home

Monica. We Hardly Knew You

By Jeralyn, Section Off Topic
Posted on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 01:31:04 AM EST
Tags: Monica Lewinshy (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Congratulations to Monica Lewinsky, who just graduated from the London School of Economics with a master of science degree in social psychology. Her thesis topic was: In Search of the Impartial Juror: An Exploration of the Third Person Effect and Pre-Trial Publicity."

You Go. Girl. More power to you. I spent years on tv night after night sticking up for you (and trashing Linda Tripp) and I'm glad it turned out so well for you. Your mother may have gotten the rawest deal of all, getting called to a grand jury to disclose mother-daughter secrets, but she was there for you. Your parents got you good lawyers, once you got past the Ginsberg guy who wanted to be on every sunday news show every Sunday.

You came out of this classy and rose above it and came out in tact. If you are pondering what to do next, let me suggest law school.

I expect we'll be reading more about you in the years to come. Kudos for rising above the media nastiness and going to a better place with a stronger sense of self. Good luck to you in the future.

< The Fatuity of Frank Rich | Gov. Schwarzenegger Breaks Leg Skiing >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Monica. We Hardly Knew You | 41 comments (41 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    clinton was impeached (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by cpinva on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 11:09:07 AM EST
    because a republican congress spent 40 million dollars to find................nothing. best they could come up with was l'affaire lewinsky, and that he'd lied about it. imagine that, a guy lying about an affair!

    in clinton's defense, unlike his male republican counterparts, he at least had an affair with a girl. :)

    Do you really want to open that subject up?? (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 06:32:19 PM EST
    in clinton's defense, unlike his male republican counterparts, he at least had an affair with a girl. :)



    Parent
    try to concentrate ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Sailor on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 09:48:16 AM EST
    ... and stay on topic for a change.

    Parent
    I assume you are talking to cpinva. (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 10:10:28 AM EST


    Parent
    Something I never did understand? (none / 0) (#1)
    by plumberboy on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 05:14:37 AM EST
    I never did understand why Monica needed a lawyer or was even in trouble.The United States has not gotten so self-righteous that an affair is illegal right? I know the right was trying to impeach Clinton and stuff.I never really understood what exactly happened there for a few years with Monica,whitewater,and impeachment.I kinda just started ignoring the news.I hope someone can help shed a little light on these matters,well happy holidays to everyone on the site I really enjoy reading the articles and comments.

    Shades of Libby (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 12:36:06 PM EST
    That's a good question. I never could figure what illegal act she was involved with. Perhaps she had made false statements to the DOJ?

    Advice on her GJ appearances??

    Anybody???

    Parent

    Something I don't remember (none / 0) (#2)
    by DavidDvorkin on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 10:03:11 AM EST
    Did Monica ever apologize to Hilary?

    Never mind the sliminess and evil intentions of the rightwing.  That's a separate issue.  I would have been exposed if we had an independent press.

    Monica's part in the affair can be somewhat excused because of her youth, but nonetheless she participated in the betrayal of the man's wife.  If she did apologize, that's a good and necessary step.  If not, then it's hard to applaud her now.

    She Did Apologize (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 11:03:39 AM EST
    Monica apologized in her 20/20 interview with Barbara Walters in March, 1999:

    Barbara Walters asked Lewinsky what she wanted to say first and foremost. Lewinsky said that she wanted to apologize to the country and especially to Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.

    [Mulitple references available on Lexis.com]

    Parent

    Monica (none / 0) (#3)
    by wlgriffi on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 10:14:45 AM EST
    "You came out of this classy and in tact. If you are pondering what to do next, let me suggest law school. I'd hire you in heartbeat to to do criminal defense work."

    ROFLMAO!!!  "....'tis the season to be jolly
                 FA LA LA --LA LA...."

    you're right (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 10:50:04 AM EST
    classy was a stretch. I've changed it.  

    Parent
    plumberboy (none / 0) (#4)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 10:29:16 AM EST
    Clinton was impeached for lying to the special prosecutor about certain aspects of their relationship. The rest of the whole mess of the Clinton investigtions was predicated upon the republican modus operandi:

    Run, or ruin.

    not a prosecutor (none / 0) (#6)
    by eric on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 10:55:20 AM EST
    Clinton was impeached for lying to the special prosecutor

    No.  I don't think so.  It was just in a stupid deposition in a baseless civil lawsuit.

    Parent

    2 articles of impeachment (none / 0) (#18)
    by ding7777 on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 09:11:55 AM EST
    The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
    Approved by House 228-206

    The president obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case.
    Approved by House 221-212

    Parent

    I agree that the GOP Congress was treasonous (none / 0) (#21)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 03:34:57 PM EST
    The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

    That is a lie, of course, since the matter to which he gave an untruthful reply had nothing to do with the matter at trial, and that means it was not perjury.  In addition, the case was settled out of court and the deposition was moot, as though it had never taken place.

    The president obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case.

    Since the Lewinsky affair was completely unrelated to the Jones case, that would be another lie, sanctioned by trhe Republican majority who, apparently, have never received any legal training.

    Thank you for pointing out Republican ignorance and their criminal attempt to cancel the result of the 1992 and 1996 elections.  It is hard to fathom the depth of Republican corruption, but your two examples are more than enough evidence that the Republican majority hated America, democracy, and the Constitution.

    Good riddance to those traitors, and not soon enough.

    When President Bush lied to Congress, THAT was a federal crime, but Bill Clinton's lie was not.  Why didn't the Republican majority take any offense at Bush's lies to their faces, which have cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars and killed tens of thousands of people, while taking such umbrage at a lie of no consequence to the Republic and which harmed not a soul?

    Parent

    Over the top a bit... (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 06:28:32 PM EST
    Uh, the 1992 election was moot because the 1996 election had happened after it.... calender's work like that. So they couldn't have undone the 1992 election, eh??

    And I think the requirement is, or at least what the Constitution says is:

    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    So what has "federal" to do with anything?

    Now, are you going to tell me that if you are under oath and lie about one subject and don't another, that isn't perjury.

    Funny. The last time I was sworn in they said something about "The truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth..."

    Can any of the lawyers around here comment on that?

    BTW - The fact that it was settled out of court has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

    BTW - Before you launch any personal attacks, I have commented many times that I thought the Repubs shouldn't have did what they did. Not because I thought Clinton was right, but because I thought their actions hurt the country more than his.

    Two wrongs don't make a right, RePack. Your defense of Clinton is as bad as the Repubs defense of their actions against him.

    Parent

    perjury (none / 0) (#25)
    by roger on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 06:38:13 PM EST
    is a lie, regarding a material fact in dispute.

    The question that Clinton gave a false answer to was not material to the suit. The impeachment was legally very, very, weak

    Parent

    Then they need to change the oath, (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 06:50:15 PM EST
    and have a lawyer define every question...

    The impeachment may have been weak... your excuse for lying under oath is even weaker.

    Especially if the person is suppoedly a man of character, leader of the free world, etc., etc., et al and a hiccup or three.

    Parent

    Roger (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 06:52:22 PM EST
    Do they get to stop and go out and ask their lawyer about every question??

    BTW - Thanks for the info.

    Parent

    not only that, (none / 0) (#28)
    by roger on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 07:57:33 PM EST
    Their lawyer can sit next to them during the depo

    Parent
    Monica (none / 0) (#8)
    by alapip on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 11:05:16 AM EST
    I think the previous judgemental comment shows both a lack of reality and of empathy.  Certainly, both Monica and Bill showed a failure of self control, but the immense attractiveness of a person in a position of fame and power, and likewise, the intense desire that can be engendered in a matured man by a young and lovely woman, in both instances will sometimes overcome their individual defenses.

    One cannot make a realistic judgement if one has never been in a like position, or has not at least tried to "walk a mile in their moccasins".

    We are all, for the most part, at the mercy of our personal brain chemistry and the effects our environment has in accenting or nulling inherited tendencies.  After long consideration, I conclude that most well informed people would have to agree that the nature/nurture arguement, as well as the evolutionary process, has been well established as demonstrably true.  However, I do not think that 'most well informed people' have necessarily taken this knowledge to that next logical step, which is to apply it to their internal selves, questioning their motives.  Are they making realistic decisions about interactions with their fellow man and society at large, or are their unconscious buttons simply being pushed?  Are they truly exhibiting free will?

    Sometime in our lives we hopefully will arrive at a point in our personal evolution where our 'automatic' progress will bump up against our sudden realization that we have never actually exhibited free will in our decisions and actions up to that point.  Until one comes to that realization, I argue, it is virtually impossible for free will to be demonstrated.  We have been responding to various situations, (stimuli), as we have been 'programmed' by our personal nature/nurture.

    No, we are not computers or automatons, and yes, we must be held responsible for our actions, (otherwise societal chaos would likely ensue).  However, in the judging and punishing process, whether personal or societal, we certainly should err in the direction of leniency and understanding, if we err at all.

    In the meantime, Happy Holidays to all, peace, and take your vitamins.

    Let's not forget... (none / 0) (#10)
    by jerry on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 11:27:29 AM EST
    I think the previous judgemental comment shows both a lack of reality and of empathy.  Certainly, both Monica and Bill showed a failure of self control, but the immense attractiveness of a person in a position of fame and power, and likewise, the intense desire that can be engendered in a matured man by a young and lovely woman, in both instances will sometimes overcome their individual defenses.

    I think you're overlooking that in 1966, Bill Clinton was 20, and that's when That Girl came on TV.  Monica then and now sports a That Girl hair do.

    http://www.thatgirltv.com/row-2-b.jpg

    I blame Marlo Thomas.  In addition to her haircut, she told us we were Free To Be, You and Me.  And if this isn't the whole liberal problem in a nutshell, I don't know what is.  Bill Clinton was not her only victim, I think we all were.

    (Just kidding!)

    Parent

    Marlo Thomas (none / 0) (#11)
    by alapip on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 11:36:30 AM EST
    Glad you fessed up at the end that you were kidding, I was thinking you had to be insane...

    Kudos for imagination though.  That required a huge stretch, Jerry.  : )

    Parent

    Congratulations and go away (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dadler on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 12:04:20 PM EST
    Nothing against her, or the London School of Economics, and I'm happy she's not in the gutter and wallowing, but people who blow/stroke/f*ck powerful people and are "famous" because of it,  well, have a nice day.  

    Who cares?

    As for any intellectual, academic "achievement" here, lets remember that the current PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES got degrees, including a graduate degree, from an IVY LEAGUE institution he would've been kicked out of on merit.

    I wish her the best, and to never see or hear from her again.  Just like Kevin Federline.  Though in K-Fed's (Fed-Ex's) case, I can certainly do the same with the famous person he f*cked.    

    From what I could tell (none / 0) (#17)
    by nolo on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 06:18:40 PM EST
    Monica would have preferred not to have been famous for her dalliance with President Clinton.  It was Monica's so-called "friend," Linda Tripp, who tried to generate her own 15 minutes of fame out of the Clinton-Lewinsky affair by betraying Monica's confidences.

    Just thought I'd set that straight.  Fed-Ex, of course, is another sordid story.

    Parent

    She still saved the sperm dress... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Dadler on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 08:39:08 PM EST
    And she still tried to get a job out of the whole mess.

    She was an adult who had an affair SHE initiated, and could not deal with or respect the parameters and limitations that were self-evident.  It's called delusional.  

