Oral history: The Monica Lewinsky scandal ten years on

January 15, 2008 9:59 AM

Oral history This is the best synopsis of the Clinton scandal that I've read. - the U.S. press would never print this.
posted by wyspa03 (26 comments total)

the U.S. press would never print this.

Says who? Why?
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 10:03 AM on January 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

Paula Jones was not the first of the Clinton women. There had been many before her and there were more after.

Really? Any god damned proof? Or does that mean women he dated in college?

This is tabloid crap. Interestingly timed tabloid crap.
posted by tkchrist at 10:04 AM on January 15, 2008

The Blowjob So Evil It Pre-emptively Impeached Hillary

PS: WMDs still not found in Iraq. *yawn*
posted by DU at 10:08 AM on January 15, 2008

the U.S. press would never print this

that's because it's old news
posted by pyramid termite at 10:08 AM on January 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

For it was in the wake of the scandal, in which Hillary was seen as the wronged wife, that she decided to run for the Senate from New York. Her shamed husband, anxious to try to make things up to her, eagerly threw his weight behind the move. A wave of sympathy helped to sweep her to victory. As soon as she was elected, talk began about her running for president.

I think, were Chris Matthews to own a newspaper, he would print this.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:09 AM on January 15, 2008 [2 favorites]

If New York City is known for one thing, it is sympathy.
posted by DU at 10:11 AM on January 15, 2008

I never, ever want to read about this ever again. Clinton fatigue is probably one of the biggest strikes against Hilary.

The biggest irony here is that Hilary gets shit for what conservatives say you should do: not get divorced on account of the kids.
posted by Maias at 10:13 AM on January 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks the world was a hell of a lot better off when everybody was talking about the President getting a blowjob.

Someone dispatch a porn star to the White House, stat!
posted by clevershark at 10:17 AM on January 15, 2008

I wondered why Drudge has led with this for three days, until I get to:


Despite the disapproval of many in the mainstream media [Drudge] is arguably the most influential figure in American news

Putting that up top instead of at the very end might have saved me 3 minutes.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 10:17 AM on January 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

For those looking for a condensed version: basically it's interviews with some people who think it'll be terrible if Hillary Clinton is elected, and the last sentence of the article is about how Matt Drudge is, and I'm quoting here, "the most influential figure in American news."

Unless the U.S. Press suddenly doesn't include every single conservative magazine printed in the last ten years, then I think saying the U.S. Press would never print this is a bit ridiculous.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:17 AM on January 15, 2008

So. Very. Tired.
posted by malaprohibita at 10:18 AM on January 15, 2008

It is a curious twist of fate, and an indication of how deep were the repercussions of the scandal, that her campaign might not be happening if it weren’t for Monica Lewinsky.

We call this "making shit up."
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:23 AM on January 15, 2008 [2 favorites]

the U.S. press would never print this

Nor would the Guardian, or the non-tabloid UK press.
posted by mdn at 10:25 AM on January 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

Still reading the main and all the side things but as a totally off-topic thing, I have to share this.

It was a worrying pregnancy and Chelsea was born three weeks early by caesarean section. Normal procedures forbade fathers in the delivery room when surgery was ordered, but Bill appealed to the hospital’s administrator, saying that Hillary needed him, and promised “that they could cut Hillary open from head to toe and I wouldn’t get sick or faint”.
posted by agregoli at 10:26 AM on January 15, 2008

"the U.S. press would never print this"

You do realize that Rupert Murdoch owns huge swaths of the U.S. press as well as the Times, right?
posted by mr_roboto at 10:27 AM on January 15, 2008

"they could cut Hillary open from head to toe and I wouldn’t get sick or faint"

Oddly enough, I'm feeling that way about almost all the candidates.
posted by JaredSeth at 10:29 AM on January 15, 2008

Here's the thing, though. Bill Clinton has been accused of repeatedly using his position(s) of power to either have sex with or to attempt to have sex with a number of women. Women whose lives were ruined because they brought accusations against him. Professors at the college where I work who engage in this behavior are reviled and forced to resign. But with Bill Clinton, it's "only a blowjob." I'm not completely against men having sex with women who may or may be their wives - but if the woman is not his equal and the man uses his position of power as a chit in the play of sexual coercion. This so so so so often gets lost in the defense of Bill Clinton.
posted by billysumday at 10:31 AM on January 15, 2008 [3 favorites]

Flagged as being too stupid to even be amusing for it's stupidness.
posted by Ragma at 10:31 AM on January 15, 2008

You do realize that Rupert Murdoch owns huge swaths of the U.S. press as well as the Times, right?

Murdoch doesn't own the Times -- not the New York Times, not the LAT, not even the Washington Times (owned I think by Rev. Moon). He does, however, own the Wall Street Journal, so your point is well taken.
posted by grobstein at 10:32 AM on January 15, 2008

Flagged as crap
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:33 AM on January 15, 2008

Also, it's curious how Clinton surrogates continue to bring up Obama's past drug use, but so far no one has brought up the repeated allegations of Bill's sexual dalliances. It may not be important, and frankly I could care less, but I'd say that all things considered it's about as important as Obama's drug use. And it also wouldn't be as big a deal if Bill weren't campaigning so hard for Hillary. I know I probably sound like a conservative twit, but seriously, the shenanigans the Clintons have been pulling this last week are starting to make me understand why the Republicans have held such contempt for them for the past fifteen years. We need a Democrat in the White House in '08 and the Clintons are making sure to take the whole operation down with them. Eff them HARD.
posted by billysumday at 10:36 AM on January 15, 2008

Crappy article, but Clinton did deserve censure for his actions.
posted by BrotherCaine at 10:38 AM on January 15, 2008

TEN YEARS OF BILL CLINTON FINGERPOINTING: A CONSERVATIVE RETROSPECTIVE.

Can't wait for what they'll come up with on Carter. Fuck, they'll probably issue commemorative coins for him.
posted by boo_radley at 10:39 AM on January 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

Murdoch doesn't own the Times -- not the New York Times, not the LAT, not even the Washington Times (owned I think by Rev. Moon). He does, however, own the Wall Street Journal, so your point is well taken.

But he does own the Times that's the only link in the FPP up there, so I think that's the one being reference.
posted by inigo2 at 10:40 AM on January 15, 2008

grobstein, you realize The Times is the name of the Murdoch-owned paper this article's website appears on, right? European people use that word in their crazy languages too.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:41 AM on January 15, 2008

Can we flag this for LAME?
posted by fusinski at 10:41 AM on January 15, 2008