Fox’s Not Very Touching Support For Monica Lewinsky

Monica Lewinsky has broken her silence and Fox News is all ears. It’s hard to think of a single other Democratic woman whose psychological welfare they have taken such an interest in. Ever. Not surprisingly, Fox’s “concern” looks a lot more like hatred for the Clintons than support for Lewinsky.

I’m sure you won’t be shocked if I say I don’t recall any interest in women wronged by Republicans on Fox News. Remember when Newt Gingrich’s second wife (and former mistress when he cheated on his first wife) revealed in 2012, in the middle of the presidential campaign, that Gingrich had asked for her an open marriage and, a few days later, gave a speech about family values in which he blasted liberals for their lack thereof? Did you ever see Marianne Gingrich on Fox? I didn’t. In fact, Fox never let Gingrich’s unsavory personal life get in the way of hiring him as a contributor (Gingrich left Fox in 2011, when he ran for president)

And how about those repeat allegations of sexual harassment against Herman Cain that surfaced while he was a presidential contender? That was no barrier to becoming a paid Fox News contributor, either. I haven’t heard a peep about the accusations since.

But Lewinsky’s article hasn’t even published yet. Vanity Fair has revealed excerpts. And Fox can’t seem to get enough.

Guest hosting the O’Reilly Factor last night, Laura Ingraham said about Lewinsky, “We talk about the war on women….How about the war on a woman? …She’s not saying this was sexual harassment… Basically, they just disposed of her. She became an inconvenience and they got rid of her. They had to demean her. And Mrs. Clinton did that.”

The other guest, Monica Crowley, took the hint. It’s worth pointing out that Crowley is also a Fox News contributor and, therefore, a colleague of Cain and, formerly, Gingrich.

A couple of weeks ago, Laura, Kathleen Willey, another one of Clinton’s victims (Crowley forgot to point out that Willey’s credibility has been shot) came forward and said Hillary Clinton is the war on women. And I thought that was a really apt description. Because remember, when the Lewinsky scandal was unfolding, it was said that Hillary Clinton was the one who came up with the “nuts and sluts” attack to go after all of Bill’s women who came forward.

…Monica Lewinsky was thrust into the situation. But the truth of the matter is that for all of the talk that Hillary Clinton is some sort of feminist pioneer, Laura, the truth is that Hillary Clinton was always about protecting her political meal ticket, who was Bill Clinton. Even at the expense of throwing these women under the bus.

So this suggestion somehow … and we constantly hear it from the left, that, well, it’s OK to overlook men on the Democratic side who abuse particular women, whether it’s Monica Lewinsky or Ted Kennedy – any of them- overlook that because they’re good on, quote, women’s issues. Whether it’s abortion or birth control or you name it. I think that is a very corrosive and destructive thing.

Ingraham asked her other guest, Democrat Jessica Ehrlich, if Lewinsky “is going to be demeaned again” in 2016 while Bill Clinton enjoys his status as “a global celebrity.”

Ehrlich said no, that the Lewinsky matter has no bearing on Hillary Clinton’s “ability to be a national leader.” Ehrlich said Clinton “has already proven that she has the qualifications to do that and has been out around the globe representing our country. And she has, actually, been an incredible champion of women’s issues.”

So Ingraham interrupted and began badgering. “How about if you’re just, like, an intern in the White House? Do you have any rights then? …Feminists used to believe that positions of power in sexual relationships trumped consent. I guess that’s out the window with feminists today. …Those old ways of looking at the world don’t really apply when it’s Bill Clinton. He gets to kind of do what he wants, I guess. …We had a 50+ year-old man and a 22 year-old woman in the workplace but –“

Of course, Ingraham was subbing for a guy who allegedly sexually harassed a young woman working for him. But that hasn’t seemed to sour her relationship with O’Reilly one little itsy bitsy.

Follow @NewsHounds

Follow @NewsHoundEllen

Do you like this post?

Showing 10 reactions

commented 2014-05-07 21:40:29 -0400 · Flag

About the only thing notable about the Monica Lewinsky affair when it happened was that, when you watch footage, half of them looked like they secretly wanted to high five Bill the whole time. Hell, listen to their arguments- It sounds more like “He did it in my seat!” than “It’s wrong!”.

It seriously reminded me of those guys who catch their daughter taking a shower with their boyfriend, and act like all they cared about was that they chose to do it in the bathroom that he was planning to use.

Put that in context of all the crap Monica got for giving him one, and all the crap Hillary got for, I guess… Just being his wife, and that’s the story. They would have approved, and been asking him for details behind closed doors, if they didn’t see it as their seat.

No slogans, no real outrage, just “He couldn’t have done it somewhere else?”

commented 2014-05-07 18:47:57 -0400 · Flag

Let me say this much: It should be obvious to all us THINKING Americans that Faux Spews is getting VERY DESPERATE regarding the 2016 presidential election. No matter how much they dodge, bob, spin and weave, they simply CANNOT get around this IRREFUTABLE FACT:

NOBODY DIED WHEN CLINTON LIED!

’Nuff said.

commented 2014-05-07 17:21:46 -0400 · Flag

VIsitor 55— there’s even home video of dear Monica chortling to her friends she was going to bring her “presidential kneepads” to her job at the White House.

There really is no question she “set her cap,” as we used to say, for Clinton. The whole affair started when she showed him her thong underwear, by her own admission. It would have been nice if he’d been able to resist, but let’s face it, there are a lot more married men than Bill Clinton that would happily accept such invitations.

I rather like Monica Lewinsky and her spunk (ever hear about when that insufferable hag Victoria Toensing filed a criminal complaint against her because she came up to her at a train station and whacked her hard in the knees with her Bloomingdale’s shopping bag and then disappeared into the crowd?), but for crying out loud, she still clearly doesn’t get how despicable what she did was.

commented 2014-05-07 16:19:38 -0400 · Flag

The Laura Ingraham spot was particularly vicious, even for Ingraham. Crowley’s contribution was fairly noxious as well.

First Ingraham tries to get in the dig about this somehow being sexual harassment rather than an affair.

Crowley’s contribution was nasty from the start. I appreciate Ellen noting that Crowley instantly wanted to get into the Willey material, even knowing that the woman has no credibility. For Crowley, it gave her a quick cheap shot right out of the gate. As usual for her, Crowley warmed into her subject and began throwing bombs at both Hillary and Bill Clinton, portraying them as careerists. She even got in a cheap shot at Jessica Ehrlich, saying that somehow the Democrats were always defending bad men like Clinton and Teddy Kennedy (natch – she got the Kennedy shot in too).

I find it interesting that Ingraham wanted to work in a discussion of Juanita Broaddrick, a person who repeatedly changed her story and whose credibility has been questioned everywhere but on the far right and the far left. People who really hate the Clintons tend to believe her, since her story portrays Bill Clinton as a monster and Hillary as an enabler. Ingraham of course had to play Broaddrick’s story as somehow credible, with “corroborating evidence”, even though that’s not actually the case.

I also find it interesting that while Ehrlich was discussing Clinton, the Fox News gang ran clips of Hillary designed to make her look goofy or foolish.

Ingraham also threw cheap shots in essentially accusing feminists of somehow not caring whether Bill Clinton attacked women – something that actual feminists could school Ingraham about if she ever dared to have one on a show with her. It’s telling that Crowley couldn’t resist a smug grin when hearing Ingraham do this. The tone of Ingraham’s “questions” was fairly insulting not only to Ehrlich but to women in general.

And throughout the whole segment, we’re meant to believe that Laura Ingraham really wants to stand up for women’s rights, when she has spent decades opposing and ridiculing women who have made different life choices than she has.

Looking at this segment, I think that Ehrlich was trying to stay on point and not get distracted into the weeds by the various nasty comments that Ingraham and Crowley were saying. But I would have preferred to hear her say to each of them: “I reject the premise of your statements. You’re presenting questionable opinions as facts and you’re repeatedly interrupting me. Don’t you think that’s an ironic position, given that you’re trying to distract attention from the very real opposition the GOP and the right wing have presented to real women and their rights?”

commented 2014-05-07 14:45:31 -0400 · Flag

Got to get this off my chest. Hope you all don’t mind.

Hey, Monica? SHUT UP!

Among other things, Monica in this Vanity Fair piece has the gall to scold Hillary Clinton for having — reportedly — said some mean things about her in private.

Think about that for a minute. She’s scolding the wife of the man she had an affair with for being mean about it.

One of the things Hillary — reportedly — said about Monica is that she’s narcissistic. Gee, ya think? I’d say Hillary was right on the money about that, and Monica is doing her utmost to prove it.

Monica, shut up and go away.

commented 2014-05-07 14:39:37 -0400 · Flag

Hannity took the same line last night. (Must have been an Ailes memo sent out to all) He began by dragging out a series of clips of his interviews with Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, etc., then held a “discussion” with extreme right-winger Katie Pavlich and one of Fox’s stable of helpless, hapless supposed “Democratic strategists” — neither of whom are old enough to have been out of diapers at the time — about how the important “war on women” was waged by Bill Clinton, not policies advocated by Republicans.

commented 2014-05-07 10:04:11 -0400 · Flag

@ truman: And she’s old. Don’t forget that. (Must never forget the sexism angle. Hillary’s pushing 70 but she still looks in better shape than Wicked Witch Phyllis Schlafly did when she started her attacks to stop the ERA—and Schlafly was only in her late 40s when that started but she looked like she was well into her 60s even then.)

NewsHounds posted about Fox’s Not Very Touching Support For Monica Lewinsky on NewsHounds' Facebook page 2014-05-07 10:00:12 -0400

I'll bet Fox just can't wait to relive those impeachment hearings.

commented 2014-05-07 09:56:02 -0400 · Flag

Fox is just dropping there nut sack (teabagging) on Hilary’s forehead.

This is just a character assassination of Bill, to show there not the cute and cuddly grandparents. Everybody knows Bill was tapping anything that moves. Many people forget that Clinton signed a plea bargain on his last day in office admitting his lies to avoid criminal prosecution for perjury.

Who cares, he did a good job as pres!

OR

FOx is trying to say that Hillary blames the “woman”.
The whole “war on women” thing.

commented 2014-05-07 09:10:18 -0400 · Flag

Monica Lewinsky and Benghazi. If that is all that Fux Noise and the Teabagging Repugs have to trash Hillary Clinton, let’s celebrate now her 2016 election as our next President.