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.

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.)

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.

(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.

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.

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.