Of course she had the choice to live a quiet life, how ridiculous.
But you don’t get a quiet life by putting your face on tv hawking your designer purses, or being a spokesperson for a weight loss scheme. And especially not by rehashing everything a full decade or more later, in a major news outlet, in search of fame and money.
The ONLY reason anyone is revisiting these events today is because SHE rehashed them for profit.
I think a lot of people, if not most, would be willing to overlook her bad choices then. But I don’t think anyone, should or does, have any patience for her current bad choices, ie rehashing her trash!
Her current activities do not jive with someone out to avoid cyber bullying. In fact, her actions kind of invite it. And painting yourself a victim, in advance? Completely lame.
She’s not writing a blow-job manual. She’s not starting a blue dress boutique. She’s not producing a porno. That would be rehashing “her trash.” She’s leveraging her notoriety to bring attention to a good cause. She turning what is an all around shitty situation in to something that might do some good.
Maybe she is grubbing for fame-- she wouldn’t be the first. But making handbags and being in a WeightWatchers commercial isn’t exactly the sort of thing a calculated fame-seeker does. It seems much more likely to me that she didn’t know what to do with her post-scandal life or how to shape her fame, and bounced around between hiding and publicity, between privacy and opportunity, without a keen sense of how to shape her career (and pay her bills) as her plan to be in nonprofit management went off the rails.
Maybe this time it will work, and she can bring some meaning in to this whole ugly mess. If Clinton can run his foundation without constant blow-job jabs, why shouldn’t she?
Is it “Cyber” to have your phone calls taped by someone you thought was a friend so they can be publicly dissected in detail by a desperate prosecutor that couldn’t find anything wrong above the belt buckle?
Because back then it was mostly a matter of keeping your email address private.
It was still talk radio and editorials that were the popular outlets for bile.
Sorry, but she referenced both the blow job and the dress in a major media outlet, for profit and notoriety. No matter how you want to slice it or dice it, that’s a fact.
And to answer your question, because Bill is noted for many, many other accomplishments both prior and since. Including holding the highest elected office, and taking a run at healthcare reform, to name two. Attempts to equivocate them is beyond silly to me.
She is not a violent dangerous criminal, and neither are Paris Hilton or Martha Stewart or Britney Spears. Leave them alone. Like, how hard can it possibly be to get on with your misogynistic lives without worrying about theirs?
The spotlight was already on cyber bullying, her notoriety was however fading. I see someone doing something terribly self serving and trying to dress it up as altruism.
That doesn’t deserve a pass, or a nod, or a ‘like’, for me.
And I think that makes this person, and their actions, worthy of discussion.
You’re missing an item from your list, though I’m not sure of the best phrasing for it – “Saver of Semen Stained Dresses”?
“Semen Hoarder”?
“Clinton’s Cum Bank”?
She was a twenty-something seduced by a serial-womanizer who happened to be the leader of the free world.
[ul]
[li]She did NOTHING to “wreck” the Clinton “home”.[/li][li]She did not perjure herself before Congress, denying that she had sex with “That Man”[/li][/ul]
Clinton took advantage of her, and threw her under the bus to the ravenous media.
I wouldn’t disagree that it’s worth discussing. What I wonder, though, is why it matters whether it’s a self-serving action dressed as altruism or actual altruism. (This is not to mention other possibilities.)
Clinton doesn’t fully escape the jabs, but you point is sound.
Consider the truly divergent paths of the two: Bill Clinton today is still one of the most powerful and respected men in the world; Monica is hopping from job to job as a social pariah. Both participated in the relationship, but it was far, far from and equal partnership. Only one of them suffered any lasting damage.
No one cares that she sucked his dick, or what she did eighteen years ago. Or even her lame attempts to trade on her infamy in the years since.
But they care that she’s trying to capitalize yet again, and rehashing a shameful period in American history for her own profit and fame. And rightly so, in my opinion. Especially since she dressing it up as altruistically fighting against cyber bullying.
She brought down a government and the ensuing mess cost taxpayers millions of dollars. But hey, if you think it’s just about her sucking his dick, that’s all okay then.
How the hell did she bring down a government exactly?! That was far more the fault of political opportunists using her and her being a willing participant, she wasn’t totally innocent collecting a semen sample on her clothing and passing it on.
Clinton didn’t pass national secrets to a foreign government for a blowjob, the only one who should have cared was his wife. It should have been a non-issue.
The taxpayers wouldn’t have had to waste that money if the reaction of the public to a woman claiming she has some of the president’s semen on a dress was a laugh and a shrug.