Michael, if I were a Lefty, and in the habit of throwing terms like "male chauvinist" around, maybe I would.

Does it occur to you that the events of then years ago cannot have been a lot of fun for Monica.  (She's not the one who went to the media, remember.)

So, even if there were a lot of money in the offing, I can't see why she would want to invite a new wave of notoriety and attention upon herself.

Wow, so Democrats aren't allowed to mention the blue dress? Is this because our new Hillarista overlords require us to believe that Bill didn't actually have an affair with Monica? Or is this because our new Hillarista masters don't think there was anything wrong with it if he did? If Hillary is going to appoint herself to be our thought police, she could at least warn us in advance which thoughts we're not allowed to think so that we can obey. I mean, by definition it's not an unfair personal attack to mention something a person did, if the person actually did the thing and that thing is a bad thing to have done.

But I second Michael's good on Monica for finding a way to get on with her life away from the public glare. It seems to be quite hard to become un-famous, and Monica seems to have succeeded about as well as anyone in memory.

Punditly speaking, would it help or hurt Hillary if Monica made a public statement of support for Hillary?

"Monica Lewinsky has done a surprisingly excellent job of being totally invisible in this campaign."

Yet weirdly, ten years later, we keep fucking talking about her.

Also, maybe Lewinsky has a little... gasp... dignity? (also, she got a 10 million dollar book advance back in the day). Also, I second Chan's point.

Can't you media guys go rent some porn or something intead of forcing your titillations on us?

Monica?? You guys are so freaked you're schlepping poor Monica back into the "news"? Do I sense the Desperation Alert Status going from Yellow to Orange in TNR headquarters?

Why not call Duncan Hunter and see if he has new thoughts about Vince Foster?

Chan,

It's true that Monica didn't go to the media initially, but I recall her inordinate candor at the time, volunteering all sorts of details to the prosecutors that could have gone unreported and agreeing to a much-watched Barbara Walters interview where seemed quite proud of herself. So, yes, I do think it's surprising that she's been extremely silent, but even more so, I'm surprised -- and sort of impressed -- that the media has maintained a relatively hands off approach to the whole affair.

BHL, Monica was under oath when she made most if not all her revelations.  I haven't read the transcripts, so I don't know how much the questioning lead to the detail of her responses.

In any event, she was 21 back then.  She 31 or maybe 32 now.  People do mature.  And, certainly, neither she nor her family would have much reason to want attention like this all over again.

If she's "got her ten million," what for?

Apropos Michael Crowley's post today on The Stump about Monica being invisible, I always thought