Will my world never be free of Cheney’s? Every time one of them goes under the knife, starts a family feud or drops out of a Senate race, I think, there now! perhaps they’ll finally retire from public life. But, alas no, they somehow just keep Cheney-ing on down the road.
I have to admit that when Monica Lewinsky popped up this week, my very first thought was “Now, that’s curious!?”
But then she explained why:
It’s time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress.
I think I’d have done that about 19 years ago, but that’s just me.
Lewinsky then went on to describe how her affair with President Bill Clinton, while she served as a White House intern, almost ruined her life. She saw a parallel between her situation and 19 year-old Tyler Clementi’s suicide, in 2010, when his college roommate secretly taped him kissing a man and put the video on the internet.
“[T]hanks to the Drudge Report, I was also possibly the first person whose global humiliation was driven by the Internet,” Lewinsky told Vanity Fair. “I, too, was suicidal… Perhaps by sharing my story, I reasoned, I might be able to help others in their darkest moments of humiliation.”
So. This appears to be a sort of 12-Step program that Monica Lewinsky put herself through to get over her own public humiliation and now she wants to help others who are the target of online attacks.
Makes sense to me. But that’s probably because I don’t have the insider knowledge of the cesspool of pure, cynical evil that oozes into the once-pristine waters of the Potomac infecting our national politics and creating Machiavellian evil geniuses of all who imbibe its poisoned waters.
But Lynne Cheney does:
Politics — and I’ve been lucky enough to have a front-row seat on it for a while — it’s never what it seems. You know, there’s always an explanation below the surface that’s usually more accurate than what you immediately leap to.
And the explanation, “below the surface,” that leapt into Lynne Cheney’s head was this:
I really wonder if this isn’t an effort on the Clintons’ part to get that story out of the way,” Cheney said on Fox News Tuesday night. “Would Vanity Fair publish anything about Monica Lewinsky that Hillary Clinton didn’t want in Vanity Fair?”
“It’s happened at a time when Rand Paul has been criticizing the Clintons,” Cheney said. “It’s happened at a time when Hillary’s getting wrapped up to run, getting it out of the way so we can say one more time, ‘It’s old news,’ seems to me like a strategy or a tactic perhaps.”
Oh, my! and they were saving that for the coup de grâce? Let me get this straight, “it’s a strategy. Or a tactic?” perhaps engineered to clear the way, two years out, for a woman who hasn’t decided to run and apparently has deep, sinister ties to the editorial staff of Vanity Fair?
Give me a minute, here, I’m trying to imagine how this might have played:
Hello, Vanity Fair? This is Hillz . . . no,no I’m not Madame President yet. The reason I’m calling is that I’m wondering if you might have a largish space in your, let’s see, May issue? for a little true confessions piece by the “narcissistic little loony toon” that was screwing around with Bill 20 years ago?
Oh, thanks, you’re a doll! See it’s this sort of totes clever stratergery tactic thing I thought up to boost my image for the campaign . . . if I run.
Well, Mrs Cheney, I’m afraid that if you are basing your fiendishly clever deduction that Hillary Clinton feels the need to “get out in front of this old news” before the GOP weaponizes it and blows her out of the water in the Fall of ‘15, you might want to consult with Sen. Paul, tout de suite, and get him to explain why he dropped that line of attack like a hot spud. If he’s too busy to get back to you, allow me to posit that it was because he discovered that it was a really, really lame idea to think that bringing up a 20-year-old infidelity would do anything but generate sympathy for poor Ms. Hillary. Not to mention the fact that it didn’t do Big Dog any harm either. He’s still the Democrats biggest rainmaker . . . 20 years later, I might add.
As a woman, I would have guessed that Lynne Cheney would be especially well-equipped to figure out that the things a woman’s husband gets up to should have little to no bearing on her assets as a candidate.
And it’s very true that this is “old news” which will eventually be “even older news” that didn’t matter at the time, except to a few ass-hat Republicans who consulted their Pocket US Constitution and concluded that having an affair was an impeachable offense.
Remember, Mrs Cheney this line of thought made us an international laughingstock in the ‘90s it’s not going to be any help at all in 2016. It would probably be smarter to try to keep Benghazi!Benghazi!BENGHAZI!! on life-support for two years.
Or maybe you should consult with the “Shoe Truther” folks or how about the one’s investigating the way that Chelsea’s pregnancy just . . . happened???? If you really want to take down Hillary, your dirt is going to have to have legs. Look harder, woman, you have the formidable investigative resources of Fox News at your disposal.
But, then again . . . “what difference does it make?”
Republicans are just Not Ready for Hillary.