I don’t think it’s fair to claim she brought down the government. I don’t think she forced the president to accept a blow job. And I don’t know how she felt about the impeachment, but I doubt she was really for it.
She’s been abused by powerful people, her name has been turned into a joke, just google her name as a euphemism for a blow job. She shouldn’t have to hide her face in shame for falling for the charming Bill Clinton. And she absolutely has been bullied.
Well let’s see, Linda Tripp only heard of these events because ML was bragging on her conquest. And, my understanding is that ML has acknowledged that SHE was the pursuer in the relationship. Not that he shouldn’t have kept it in mis pants, but hardly a victim. The info LInda Tripp received was only actionable because there was the dress. The dress ML purposely saved.
Sorry, I didn’t buy into the victim act then, and I don’t buy into it now. Now I find it even more offensive as she appears to be using the spotlight (already and righteously) being shone on cyber bullying to wedge herself back into the limelight.
And she’s chosen this moment in time because Hilary could run. And it’s so transparent.
And slimy.
I hope you’re right and I’m being overly cynical and her motives are indeed pure. I would love that to be the case, in truth.
It’s just not what it feels like to me.
Humidor?
Regards,
Shodan
I would agree if she was trying to slip into obscurity and keeping her name out of the spotlight. But she has consistently appeared in television ads and is now launching this campaign. If her name was Monica Smith instead of Monica Lewinsky, nobody would give a shit about her and give her this airtime.
She is using the fact that she fellated the President of the United States to get herself this airtime. For that, she deserves any comments she might receive.
One possible reason: There is a good bit of chuckling in the conservative community over the timing and how this at best is an embarrassment for Hillary and at worst a significant problem for her candidacy. Bernard McGuirk, for example, said he’s all for her staying in the media spotlight since it helps to derail Hillary’s march to the White House.
I think there are plenty of Dems who trivialize Bill Clinton’s actions and wish this would just go away, therefore Monica is demonized. Honestly, I can understand apathy, but the obvious animus? Makes no sense to me unless you view her as a political problem.
So first you are saying no one cares what she did, and then you said she “brought down a government”. So it sort of sounds like you care, otherwise why bring it up.
But let’s leave that, and focus on what you claim are your actual points of critique:
That’s not a very good critique. Is speaking up for any cause “trying to capitalize” in your opinion? Or is that only the case when it’s women you don’t like who do it?
If that’s what you dislike, why not direct your hate at say, Jay Leno, and his late night jokes. That was more exactly a rehashing for his own profit and fame. But that’s not really what you are against, is it?
I’m being cyberbullied by all the Monica Lewinsky news on the internet.
It’s not a morality issue for me truly. I just think she is now, what she has always been, a shameless fame seeker, painting herself as a victim. And I find that distasteful. Then, and now.
While it seems blatant and obvious to me, I am surprised others just don’t see it. So maybe I’m mistaken, and her motives are entirely pure. And it’s just a coincidence that this is timed exactly with Hilary’s run.
I willingly admit that’s possible. I hope it’s the case and I’m just being overly cynical, I really do.
If I couldn’t find work because of a scandal that happened almost two decades ago, I’d also be trying to way to leverage that to my benefit. What’s that saying? You’ve got to turn lemons into lemonade? That’s what she’s doing.
She may not fit the picture-perfect definition of a cyberbullying victim, but she certainly embodies “media punchingbag”. And she certainly was one of the first people who got all their sordid bidness plastered on the internets.
Yep, a girls got to eat.
And I have no problem with her trying to make a buck off of her fame/infamy. But if you (the general you) have your sole claim to fame be a sexual tryst with the POTUS, you can’t keep injecting yourself into the public eye and then complain that the only thing that people talk about when it comes to you is your sole claim to fame. That’s not bullying when people mention simple historical facts.
If she was working as a tech consultant in Cheyenne, WY and people were putting hateful flyers on her car, then I would agree that those people are out of line. If she speaks out in the media about anything, then a legitimate retort is : What in the hell do you know, you are only famous because you blew the POTUS.
Same thing when Michael Douglas speaks out in favor of gun control or when Charlton Heston became NRA President: It’s legitimate to point out their background as actors and not gun experts.
That’s convincing.
Well said.
Dang, if I couldn’t make a living because of some mistake I made when I was barely an adult, if everything I tried to do was associated with that mistake, if I could not run from it, then what choice would I have but to embrace it use it the best I could?
She just didn’t have the media savvy to embrace it sooner. In another few years a sex tape/scandal would become the fast track to media success and millions.
Except it’s not that she can’t find other work. She can, and has. Repeatedly.
But it’s not the kind of work that garners attention, celebrity or fame! She wants another 15 minutes, I think.
I don’t think 24 is barely an adult either.
And it’s only dogging her now because SHE revisited it. For profit and more notoriety. And so she could play the victim.
To tell all of us to “move on” ! How is that not transparent?
But maybe she’s right. Judging by this thread it seems like most people would be happy to see her on the national stage again! It is the age of Kardashians and Hilton’s after all! Maybe she’ll get another 15 minutes. Maybe even be on dancing with the stars!
Making a living off her own scandalous behavior is going to encourage cyberbullying.
Really? What work, other than work that capitalized on her fame (which includes the handbags and the weight loss gig), has she been able to get?
So she’s doing it for herself instead of the cause she’s supposed to be supporting. That’s being selfish and thus worthy of derision.
And since she is just a media punchbag, and not a cyberbullying victim, she shouldn’t be claiming to be a cyber bullying victim. The role she’s vying for should be taken up by a real cyberbullying victim.
You guys want to turn this into something against her because she’s Monica Lewinsky. It’s not. I would say the exact same thing about anyone else in the same position. I hold no ill-will towards this woman. I do, however, expect the spokesperson of a cause to be truthful with her claims. And I expect her to put the cause in front of her own fame.
I also expect the spokesperson for a cause to be highlighting a cause rather than bringing up a controversy that isn’t part of said cause. If the spokesperson has a controversial past, they should be doing what they can to get the focus off of that and onto the cause. So far, Lewinsky doesn’t seem to be doing this. At the very least, she should be focusing on the actual cyberbullying that happened to her, not on something most people would argue isn’t actually cyberbullying.
(And, yes, I’m taking her word that she was actually cyberbullied, even though she’s provided no evidence. Because that’s what we should do.)
I don’t doubt she is being selfish.
She selfishly would like to have a better legacy than “blow job queen.” She selfishly would like to come out of hiding and do something more meaningful than trying to fade into the woodwork and wait to die. She’d selfishly like to use her prodigious education and obvious gift for writing to do something more than sitting in an attic reading with her cats. She’d probably selfishly like to make money, too.
I’m sorry, how is that different from anyone else? Do you wake up in the morning and live a life of pure giving, untainted by worldly desires like “paying rent” and “feeling useful?”
If she were applying for sainthood, I would probably reject her. But if she wants to make some speeches on bullying, I’m not sure why all of this matters.
Exactly, sven. Why is being selfish so wrong for someone in her situation?
Maybe if she had been just a little more selfish and not so eager to please and “do” for others, we wouldn’t know her name and she’d have a normal life.
I don’t really understand why you think she is not a cyberbullying victim. With people talking like they do on this thread, it’s a certainty that people are also being nasty to her on other cybermedia that she is using.