Lewinsky, Clinton, Tripp, Holder, Reno, and Obama: The More Things Don’t Change

Lewinsky, Clinton, Tripp, Holder, Reno, and Obama: The More Things Don’t Change

The magazine Vanity Fair will enjoy booming publicity this week when its digital edition hits the Internet on May 8, ahead of its debut on nationwide newsstands and the release of its audio edition on Tuesday, May 13. The anticipated story that has the political and celebrity worlds both buzzing is by none other than “that woman” in the blue dress, Monica Lewinsky.

Titled “Shame and Survival,” Lewinsky writes in Vanity Fair about how she was torn to shreds by the media in 1998 and 1999 after the revelation of her affair with President Bill Clinton. She names the Drudge Report as the principle crucifier-in-chief in the slow ride to infamy of the mistress of the Commander-in-Chief. Indeed, it was the breaking of the Clinton-Lewinsky affair, and the corresponding cover up by liberal news media, that catapulted Matt Drudge’s website to the top of the Internet news-sphere overnight in 1998.

drudge on lewinsky
Drudge Report headline on January 17, 1998

The late great Andrew Breitbart wrote about Matt Drudge and the novelty of his news digest website founded in the 1990s, a website that has become one of the most consulted and reliable websites in the world for breaking news. (See Breitbart’s book Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World, chapter 3, p. 42ff.)

Monica Lewinsky takes an oath
Monica Lewinsky takes an oath

Back to the Vanity Fair article and Ms. Lewinsky’s take on her “suffering” over the years. She was indeed vilified by many in the liberal media because of the threat that she caused to Slick Willy. If only she had become pregnant and filmed herself having an abortion, the media would have rallied around her and held her up as a model woman. But as it was, the only thing Bill left behind for her was a semen-stained blue dress and a media all too eager to make her the scape goat for what was wrong with the country. (George W. Bush had not come along yet to take on the scape goat role for liberals.)

What sprang to my mind today as I contemplated this story is the other woman who was vilified in the liberal media feeding frenzy that ensued the exposure of Toy Boy Clinton’s indiscretions. Remember Linda Tripp? She was the friend of Lewinsky who secretly recorded Monica spilling her guts about her affair with Slick Willy. Tripp had worked with Lewinsky at the Pentagon, and when Monica got whisked over to the White House for her internship, the two women kept in touch.

Linda Tripp image from www.mrc.org
Linda Tripp image from www.mrc.org

(By the way, the mainstream media has always made a hullabaloo about Tripp being 24 years older than Lewinsky, as if to suggest it was inappropriate for two women of such unequal ages to be friends. This is the same media, mind you, that was making excuses for the man who was President of the United States and was over 30 years senior to the intern he was boinking in the tax-payer owned White House.)

The lambasting of Linda Tripp for secretly taping conversations that had national security implications in 1998 stands in stark contrast to the events in the last few weeks. I’m referring to the secret taping of a private conversation, including the racist remarks, of Clippers owner Donald Sterling by V. Stiviano, his so-called girlfriend.

Sterling and Stiviano
Sterling and Stiviano

Very few people in the media have deigned to say anything bad about a minority woman who would record her white billionaire boyfriend and publicize the conversation. That’s because the rich white man being recorded was not towing the liberal line by not speaking his mind. Whether you agree with what the man said or not, it was his personal thinking that is being vilified, not any action that threatens national security. But when Linda Tripp’s secret recording of Monica Lewinsky’s confessions were made public, the man who was abusing the highest office in the land and jeopardizing our nation’s security was given a pass by the liberal media. And the woman who recorded the evidence, Linda Tripp, was made out as the villainess. Hypocrisy is not a strong enough word for the double standards by which liberals live.

Another point of hypocrisy is also illustrative as I muse over the fallout from the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. We can look to another current event that is playing put today on the world stage. But first, think back to 1998-99, when Janet Reno was the Attorney General of the United States, and, naturally, she was a Bill Clinton appointee. Somewhat remarkably Reno did allow the appointment of a special investigator in the case against Bill Clinton when the Lewinsky affair exploded. Indeed, Kathleen Willie’s lawsuit against Slick Willy, which was the impetus for Tripp secretly recording Lewinsky in the first place, was ongoing at the time. Clinton’s lies about the sexual harassment in which he was constantly engaged led to him perjuring himself, and that eventually led to his impeachment. So Janet Reno deserves some credit for allowing the investigation of her boss.

Reno and Holder
A.G. Reno and Ass. A.G. Holder in 1998 hearing

The same type of patriotism and belief in the Constitution cannot be attributed to the man who holds the same office today. Allegations against the current president, the wife of Bill Clinton, and others in Obama’s administration abound with regard to the horrific events in Benghazi a year and a half ago. The cover-up is finally being exposed, no thanks to  the Justice Department , and in spite of A.G. Eric Holder’s joining in the cover up. Will Holder ever appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the events in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack that killed our Ambassador and three other brave men? Not a snowball’s chance in hell. Although he was an assistant to Janet Reno during the Clinton Administration, Holder doesn’t have the balls that Reno had to allow an investigation of “Der Boss.”

It is amazing (or not) how the name “Clinton” is still associate with cover ups over twenty years after the first Clinton took office in 1992. The famously snarky retort of Hillary to the Congressional committee, “What difference does it make?”, is the Clinton defense even now. I’m sure Bill and Hillary will be asking themselves and the American people that same question in a few days when Monica’s tell-all hits the newsstands.

Written by

  • VALman says:


  • Donna Miller says:

    Perhaps it was a typo. Perhaps not. Good eye for detail though!

  • VALman says:

    Ya’ll are bad, naughty!

  • Xavier says:

    About 15 years ago I saw an interview with Lewinsky where she stood on stage, told her story, and answered very personal questions from the audience. She was poised, articulate, and direct. She looked the audience right in the eye and said, “How many of you ladies have never done what I did?” Dead silence. It was an impressive performance.

    My take on it is that a young girl was star-struck by BJ and he took advantage. It’s his MO. Can you imagine being a young unmarried woman and saddled with that, um, stain on your reputation forever? Until she does something colossally stupid, I think we should recognize she’s dealt with her situation in a fairly mature manner give her a little respect.

    And I hope she sends the Clintons to hell.

    • VALman says:

      “Power is the great aphrodisiac.” Henry A. Kissinger

      I know what she’s said about consenting adults. Yet, a person holding the office that he did is mighty, mighty seductive. Anyone who has been around metro D.C., or any other place similar, knows its influence. And, that is what is sad about the hole matter, because the system grinds people up and spits them out with nary a thought. She may well be demonstrating a more likable, engaging person than the Clintons.

      (BTW “star-struck by BJ” – was that a Freudian slip?)

  • Donna Miller says:

    I have always thought she was the victim. Being 21 years old does not mean it was consensual. In any employment situation when there is a sexual relationship with the boss, the employee (intern in this case, but that’s legally insignificant) is a “vulnerable person.” She can say it was consensual, but that’s because she’s still in love with him. And he is still screwing her over. Some day she will wake up and see that she was indeed vulnerable, star struck, and used.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner