• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Monica Lewinsky Breaks her Silence

vesper said:
That was a good list for starters. Another name that comes to mind is Susan McDougal, the Arkansas woman who spent 18 months in jail for refusing to answer questions from special prosecutor Ken Starr, and then received a presidential pardon from Clinton. It is amazing to read the comments from the women who lean left coming to Hillary's defense making excuses for her while demanding Lewinsky be tarred and feathered for her part. Seriously what feminist would put up with Bill's affairs? A hypocritical one?
Click to expand...

Where exactly is the demands that Monica be "tarred and feathered" for anything? I'd like to see this, especially in this thread.

Saying that she isn't an innocent or naive victim that some are trying to paint her as, and pointing out facts is not the same thing as calling for her to be punished in any way, shape, or form. Nor is calling out the fact that she is bringing a good bit of any current negative publicity on herself. Most of us didn't know anything about Hillary's friend (and comments that were made years, more than a decade in fact, ago) or even the press bringing up Lewinsky, so had she not spoken out here, then it is likely that such things would have died down (as they likely already have) much sooner than they ever will now.

Now, I will say that Beyonce's lyrics are wrong, but it happens. (I've never even heard it but then again I don't frequently listen to Beyonce.)

No one who was old enough to have realized who was President for most of the 90s is going to forget the scandal. But the way to get over it is not to bring it up, even if others are doing so. This isn't fixing anything, despite what she may think. People are not going to change their opinion about her with this "essay", and especially not with a book (if there really is one). It is just going to bring it back up to those who knew but didn't care, or cause those who had very little knowledge about it to actually check it out.

Most of the comments "for" her are just as politically motivated as most of those "against" her or "for" Clinton. The proof of this is found in just looking at some of the very first comments made by news personalities and political pundits when this came out, and tying it to Hillary Clinton's potential candidacy in 2016.

And why
 
roguenuke said:
Where exactly is the demands that Monica be "tarred and feathered" for anything? I'd like to see this, especially in this thread.

Saying that she isn't an innocent or naive victim that some are trying to paint her as, and pointing out facts is not the same thing as calling for her to be punished in any way, shape, or form. Nor is calling out the fact that she is bringing a good bit of any current negative publicity on herself. Most of us didn't know anything about Hillary's friend (and comments that were made years, more than a decade in fact, ago) or even the press bringing up Lewinsky, so had she not spoken out here, then it is likely that such things would have died down (as they likely already have) much sooner than they ever will now.

Now, I will say that Beyonce's lyrics are wrong, but it happens. (I've never even heard it but then again I don't frequently listen to Beyonce.)

No one who was old enough to have realized who was President for most of the 90s is going to forget the scandal. But the way to get over it is not to bring it up, even if others are doing so. This isn't fixing anything, despite what she may think. People are not going to change their opinion about her with this "essay", and especially not with a book (if there really is one). It is just going to bring it back up to those who knew but didn't care, or cause those who had very little knowledge about it to actually check it out.

Most of the comments "for" her are just as politically motivated as most of those "against" her or "for" Clinton. The proof of this is found in just looking at some of the very first comments made by news personalities and political pundits when this came out, and tying it to Hillary Clinton's potential candidacy in 2016.

And why
Click to expand...
What you fail to recognize and clearly shows your bias is that the article that Lewinsky wrote was to counter all the crap being brought up by others with her name attached to it. She stayed silent for 10 years but every election cycle where there is a Clinton involved her name gets dragged through the coals. And you want her to just shut up and go away and not speak out on her behalf. I find that troubling.
 
ChrisL said:
Good Lord, just those statements ALONE show that she was a naive young woman and she WAS at the age of 22 years old. Not much more than a child really. Sorry, he is way more to blame than she is.
Click to expand...

I was in the Navy, on an aircraft carrier with enough education to give me a degree in nuclear power, had seen at least 4 countries, had sex with a few (single) guys (been propositioned by at least one married guy), and had plenty of guys who hated me simply because they thought that most women in the Navy were doing pretty much the same thing she was caught doing, sleeping with the boss, all by 22 years old. And there were some women, my age and even younger, who would sleep with chiefs and officers for better jobs or to get out of trouble. Most of us worked our asses off to get the positions we held and earn the respect we got, but I have seen a few women who actually did (try to at least) sleep their way up. And those women ticked off any woman who actually was earning everything we got because not only was it not fair what they were doing, but it also ended up requiring us to work so much harder to earn that respect.

There isn't more blame being put on her than him, not for the affair itself. I say the blame is equally shared between them for that. He could have just as easily have said "no" to her advances, even being a sex fiend that he seems to be. But that doesn't mean that she was naive or innocent. I don't think for one second that she was "in love" with the President. She herself has said it was lust.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL said:
Good Lord, just those statements ALONE show that she was a naive young woman and she WAS at the age of 22 years old. Not much more than a child really. Sorry, he is way more to blame than she is.
Click to expand...

She knew exactly what she was doing. Her relationship was consensual. And she said precisely that at the age of 40. So you are calling her a liar.
 
roguenuke said:
I was in the Navy, on an aircraft carrier with enough education to give me a degree in nuclear power, had seen at least 4 countries, had sex with a few (single) guys (been propositioned by at least one married guy), and had plenty of guys who hated me simply because they thought that most women in the Navy were doing pretty much the same thing she was caught doing, sleeping with the boss. And there were some women, my age and even younger, who would sleep with chiefs and officers for better jobs or to get out of trouble. Most of us worked our asses off to get the positions we held and earn the respect we got, but I have seen a few women who actually did (try to at least) sleep their way up. And those women ticked off any woman who actually was earning everything we got because not only was it not fair what they were doing, but it also ended up requiring us to work so much harder to earn that respect.

There isn't more blame being put on her than him, not for the affair itself. I say the blame is equally shared between them for that. He could have just as easily have said "no" to her advances, even being a sex fiend that he seems to be. But that doesn't mean that she was naive or innocent. I don't think for one second that she was "in love" with the President. She herself has said it was lust.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I am certainly NOT buying that Monica took advantage of President Romeo. :lol: Utterly ridiculous, considering some of her taped conversations with Ms. Linda Tripp.
 
vesper said:
What you fail to recognize and clearly shows your bias is that the article that Lewinsky wrote was to counter all the crap being brought up by others with her name attached to it. She stayed silent for 10 years but every election cycle where there is a Clinton involved her name gets dragged through the coals. And you want her to just shut up and go away and not speak out on her behalf. I find that troubling.
Click to expand...

If she really wants to remain out of the press as much as possible, to actually stand a chance of living an at least seminormal life, then responding as she is is not the right way to do it. She is just bringing more negative attention to herself. For every bit of sympathy or even pity that she may gain from this, she will gain much more notoriety and infamy. This doesn't do her any good with her claimed goal.

If I were her, I would just write my book and make that money off of it. Sometimes we make choices in our lives that do stay with us for the rest of that time. It may not be fair, but this was absolutely as much her fault as the Clintons. Now, I would say that the press and the public share more blame for her infamy because, in general, sex sells. But that is the way the world works and bringing it up "to clarify" is not going to help.
 
ChrisL said:
I'm sorry. I am certainly NOT buying that Monica took advantage of President Romeo. :lol: Utterly ridiculous, considering some of her taped conversations with Ms. Linda Tripp.
Click to expand...

Who said she "took advantage" of him? She had her agenda, and he had his. He wanted sex (or at least sexual gratification) and she wanted the relationship with the President. She has said she knew it was lust not love. That indicates that she didn't want any longterm commitment from him.
 
roguenuke said:
Who said she "took advantage" of him? She had his agenda, and he had his. He wanted sex (or at least sexual gratification) and she wanted the relationship with the President. She has said she knew it was lust not love. That indicates that she didn't want any longterm commitment from him.
Click to expand...

Lol! This only proves her immature mind set. She was immature, not much more than a kid. That's a fact. He was a 50-something year old man with PLENTY of experience wooing much older and experienced women than Monica. Give us a break with your excuse making for the ex-president's sexual predatory ways!!! Monica is NOT the only one to make such allegations against him!
 
roguenuke said:
If she really wants to remain out of the press as much as possible, to actually stand a chance of living an at least seminormal life, then responding as she is is not the right way to do it. She is just bringing more negative attention to herself. For every bit of sympathy or even pity that she may gain from this, she will gain much more notoriety and infamy. This doesn't do her any good with her claimed goal.

If I were her, I would just write my book and make that money off of it. Sometimes we make choices in our lives that do stay with us for the rest of that time. It may not be fair, but this was absolutely as much her fault as the Clintons. Now, I would say that the press and the public share more blame for her infamy because, in general, sex sells. But that is the way the world works and bringing it up "to clarify" is not going to help.
Click to expand...

Like I stated earlier she went the silent route for 10 years, heck there were some speculating that the Clinton's paid her off not to talk, but the crap never stopped and in some ways allowed revisions in what really happened making Lewinsky their scapegoat. By her responding to their comments it puts them on notice and held accountable for what comes out of their mouths or their handlers in the press.
 
ChrisL said:
Lol! This only proves her immature mind set. She was immature, not much more than a kid. That's a fact. He was a 50-something year old man with PLENTY of experience wooing much older and experienced women than Monica. Give us a break with your excuse making for the ex-president's sexual predatory ways!!! Monica is NOT the only one to make such allegations against him!
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. How does her wanting an affair with the President prove she is immature? Especially if she really did have plans to sell the story in the future? That seems like a pretty good plan had Starr not been investigating the President for Paula Jones and had she not (and this was pretty immature of her) blabbed to her friend Tripp.

This isn't a sexual predator. He's an idiot who really likes sex. There is a difference. This was completely consensual. And she was an adult (several years in) and was not naive at all to having affairs. Prey doesn't willingly come to the predator. Lewinsky was just as much a "predator" in this as you are claiming Clinton was. She was looking for the payoff, whether it be future monetary or publicity gains or just that relationship with a man in power.

It is ridiculous to keep using her age to try to paint her as naive or vulnerable. She was plenty old enough to consent and more than old enough to see the advantages of having sex with the POTUS.
 
vesper said:
Like I stated earlier she went the silent route for 10 years, heck there were some speculating that the Clinton's paid her off not to talk, but the crap never stopped and in some ways allowed revisions in what really happened making Lewinsky their scapegoat. By her responding to their comments it puts them on notice and held accountable for what comes out of their mouths or their handlers in the press.
Click to expand...

And everyone had virtually forgotten about her. The only ones who haven't let this go are the Republicans and other political parties/members who don't like the Clintons. It certainly isn't the Clintons bringing it up.

Even the "narcissistic loony toon" comment got maybe a day's worth of coverage during February. And even then, the vast majority of the commentary was about the Clintons, not Lewinsky, particularly Hillary's potential campaign.
 
roguenuke said:
And everyone had virtually forgotten about her. The only ones who haven't let this go are the Republicans and other political parties/members who don't like the Clintons. It certainly isn't the Clintons bringing it up.

Even the "narcissistic loony toon" comment got maybe a day's worth of coverage during February. And even then, the vast majority of the commentary was about the Clintons, not Lewinsky, particularly Hillary's potential campaign.
Click to expand...

The Obama campaign didn't virtually forget about Lewinsky when he was running against Hillary for the nomination . They had their handlers out there reminding everyone who Hillary was married to.
The narcissistic loony toon comment got maybe a day's worth of coverage my foot. Even you used it in this thread to describe Monica as it has been used by every Clintonite apologist in the press in reaction to Lewinsky's article. The comments Hillary made to Blair were on Drudge, Huffington Post, and every other most visited pages for at least a week and on many of these web pages the comment section to these articles are still open.
 
ChrisL said:
Lol! This only proves her immature mind set. She was immature, not much more than a kid. That's a fact. He was a 50-something year old man with PLENTY of experience wooing much older and experienced women than Monica. Give us a break with your excuse making for the ex-president's sexual predatory ways!!! Monica is NOT the only one to make such allegations against him!
Click to expand...

I think the point was it was consensual. She didn't say no.
 
vesper said:
The Obama campaign didn't virtually forget about Lewinsky when he was running against Hillary for the nomination . They had their handlers out there reminding everyone who Hillary was married to.
The narcissistic loony toon comment got maybe a day's worth of coverage my foot. Even you used it in this thread to describe Monica as it has been used by every Clintonite apologist in the press in reaction to Lewinsky's article. The comments Hillary made to Blair were on Drudge, Huffington Post, and every other most visited pages for at least a week and on many of these web pages the comment section to these articles are still open.
Click to expand...

The only reason I'm talking about this at all is because there is a thread here where some are claiming she is some sort of innocent, naive victim. I didn't even know about the comment at all until looking it up for this thread.

Yes, and from what I found, most were February 10th, 2014 (a few on the 11th). Again, even those stories talk much more about Hillary and her campaign than Monica. From the ones I've read, the only place Monica is mentioned is the fact that the comment was directed at her (and again, this is a comment made during the scandal, to Hillary's friend, that wouldn't have ever been found out about had some certain political figures went digging it up).

I didn't here anything about Monica during the campaigns last time. In fact, even the reports say that she was barely mentioned.

Monica Lewinsky Is Ancient History To Many Voters - The Daily Beast

And this goes back to what I've been saying:

Monica Lewinsky Vanity Fair Interview & Hillary Clinton's Presidency | New Republic

"For the past year, Republicans have been aching to gather millennials—too young to remember the dirty details—round the campfire and tell them tales of cigars and blue dresses. Nevermind that millennials—too young to be remotely shocked by the sexual misdeeds of politicians—are unlikely to give a rat’s ass."

Now tell me, how exactly does she do herself any good bringing this up when the Republicans already are trying to and getting pretty much blown off? The only thing it does is increase interest in the story, not decrease it.

So she fears the press? She isn't avoiding it by "breaking her silence". She is doing nothing but bringing more attention to herself. This stunt will in no way reduce any of that "inevitable" attention that she is claiming she doesn't want.
 
roguenuke said:
The only reason I'm talking about this at all is because there is a thread here where some are claiming she is some sort of innocent, naive victim. I didn't even know about the comment at all until looking it up for this thread.

Yes, and from what I found, most were February 10th, 2014 (a few on the 11th). Again, even those stories talk much more about Hillary and her campaign than Monica. From the ones I've read, the only place Monica is mentioned is the fact that the comment was directed at her (and again, this is a comment made during the scandal, to Hillary's friend, that wouldn't have ever been found out about had some certain political figures went digging it up).

I didn't here anything about Monica during the campaigns last time. In fact, even the reports say that she was barely mentioned.

Monica Lewinsky Is Ancient History To Many Voters - The Daily Beast

And this goes back to what I've been saying:

Monica Lewinsky Vanity Fair Interview & Hillary Clinton's Presidency | New Republic

"For the past year, Republicans have been aching to gather millennials—too young to remember the dirty details—round the campfire and tell them tales of cigars and blue dresses. Nevermind that millennials—too young to be remotely shocked by the sexual misdeeds of politicians—are unlikely to give a rat’s ass."

Now tell me, how exactly does she do herself any good bringing this up when the Republicans already are trying to and getting pretty much blown off? The only thing it does is increase interest in the story, not decrease it.

So she fears the press? She isn't avoiding it by "breaking her silence". She is doing nothing but bringing more attention to herself. This stunt will in no way reduce any of that "inevitable" attention that she is claiming she doesn't want.
Click to expand...

Comments/opinions lock and step with every Clintonite in the media. The Daily Beast to say that Lewinsky was not an issue in the 2008 election is false. Commentary in print and on TV brought up the fact that Hillary carried the baggage of her husband's affairs and when the affairs were mentioned the name of Lewinsky was brought up. Yes the Clintons would love for it to all go away as would their minions.
 
ChrisL said:
Oh come on! Bill Clinton was a philanderer quite obviously. :lol: Are you denying this? Or maybe Hilary just believes him?

And these are the ones we KNOW about.
Click to expand...

Did I say that I believed that Hilary did not know that Bill was a philanderer? I am sure she DID know. But again (and again and again)- not every marriage ends when adultery is discovered. I know couples that split right up and couples that weathered through it. There is no hard and fast rule. But staying married is not "giving him a pass". It is not being ignorant of the situation. It is handling it privately in their own way.
 
rocket88 said:
I think the point was it was consensual. She didn't say no.
Click to expand...

Not only consensual....she was showing skin and snapping her thong at him. That goes beyond a simple "flirt". That is downright overtly sexual.

Clearly consensual.
 
vesper said:
Comments/opinions lock and step with every Clintonite in the media. The Daily Beast to say that Lewinsky was not an issue in the 2008 election is false. Commentary in print and on TV brought up the fact that Hillary carried the baggage of her husband's affairs and when the affairs were mentioned the name of Lewinsky was brought up. Yes the Clintons would love for it to all go away as would their minions.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you are saying that Lewinsky wasn't actually brought up, but rather the affair was brought up.

But again, what good does this do anyone? It is not going to help keep any press off of Lewinsky. It also is not likely in the least to change anyone's opinion about her (although it may cause some more younger people to have an opinion about her, negative or positive, when they probably wouldn't even have known about or cared about her before.

The vast majority of those my age and younger either a) haven't heard of her (my brother, 6 years younger, had no clue who she was by name and couldn't recognize her photo) or b) could care less if she had an affair with an ex-POTUS (more power to her). Bringing this up only perpetuates the things she is claiming have made her life miserable, notoriety and media interest.

And it isn't the Clintons bringing this stuff up. It is mainly the Republicans and some Dem rivals.
 
roguenuke said:
Sounds like you are saying that Lewinsky wasn't actually brought up, but rather the affair was brought up.

But again, what good does this do anyone? It is not going to help keep any press off of Lewinsky. It also is not likely in the least to change anyone's opinion about her (although it may cause some more younger people to have an opinion about her, negative or positive, when they probably wouldn't even have known about or cared about her before.

The vast majority of those my age and younger either a) haven't heard of her (my brother, 6 years younger, had no clue who she was by name and couldn't recognize her photo) or b) could care less if she had an affair with an ex-POTUS (more power to her). Bringing this up only perpetuates the things she is claiming have made her life miserable, notoriety and media interest.

And it isn't the Clintons bringing this stuff up. It is mainly the Republicans and some Dem rivals.
Click to expand...

I guarantee you if Clinton runs your little brother and a whole lot more will learn about Lewinsky. Because everywhere there is a Clinton running for office the name comes up. And how dare you make the claim that her retaliating to her name being bantered around and setting the record straight perpetuates the notoriety etc. it is the first damn time in 10 friggin years the woman has had control over what was printed about her. Now if this makes the Clintonites uncomfortable.......too bad.
 
vesper said:
I guarantee you if Clinton runs your little brother and a whole lot more will learn about Lewinsky. Because everywhere there is a Clinton running for office the name comes up. And how dare you make the claim that her retaliating to her name being bantered around and setting the record straight perpetuates the notoriety etc. it is the first damn time in 10 friggin years the woman has had control over what was printed about her. Now if this makes the Clintonites uncomfortable.......too bad.
Click to expand...

Why? This was plenty enough to do it.

First, anyone who believes that they have any true control over what is written about them is fooling themselves. You might have temporary control, but it will go rather quickly. Second, it isn't like the Clintons have had really that much more control over what was written about Lewinsky over the last few years. Clinton wrote very little at all about the affair in his book and that was about 10 years ago. They certainly haven't been bringing her up.
 
year2late said:
Again. what evidence do you have that she gave him a pass?

We have no clue what happened within the context of their relationship.

I have known a few families that stayed together after adultery. Some people put sex in a different perspective within the context of the marriage.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that the Clintons reached an "understanding" a very, very long time ago. I also don't think Hillary cares one way or the other where Bill's dipping his wick. But there is the issue of public humiliation and Hillary's tolerating this for so long because what truly excites her is power/influence.
 
vesper said:
I guarantee you if Clinton runs your little brother and a whole lot more will learn about Lewinsky. Because everywhere there is a Clinton running for office the name comes up. And how dare you make the claim that her retaliating to her name being bantered around and setting the record straight perpetuates the notoriety etc. it is the first damn time in 10 friggin years the woman has had control over what was printed about her. Now if this makes the Clintonites uncomfortable.......too bad.
Click to expand...

Lewinsky has remained silent all these years. And it's her story to tell.
 
year2late said:
Did I say that I believed that Hilary did not know that Bill was a philanderer? I am sure she DID know. But again (and again and again)- not every marriage ends when adultery is discovered. I know couples that split right up and couples that weathered through it. There is no hard and fast rule. But staying married is not "giving him a pass". It is not being ignorant of the situation. It is handling it privately in their own way.
Click to expand...

Oh please, when you stay married to the husband who cheated on you but call the person he cheated with names, then it's obvious who is bearing the brunt of blame in the situation. The other woman of course.

Right . . . Monica the 22-year-old intern seduced Slick Willy. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom