We know Republicans attacked her. The evidence that it matters is weak, though, as Haberman's article makes clear if you read past the first few paragraphs. The first big point: Fox News picked up on Monica Lewinsky's Vanity Fair story and used it to go after Clinton. Gee whiz, that's new and damaging. Or, as Haberman puts it:
There’s nothing new to say about the Lewinsky scandal itself; the newness for Clinton’s critics is in trying to tether it to her presidential aspirations.Actually, that's not very new, either. They've been doing it for months. So what else has Haberman got? Well, Benghazi:
The House panel, created in a party-line vote, ensures the controversy surrounding the 2012 attack will continue as Clinton’s new book about her tenure as secretary of state hits bookstores next month.So the Republican base will continue to be whipped up about something that no one else cares about. That may help them turn out their base in the midterm elections, but that's not specifically a problem for Hillary Clinton. And two years from now, the American public will care even less about Benghazi than it does now, which is already not much.
The issue generates heat among the Republican base, although it’s not clear that the general public is engaged on it.
Hillary Clinton may personally have had a bad week; I don't know her life. And, yeah, it's a fair bet that a week Monica Lewinsky is in the news is not, personally, fun for Clinton. But politically? If a scandal that was fully aired in the 1990s and Benghazi are all Republicans have to use against her, Clinton should be rubbing her hands with glee.