In an epic, sweat-soaked rant Wednesday morning, MSNBC’s “Morning” Joe Scarborough delivered a 7-minute rant against the fawning coven of prominent women perpetually eager to defend Bill Clinton from his legendary history of “bimbo eruptions.”
Yes, the warring women — principally print pundits, whose need to fill column inches combined with a psychotic longing for the Big Dog’s approval produced, then and now, an army of Rizzos determined to crush naive Sandy — are back, vilifying Monica Lewinsky on the occasion of having broken her lengthy silence on the scandal that almost wrecked a presidency.
Although Scarborough was annoyed with the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd for piling on, the genuine trigger was Andrea Peyser’s snarky column in Wednesday’s New York Post — “Monica Lewinsky should shut up and go away” — which goes to great lengths to ridicule all over again how the then 21-year-old White House intern achieved infamy. There was this:
“She’s America’s favorite beret-wearing former intern, whose very name has become a synonym for a sex act she eagerly performed on her knees, a dame who rocketed to fame for failing to dry-clean a blue dress stained with the seed of the then-leader of the free world.”
And also this:
“Now, Lewinsky, 40, wants our pity and, perhaps, a job she can perform while sitting upright. And — drum roll, please — she doesn’t blame former President Bill Clinton, the alpha male before whom she famously knelt.”
Having lived through the impeachment saga as a Republican congressman from Florida’s Panhandle, Scarborough recalls vividly how “women’s-rights ladies” stuck by Clinton despite his rough-and-tumble escapades with females not his wife, all for the sake of politics.
“You women’s-rights ladies, you were sick in the ’90s. … You’re pathetic. If you have young daughters, you should be ashamed of yourselves. … I am so angry right now, I am shaking. I still can’t believe the way he was treated in the 1990s. … And it was always the women. … And these people have the nerve to come out after defending him — after defending him — claiming to come out, wanting to support women, and protect women — women’s rights — unless we’re protecting a really, really powerful man who is on our side politically. … I’m going to pass out.”
It is a genuinely marvelous rant, one told by a soldier who survived the trenches and who is loathe to go back there.
What doesn’t ring true, however, is Scarborough’s failure to link Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the defaming of Monica Lewinsky to the defense perpetrated by the “women’s-rights ladies.” One sour word from St. Hillary and the pack would surely have laid into her unfaithful spouse. Instead, Hillary piled on, first dismissing the very thing she knew to be true — giving license to his lechery, Bill demeaned the presidency — as a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” then dismissing Monica as “a narcissistic Looney Toon.”
Like Dowd, who wrote about the Clinton partnership’s yuck factor, Scarborough doesn’t want to have to live through the ’90s again. But that’s precisely what Hillary’s candidacy would bring. She was in on, if not the leader of, the trashing of Monica (and Gennifer Flowers and Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones), and no vetting will be complete that fails to examine her role in those operations, and how those diabolical machinations are consistent with Hillary’s responsibility-ducking, blame-shifting role in the Benghazi disaster.
Perhaps that is a rant for another day.