Monica Lewinsky, Reconsidered

Paul, to his credit, hasn’t dawdled on the lurid details—rather he’s framed the discussion as a matter largely of workplace behavior, challenging Democrats’ self-image as the party friendly to women. “If they want to be credible in saying they defend women’s rights in the workplace,” Paul said in an interview last week, Democrats should “disown” Bill Clinton, whom Paul considers “a predator, a sexual predator, basically.”Despite what Paul is hoping for, re-opening the Lewinsky scandal isn’t likely to engender a conversation about workplace dos and don’ts. Instead, dropped into a modern context, the seemingly ancient episode maybe says more about the eternal mystery of what makes for a long-running marriage, especially the singularly fascinating—and impenetrable—Clinton union.Rand Paul’s wife, Kelley, was the one who first invoked Lewinsky, interrupting her husband during an interview with Vogue to remind readers that a Hillary Clinton presidency would mean the return of Bill to White House anterooms and corridors. “I would say his behavior was predatory, offensive to women,” said Kelley (described in the article as Rand’s “secret asset,” as well as “pretty” and a “mother of three,” because why use one cliché to describe the wife of a politician when you can use three clichés instead?). Rand Paul took his wife’s insinuation and ran with it. Asked on “Meet the Press” a couple weeks back whether he really thinks Hillary Clinton should be held to account for the 20th century misdeeds of her husband, Paul replied no, no, of course not—even as he strongly implied she should.Blame is also owed to the media, in his way of looking at it. “I think really the media seems to have given President Clinton a pass on this,” said Paul, adding: “He took advantage of a girl that was 20-years-old and an intern in his office. There is no excuse for that and that is predatory behavior.”Excuse me while I choke on my coffee. Those eager to dredge up the past, would be wise to dredge accurately. The suggestion that the media gave Clinton a “pass” suggests that at the time this was happening, the libertarian ophthalmologist was perhaps too busy to read what was in the newspapers.  Half the voting public may now be too young to recall the details, but as a card-carrying member of the media then and now, I can say that my workplace at the time, the Washington Post, was so transfixed by poor Monica Lewinsky that you could hardly go to the water cooler or the cafeteria or the pens-and-notebooks cupboard without being presented by a colleague with some new detail of what might or might not have transpired between the president and his beret-wearing intern. This was true at every other newspaper or magazine. The story consumed every sentient being in the nation’s capital, including dogs, cats, members of Congress and anybody remotely aware of the Starr report and its salacious footnotes, which people read out loud to one another at the breakfast table.                       Rand Paul, let me tell you, and your pretty wife, Kelley: For months we in the media did nothing but live, breathe, eat, drink and dream Monica Lewinsky! The story went viral before going viral existed. More than a topic of prurient, gossipy interest, it was an exhaustive and exhausting effort to examine whether the president should be held to account for his behavior—not just in a court of law, and not just in Congress, but in the collective conscience. He was, if you will recall, impeached. That the public did not turn against en masse Clinton—at least, not forever—the way Paul would have liked is certainly not the fault of the reporters covering the story.(politico.com)ANN.Az