Lynne Cheney says Clintons behind Monica Lewinsky story. Really?

The point of such a move described by Lynne Cheney would be to inoculate Hillary Clinton against a sudden return of the Monica Lewinsky story during any 2016 presidential campaign.

Robert Harbison/TCSM/File
Monica Lewinsky poses for a photo during at a book signing at Brentano's book store in the Century City Mall, Los Angeles, 1999.

Is it possible that the Clintons pushed for the publication of Monica Lewinsky’s new autobiographical essay in Vanity Fair? Yes, that seems far-fetched at first hearing, but that’s a theory Lynne Cheney pushed on Fox News on Tuesday after the Lewinsky piece was announced.

The point of such a move on the part of Clintonland would be to inoculate Hillary Rodham Clinton against a sudden return of the Lewinsky story during any 2016 presidential campaign. It’s an old political tactic: If there’s a negative story pending on your candidate, release it yourself, on your terms. Then dismiss it as “old news” and attempt to get the media to move on.

“I really wonder if this isn’t an effort on the Clintons’ part to get that story out of the way. Would Vanity Fair publish anything about Monica Lewinsky that Hillary Clinton didn’t want in Vanity Fair?” said Mrs. Cheney, an author and wife of former Vice President Dick Cheney.

Look, Mrs. Cheney probably heard White House communications folks talking in just this manner during the presidency of George W. Bush. Where do you think she got this idea in the first place? But in the current instance, we think it’s pretty unlikely this happened.

That’s because the idea of such a scheme assumes the Clintons are more powerful and efficient than they really are. They’d have had to think of it, first of all – and if the Lewinsky story needed preemption, what about all the pre-scandals that led into it, such as the Whitewater real estate deal, the firings in the White House travel office, and so forth? Will they get a Clinton-leaked story in time?

And yes, maybe they could cook up a deal with Vanity Fair, but they’re smart enough to know that once a story passes beyond the first outlet, it becomes uncontrollable. Recently released documents from the Clinton White House show that Ms. Clinton in particular has little regard for the media, calling reporters full of ego with little in the way of brains. She’d avoid reporters if possible, instead of involving them in some grand preemption scheme.

Also, the Clintons would have had to conceal their involvement from Ms. Lewinsky herself, given the latter’s evident feeling that the Clinton White House tried to trash her reputation after the affair became public in 1998. So the whole thing just becomes too complicated. That’s the trouble with most conspiracy theories: They assume the world operates with the efficiency of “The Bourne Identity,” when it’s really bumbling along like “Anchorman 2.”

That said, it’s interesting how wary many Republicans are about the possible political ramifications of the return of the Lewinsky story. While some see it as an opportunity, others see it as a trap, reports BuzzFeed’s political reporter McKay Coppins on Wednesday.

That’s because some see it as a distraction, a way to lure the GOP away from a more exclusive focus on Clinton’s tenure as secretary of State and such substantive issues as the now-problematic “reset” of relations with Russia.

The BuzzFeed piece quotes top GOP operative Grover Norquist as saying that Republicans should show restraint when talking about Lewinsky, as reporters will try to get them to do.

“It’s like in baseball, if they throw out a bad pitch and you swing at it, then you’re an idiot,” Mr. Norquist tells Mr. Coppins.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.