    Monica Lewinsky, at a certain point, and in a very bizarre way, benefited from and "enjoyed" the "attention" she got.  And the quotes around those two words should indicate I don't use them in the flip sense.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 07:21:29 PM EST
    She rode the Clenis for all it was worth, with a fat book deal and a Weight Watchers gig...she's as tacky as they come (no pun intended). I still think some of the posts on this site are intended as jokes, like this one and the one on Evo Morales.

    Parent
    Oh really?? (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 06:35:29 PM EST
    Well, he most likely couldn't have gotten in without being GHWB's son, but the last time I heard he graduated with a "C" and a better GPA than the Demos last Presidental Candidate...

    Not that I think that means anything...

    Do you know something I don't???

    Parent

    He didn't get in on merit... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Dadler on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 08:12:26 PM EST
    ...and "graduated" in the bottom ten percent of his class.  If you think that means he "deserved" to graduate, then you're more naive than I would've imagined.  He was a legacy with a deep-pocketed family -- that is why he got in, that is why he wasn't kicked out.

    And some things never change:

    Congress is even more beholden than academe to its wealthiest contributors, and more willing to compromise the principles--like equal opportunity--that its members claim to cherish. The value of Pell grants, which help low-income students pay for college, continues to drop precipitately as the price of higher education rises. (It now costs more than forty thousand dollars a year to go to a selective private college, and about fifteen thousand a year for an in-state student to attend a public college. Last year, the largest Pell grants were only four thousand and fifty dollars.) The most recent federal budget signed by President Bush slashed tuition assistance by almost thirteen billion dollars. Meanwhile, state legislatures have heavily cut their subsidies to state universities, and, whatever college you choose, figuring out how to piece together which grants, loans, and scholarships are available practically requires an advanced degree in calculus. All of this has had a predictable effect: a new report by a committee advising Congress and the Department of Education reveals that, during the current decade, up to two and a half million qualified students, stricken by the costs of higher education, either will be forced to drop out or won't enroll at all.

    At a meeting of minority journalists in 2004, President Bush--a Yale graduate, like his father and his grandfather--agreed that admissions "ought to be based on merit" and, when pressed, added that legacies should be abolished. Two years before, his niece Lauren had been admitted to Yale and to Princeton, where she enrolled, despite applying a month after the deadline, and with an inferior academic record.

    Parent

    Shall we kick out the others?? (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 09:55:33 PM EST
    Well, you repeated my agreememt about entrance.

    Shall we kick out all the others??

    And a C average can graduate? Wow. You are tough.

    Parent

    Sorry, went too fast... (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 10:04:05 PM EST
    And I won't disagree re the cost and the Pell Grants.. Problem is, cost seem to track government grant level... And as someone who is paying the full bang to get a grandson in a private school, my resentment of the sorry state of US education knows no bounds.  

    But what does the performance of the girls have to do with Bush? Why bring it up??

    Parent

    If you think he had a legit C average... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Dadler on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 06:25:13 PM EST
    ...at an Ivy League institution, then I'd say we have a slightly different perception of legitimate is.  I mean, Jim, they've been doctoring the grades of athletes for eons, you honestly don't think they do it for rich kids a school is afraid to kick out for fear of losing the moneybags?  Folks of his silver-spoon birth get to STAY IN SCHOOLS THEY WOULD OTHERWISE BE KICKED OUT OF because their families pump tons of cash into the endowments of those universities.  See the HBO documentary "Born Rich", made by a young heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune.  In it, among the other stories of excess and undeserved rewards, you can listen to one young rich punk (heir to a luggage fortune, I believe) laughing about the fact that no matter what he does, no matter how low his grades are, the dean of his prestigious prep school is helpless and cannot kick him out because his family has too much dough.  You think private universities don't do the same?  Please.

    You know my belief: GW Bush doesn't have the intellect to legitimately pass a high school rhetoric class.  I wish I were only engaging in hyperbole, but he has evidenced nothing to make me believe otherwise.  His rhetorical stupidity("Crusade", "Bring 'em on", etc.) is always on display.  

