Raju Korti
It has been 23 years since former US President first unzipped his pants in what many voyeuristically describe as Sexgate. It is not altogether surprising that former US President Bill Clinton has gone on the defensive about his affair with the then 21-year-old White House intern in the wake of the MeToo movement. Clinton, then 49, escaped charges of perjury and was almost impeached, leaving behind an outraged nation and a wife who made light of her mental bruises.
I have little doubt that Harold Robbins would have delighted to author the Clinton-Lewinsky affair given its lurid and pulpy trappings. Such was the heat generated by the scandal that in 1998 I recall it had become a chewing gum for even school-going children. I am not sure between Clinton and Lewinsky who was hounded more at the time but after seeing the pictures of the chubby-ish intern, a lot many people were envious with Clinton than being offended by his sexual misdemeanors that lasted three years.
Clinton initially was all bravado, denying sexual relations with Lewinsky but his bluff was called by Linda Tripp, the whistle-blower civil servant who tripped him with all those damning audiotapes. Finding that kind of publicity too hot to handle, Lewinsky largely kept to herself until she wrote the tell-all story. She is now believed to be an ardent votary of cyberbullying and how to make the internet more compassionate. While Clinton has chosen not to make much of that sordid past, Lewinsky's response has been a terse MeToo after Tripp chose to describe her as one lacking the moral compass. When her husband broke her confidence, wife Hillary did what even Indian women with utmost orthodox conditioning would not have done -- she went into an overdrive discrediting all the women who came forward and calling the intern a loony narcissist. Her argument that her marriage with Bill had seen more happy days than sad ones euphemistically meant that she had taken her husband's flings in her stride but the pain in her eyes said everything.
That Clinton used the perks of his political office to lure women was evident. He was also involved with Paula Jones, a state worker who unsuccessfully sued him but the intriguing part of this chapter was the American President paid her a huge amount of money in an out-of-court settlement but never apologized as he did with Lewinsky. The White House intern took his pants off in every sense.
As the editor-in-charge of the Indian Express that night, I recall my colleagues breathing down my neck to know more about the scandal that involved the world's most powerful man. Analyses and conjectures flew thick and fast as the story broke but the full implications started sinking in when our (then) Washington correspondent Chidanand Rajghatta (earlier the resident editor of Mumbai edition of the Indian Express) sent in a series of stories in what could be described as consolation for Harold Robbins. It was a cud irresistible to chew. As expected the discussion centered more on voyeuristic than the political implications the issue entailed. People in the newsroom seemed more envious than being scandalized.
Imagine if the Clinton-Lewinsky affair had taken place, say thirty years before. His infidelity may have squired out anyhow but the case would have ended up differently. There would have been no internet or blogosphere to keep the topic raging, no forensic team in place to conduct a DNA test, maybe Tripp would not have had the access to then relatively new idea of using voice recordings as evidence and Saturday Night Live hadn't got around to making comedy out of political events.
History made it sure that the Bill Clinton scandal was poised at the perfect confluence of moments for technology, science, the press and popular culture to build a case against a bluffing politician that would change national precedents forever.
There is nothing wrong in America that cannot be cured with is right in America, Bill Clinton once said. Unwittingly, he became its own mascot.
 |
| The "other woman" in his life. |
I have little doubt that Harold Robbins would have delighted to author the Clinton-Lewinsky affair given its lurid and pulpy trappings. Such was the heat generated by the scandal that in 1998 I recall it had become a chewing gum for even school-going children. I am not sure between Clinton and Lewinsky who was hounded more at the time but after seeing the pictures of the chubby-ish intern, a lot many people were envious with Clinton than being offended by his sexual misdemeanors that lasted three years.
Clinton initially was all bravado, denying sexual relations with Lewinsky but his bluff was called by Linda Tripp, the whistle-blower civil servant who tripped him with all those damning audiotapes. Finding that kind of publicity too hot to handle, Lewinsky largely kept to herself until she wrote the tell-all story. She is now believed to be an ardent votary of cyberbullying and how to make the internet more compassionate. While Clinton has chosen not to make much of that sordid past, Lewinsky's response has been a terse MeToo after Tripp chose to describe her as one lacking the moral compass. When her husband broke her confidence, wife Hillary did what even Indian women with utmost orthodox conditioning would not have done -- she went into an overdrive discrediting all the women who came forward and calling the intern a loony narcissist. Her argument that her marriage with Bill had seen more happy days than sad ones euphemistically meant that she had taken her husband's flings in her stride but the pain in her eyes said everything.
That Clinton used the perks of his political office to lure women was evident. He was also involved with Paula Jones, a state worker who unsuccessfully sued him but the intriguing part of this chapter was the American President paid her a huge amount of money in an out-of-court settlement but never apologized as he did with Lewinsky. The White House intern took his pants off in every sense.
As the editor-in-charge of the Indian Express that night, I recall my colleagues breathing down my neck to know more about the scandal that involved the world's most powerful man. Analyses and conjectures flew thick and fast as the story broke but the full implications started sinking in when our (then) Washington correspondent Chidanand Rajghatta (earlier the resident editor of Mumbai edition of the Indian Express) sent in a series of stories in what could be described as consolation for Harold Robbins. It was a cud irresistible to chew. As expected the discussion centered more on voyeuristic than the political implications the issue entailed. People in the newsroom seemed more envious than being scandalized.
Imagine if the Clinton-Lewinsky affair had taken place, say thirty years before. His infidelity may have squired out anyhow but the case would have ended up differently. There would have been no internet or blogosphere to keep the topic raging, no forensic team in place to conduct a DNA test, maybe Tripp would not have had the access to then relatively new idea of using voice recordings as evidence and Saturday Night Live hadn't got around to making comedy out of political events.
History made it sure that the Bill Clinton scandal was poised at the perfect confluence of moments for technology, science, the press and popular culture to build a case against a bluffing politician that would change national precedents forever.
There is nothing wrong in America that cannot be cured with is right in America, Bill Clinton once said. Unwittingly, he became its own mascot.
No comments:
Post a Comment