This month's Vanity Fair had an article by Monica Lewinsky. I was still in elementary school when the scandal broke, so consequently I didn't really live through it like I would with other media circuses such as Terri Shiavo or George Zimmerman. I can look at it analytically without emotion like the assassination of JFK, the Lindbergh kidnapping, or the murder of Stanford White. I'm not certain if this is a pro or a con because without that it's harder for me to comprehend the momentum or atmosphere of the nation and the people involved at the time.

I first wanna preface this by saying I strongly disapprove of cheating. I don't care if your significant other is not paying attention to you, cheated on you first, or if you simply don't love him or her anymore. I'd rather you be up front about it and break up than cheat. In the case of Clinton and Lewinsky, I find both players to be equally at fault: Clinton for breaking his vows and Lewinsky for going after a man she knew was already committed.

But I also think this: Extramarital affairs are a private business. I don't care if a politician is sleeping with fourteen different people no more than I would a McDonald's manager. If you're doing your job well, then fine. The only time it becomes relevant is if a politician is using money or influence to help the paramour, e.g. furthering a career or being the head of the CIA and sharing your email password. Then it's affecting the public in some way. Another exception I'll make is if you're against gay marriage for the sake of sanctity of marriage because the irony is just too much for me to bear. Otherwise I don't want to hear about it. Lewinsky falls under my criteria because she worked under then Chief of Staff Leon Panetta. Although not directly under Clinton, there still could be some sort of conflict of interest there. Ironically, her affair had her transferred out to the Pentagon when people noticed her proximity with the president.

Lewinsky was used not so much as to prove corruption in the White House but just a way to get at the president: Clinton was asked before a grand jury whether he had a relationship with her, he denied it, was later forced to admit it thanks to tapes and semen on a dress, and then was impeached for perjury and not for sleeping around. I'm not going to exonerate Clinton for his actions and I disapprove of them. However on the corruption scale, having an affair and lying about it is on the mild side. It's no Watergate. Hell, the other shit that Ken Starr was investigating, like Whitewater or the inappropriate usage of FBI files is what we as a people should've been focusing on.

However Lewinsky brought up a good point: Why was he able to move on but she wasn't? To his credit he created the Clinton Foundation to help countries in need. She tried to stay out of sight and live a normal life, but her name recognition prevented her from furthering her career. After this article was released, several people said she was a publicity seeker, but I don't think so. Since the late 90s, I haven't heard a single peep from her. And when the affair first came to light, she did everything in her power to deny it ever happened. I think she's allowed to give her two cents on the issue considering the intense scrutiny she endured during the scandal, as she says, "Apparently, others talking about me is O.K.; me speaking out for myself is not."

Lewinsky says it's because she's a woman. She points out that Hilary Clinton blames herself for being distant at the time, forcing Bill to seek intimacy elsewhere; why is everyone but the husband culpable? Possibly. There's definitely more sexual restriction on women than men. I'm not certain that's it entirely; after all, Anthony Weiner and Eliot Spitzer lost spectacularly during the NYC mayoral and comptroller race for their transgressions. (On the other hand, Mark Sanford made it to the House of Representatives.) There're other factors involved. For one, what else is Lewinsky known for besides this? Clinton had other things to fall back on, like being president. It's harder for society to toss him aside.

However I agree with her that this isn't fair. Either we censure or forgive both of them. As I stated above, they're both to blame. The onus should not be on one individual. Clinton's done well for himself and I'm willing to let it slide. And I'm willing to do the same with her. She got her just desserts with the public humiliation during the scandal, and I think that's enough. The stigma shouldn't follow her the rest of her life.