    Should you kick all the other undeserving rich kids out?  In a word: absof*ckinglutely.  

    Parent

    Stupid? (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 06:44:04 PM EST
    I dunno dadler. Maybe it is not so necessary to be academically gifted to be president. To call him stupid, you would have to redefine the word stupid.

    He did get a lot of people to vote for him, he did, and continues to get away with his agenda to reshape the world in his greedy image. Not things easily done by a stupid person.

    I personally think that to call him stupid gives him a pass. I think that he has tremendous talent and is quite smart and very, very shrewd.

    Playing the idiot/joker is just part of his cute act. Evil genius, or con artist extraordinaire, is more like it. Otherwise the American people are a sorry, sorry lot and they were not conned by someone smarter than they were but knew  just what they were getting into.

    Parent

    Monica, congrats! (none / 0) (#13)
    by oldtree on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 12:19:16 PM EST
    pretty funny how the 2 people involved in a soap opera that became national news are both the ones that now appear to be normal, rational and sane?
    funny how every other one involved seems to be vastly disappointed because the two perps weren't put to death for their crimes.

    Why kill them ... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Sailor on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 12:40:39 PM EST
    ... when you can just brand them with a scarlet A!?

    Parent
    Eric (none / 0) (#15)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 03:45:47 PM EST
    Thanks for the clarification.

    Monica and Linda (none / 0) (#16)
    by Kewalo on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 04:24:08 PM EST
    I am delighted to see you say that you trashed Linda Tripp. I don't think I've ever been as outraged as when Ms. Tripp said she was just like us (women.) I couldn't believe it, it made me sputter obscenities for days.

    I have never known a woman that was as evil as Tripp was and would gladly have told her what I thought of her if I'd had the chance.

    Good luck to Monica. I feel blessed that nobody knows all the screwups I committed when I was young and stupid. It's a shame when something one does when young haunts them the rest of their life.

    pro bono (none / 0) (#19)
    by orionATL on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 10:24:39 AM EST
    well said, jeralyn.

    the corporate media's exploitation of lewinski, treating her as an object to be used to influence their listenership or readership (remember the sardonic  "all monica, all the time"?), was a clear and extended lesson in how debased and inhumane media corporations can be.

    and how self-exculpatory, at one and the same time.

    Monaca's raw deal (none / 0) (#33)
    by diogenes on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 10:39:27 PM EST
    You know, if Bill and Hillary had immediately come clean and apologized instead of spending months implying that Monaca was somehow "delusional" or a troubled woman (not changing that tune until the blue dress came out), she would have been quickly forgotten.  (Think about Jennifer Flowers).  It wasn't the Repugs who gave Monica the raw deal and made her the stuff of talk shows-it was Bill Clinton.

    diogenes - Yes but. (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 10:19:34 AM EST
    You are correct that if Clinton had just fessed up it would have been away, and it was true they tried to use Monica.

    But either way the Repubs could have ragged on Clinton without impeachment. That hurt the country, and almost cost them the election in 2000.

    I think it is arguable that if everyone had just stayed shut up and let Clinton have all the sex he wanted, he might have been focused enough on the country's business to accept bin Ladin when he had the chance.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Funny (none / 0) (#40)
    by aw on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 12:32:19 PM EST
    I was wondering what happened to any private lawsuits against Pres. Bush and came across this:

    link
    link

    We'll never know now because she conveniently died by suicide and the press never played this like the Jones/Lewinsky circus (or any number of women making accusations, or Chandra Levy for that matter). Why was this case ignored?

    Part of an answer.. (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 12:44:24 PM EST
    Biggest windfall for big oil since the internal combustion engine, Carlyle, half the hoi palloi reading (my) Left Behind, Bush dosnt lethally inject "the unborn" etc etc

    Monica. We Hardly Knew You | 41 comments (41 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment