entire industry of professional feminist scolds who had made any work-related sexual contact with subordinates a crime suddenly fell silent when the most powerful executive casually used a volunteer as a sex toy and humidor. Feminism Inc. gave him a Mulligan. “She wanted it” reappeared after being banished to phrase time-out. It was suddenly fashionable to admire Monica for her conquest of Clinton, turning everything the feminists said about power imbalances upside down.

Quaestor said...

Set in the 1990s, the 10-episode series revisits the miasma of scandal and innuendo that shrouded the Clinton White House...

Miasma.

Not an actual scandal -- just the stink of one.

Quaestor said...

Temujin writes, "Somehow the people who scream the loudest about feminism or women's rights still don't get this.

It's called cognitive dissonance. Socialism relies on it.

Sally327 said...

I wonder if the mini-series will cover any part of Operation Infinite Reach, the missile strikes Clinton authorized on Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in August 1998, an attack that some believed, at the time, was intended as a diversion from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

I didn't think that myself, at the time.


William said...

I read through the article. The series doesn't look like it's going to be very fair. The actress playing Linda Tripp thinks that Linda's behavior was morally objectionable in every way. Maybe not. If a sexual predator is at large in the White House shouldn't a concerned citizen take whatever steps necessary to bring it to the public's attention.....Monica was the executive producer. It sounds like the series will present her side of the story. It seems to me that the President of the United States should be able to resist the manipulations of the twenty something intern, but, for the record, Monica was manipulative. She tried to leverage her relationship with the President into a plum job at the United Nations. She was presented to the public as a joke, but she was never portrayed as a nefarious character. Monica certainly had a sinister side, but the villain of the piece has always been Tripp......From what I read it doesn't seem the series will make any effort to give Tripp a makeover...I wonder if the series will focus or even mention Hillary's efforts to destroy the reputations of Monica and Paula Jones. The bet here is no......I don't see how you can dramatize Monica's so called victim status without implicating Bill Clinton and Hillary, but that's not the way of the Emmy....From the article, it doesn't seem that they made much of an effort to tell Paula Jones' story in a sympathetic way either....I'm old. I won't live to see Ryan Murphy's series about how Joe Biden bravely extricated us from the quagmire of Afghanistan.

Sebastian said...

"To me, the crime is that Monica, Linda and Paula had no control over how they were perceived... It was unbelievable, the hate."

Why unbelievable? Dem party = organized hate. Works politically: Hill became a candidate, Bill spoke at their conventions, money flowed to their foundation, etc.

Of course, the derogation of Clinton's victims shows Dems don't believe their own BS. As Althouse pointed out long ago about feminists slobbering over Bill.

Wa St Blogger said...

Temujin,

It is the D, but it is more what the D represents. There is one over-arching issue that the D represents. It isn't feminism, because they will toss any woman under the bus if she dares speak out of turn. It isn't Socialism, they tossed Bernie aside to get Joe. They also pretty much purged the party of Blue dogs. So it is not party uber alles. It is abortion uber alles. That is what people do not get.

mikee said...

What an interesting History class it would be, to watch media reinterpretations of historical events from the Kennedy years to the present, and then revisit the documented, recorded words and actions of those portrayed on screen. The difference between reality and portrayal might strike some as worth correcting. But who would watch the truth about History?

mikee said...

And the Starr Report is the first government document I ever read that made me laugh aloud. Clinton should have been ridiculed out of office, not impeached, for his infamous and lurid behavior.

Wilbur said...

So an executive fooled around with an intern and exchanged sexual pleasures with her.

I always regarded this as none of my business on all levels - except one. And that is that Bill Clinton did this while POTUS. Doing so exposed himself and thus his office to blackmail, and thereby could have very easily been in thrall to a foreign country.

THIS was the impeachable element of what he did, and yet was never specifically brought up during the proceedings.

Gunner said...

I think Paulson just admitted that her being gay is a choice.

wendybar said...

And Pantsuit called them "BIMBO ERUPTIONS!!" So much for women standing for women. Those women were in her way to become President, so she stood beside her cheating groper of a husband, denouncing the women he groped, and has the nerve to talk about Justice Kavenaugh??

Drago said...

mikee: "Clinton should have been ridiculed out of office, not impeached, for his infamous and lurid behavior."

Suborning perjury is impeachable...if you aren't a democratical.

Drago said...

Wilbur: "THIS was the impeachable element of what he did, and yet was never specifically brought up during the proceedings."

Clinton suborned perjury.

gilbar said...

just to be clear?
if i support abortions, am *i* allowed to do ANYTHING I WANT, to women?
Or; do i have to be richer, and more powerful?
Just trying to figure out the rules

Yancey Ward said...

Drago got to the point I was going make- the suborning of perjury is missing in that excerpt, and I suspect it is missing in the entire article, but I don't care enough to read it.

Yancey Ward said...

I wonder if it is completely elided in the mini-series? I don't see how that is possible, but I tried to quit to underestimate the ability of people to lie a long time ago.

Chris Lopes said...

@Drago

You beat me to it. I remember that being the main point, which was covered up by the "it's only sex" thing. I also remember the "she's a nut" ploy that I actually bought into before the blue dress showed up.

Readering said...

No subplot about Marianne, Callista and Newt "choose open marriage or divorce" Gingrich?

Another old lawyer said...

So you're saying that Ryan Murphy quote can be summarized as "Me Too"?

(Thanks for the softball, which I presume was intentional.)

What's the over/under for number of Emmy nominations (excluding any technical categories)? I say 7 but that feels conservative.

Yancey Ward said...

Did Newt suborn perjury, Readering?

Yancey Ward said...

You don't have to answer, Readering- it was rhetorical.

Tom Grey said...

"I never had sex with that woman" - a LIE told both in public and under oath.

Proven to be a lie by the blue dress with Slick Willy's little willie juice on it.

But even proof of a perjury is not enough to get a Democrat punished.

No wonder some 95% or so of the top officials of the gov't are Dems - (D) is better than a Get Out of Jail Free card.

Clinton clearly committed perjury, under oath.
Democrats voted against impeaching him.
Lying don't matter to Dems, when it's a D lying.

And they complain about Trump's claim that his inauguration was bigger than Obama's ( no official count shows; tho news pictures showed a misleading 2 hour early view)

On hating the women, note how much flack was given to Trump when, after failing to pick up one beauty, was bragging about how he just goes and kisses women.
Since women, when faced with Power, Fame, Money, (hit singles!) such women let men do anything.
"Anything?"
"Anything, grab them by the pussy, anything".

Many feminists hate the truth that so many real women, really do let men do anything.

Yet they don't hate the D men doing this, like Sleepy Joe actually grabbing Tara Reade by the pussy. Which she reported as sexual harassment, in a document the Dems "lost" (likely destroyed).

D feminist fabulist lies about Kavanaugh were despicable. Blasey Ford illegally lied and slandered, but was protected by Dems.

D feminists are hypocrites to support Clinton, or Biden, or LBJ or JFK, without complaint yet complain of the similar cheating actions of Trump. Who I supported while condemning his sexual cheating.

Wa St Blogger said...

Gilbar,

Unfortunately you usually have to have some power to advance the issue to get away with the big things. If you can't actually nominate Supreme Court Justices, or at least vote on them in congress, you will be limited. But even declaring support can get you passes on some of the little stuff.

Wilbur said...

Of course he suborned perjury; my point, however inartfully made, was that the gravamen of the case for impeachment should have been that his purposeful and deliberate conduct placed himself in real danger of blackmail. That behavior which occurs while in office cannot be tolerated from a sitting president.

Jamie said...

To me, the crime is that Monica, Linda and Paula had no control over how they were perceived...

While this isn't a terribly important point, what the...? Since when does anyone have control over how they are perceived? What a ridiculous statement. You can try all you like to influence people's perceptions of you, but you can't ever control them.

OTOH, that this was the Althouse "headline" makes me think that maybe it's not as unimportant a point as all that. It goes to the fact that the whole article is going to be incoherent and silly. Why did we hate this woman so much, indeed. Yeah, sure, it was because "we" are all so uncomfortable about sex. That's why.

Drago said...

Wilbur: "Of course he suborned perjury; my point, however inartfully made, was that the gravamen of the case for impeachment should have been that his purposeful and deliberate conduct placed himself in real danger of blackmail. That behavior which occurs while in office cannot be tolerated from a sitting president."

I cannot disagree with that.

I mean, I could, but that would make me a shlub.

Drago said...

Readering is very wisely running away as fast as his/her/xer little legs can carry him/her/xer from the threads on Generallisimo Biden's latest military "success" story and is on this thread desperately attempting to change the subject.

Par for the course.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

"She holds her ground in saying it was mutual"

But we know it wasn't, because Bill told us it wasn't in his attempts to deal with his perjury about "did you have sex with Monica?"

He said she had sex with him, because she was servicing him, but he didn't have sex with her, because he was just using her.

So no, it was never in any way "mutual"

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Why does the Left hate Monica?

Because her telling the truth hurt their powerful thug. And that's not ok

Lucien said...

As long as the focus is not on Juanita Broadderick the Clintons are ahead of the game.

Bunkypotatohead said...

I would rather see the Drunk History retelling of this episode.
Though the people who produced that show wouldn't have the nerve.

MadTownGuy said...

Wa St Blogger said...

"Temujin,

It is the D, but it is more what the D represents... It is abortion uber alles. That is what people do not get.
"

I think it goes beyond that. Even the abortion issue is not merely about individual choice, but about the cognoscenti exercising power and control over the deplorables. Wouldn't want them to overpopulate and become unmanageable. So said Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes, even if not in those words.

Paddy O said...

If Bill Clinton was a Republican, they'd all have professorships.

Wa St Blogger said...

MadtownGuy,

Even the abortion issue is not merely about individual choice, but about the cognoscenti exercising power and control over the deplorables. Wouldn't want them to overpopulate and become unmanageable.

I disagree. Yes, Sanger was a Eugenicist. It was all the rage back then, but today the same Cognoscenti are importing people by the millions, and the blacks are their strongest voting block, so this is not about population control of subgroups.

Wilbur said...

It occurs to me the best response to my point is: Where is the high crime or misdemeanor in opening yourself up to be blackmailed? His conduct evinced a reckless disregard for the possible danger to the country, but is that impeachable?

Kathy from Boston said...

I don't want to attach the blame for Bill Clinton's actions to Hillary, but I often ask myself why is Hillary considered a feminist icon?

Big Mike said...

@Wilbur, perjury isn’t a felony? The things I learn here! I recall the Democrats and their media allies pushing the line that the Constitution says “high crimes and misdemeanors” and it doesn’t say anything about “felonies.” When that didn’t work, they tried — and they were quite explicit about it — “it was just a little lying about sex and don’t all men lie about sex?” Well, that one did work and Senate Democrats had the cover they needed to vote to acquit.

Should Bill Clinton have been impeached? History has already answered that, but even at the time I — hardcore Republican that I am — thought a vote of censure was what was called for.

Narr said...

Blackmail? How quaint--the case proved what others have already said: D's are essentially unblackmailable. The Clintons prove it time and again, and the Biden's have inherited the mantle now. (For now--Clinton was smart, not like Resident Joe.)