The title of this post is the question Peter Beinart asks at The Atlantic, with the following sub-title (in italics):

There isn’t much political logic to dredging the old scandal up—except as a move to shore up his credibility with social conservatives skeptical of libertarianism.

…..But perhaps most puzzling has been the tack taken by Rand Paul, who in interview after interview after interview has accused Democrats of “hypocrisy” for claiming to support women’s rights while giving Bill Clinton a pass for his “predatory” behavior towards Monica Lewinsky….

So why the anti-Clinton offensive? Because Paul isn’t speaking to most Americans—he’s speaking to the Christian right. Paul is presumably well aware that while economic conservatives loved his father, social conservatives did not.


Rand Paul is talking about Bill, Monica and also Hillary because it matters for the following reasons, all of which pertain to Hillary’s presumptive nomination:

  • Democratic cheerleader and hero Bill Clinton was someone who abused his power over women, particularly young, vulnerable women.
  • Bill Clinton’s wife was part of the demonization of the women Bill Clinton abused.
  • The War on Women, sure to be a campaign focus, is hypocritical when expressed by Bill and Hillary Clinton.

It matters.  Rand Paul is brilliant to talk about it.  The former Emperor and the presumptive Empress have no clothes when it comes to the War on Women.

But you can’t attack the presumptive Empress, because she’s a woman.

So Bubba and Monica, and Paula, and the other women, are issues again.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.