During a February 5th interview on the Steve Malzberg show, Sen Rand Paul (R-KY) insisted that, if Democrats want "any consistency" in fighting for women’s rights, they should disown former president Bill Clinton for being what he called an "unsavory character" and a "sexual predator."
"All the time, candidates are asked to return money if an unsavory character gives them money. What if that unsavory character is your husband?" asked Paul, specifically referring to likely 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
"Where are the women who believe in women's rights, the women who allege some kind of war is going on by the other party?" Paul continued. "Where are they to stand up and say, you know what, maybe Bill Clinton isn't really the best representative of our party since he really depicts what's really gross and wrong with workplace harassment."
Except that nobody ever said Monica Lewinsky was harassed into performing for him. The Democrats were quick to disown Bob Filner and Anthony Weiner, but there is a very fine line between sexual harassment and an inability to turn down sex.
"I think if they want to be credible in saying they defend women's rights in the workplace, they really need to disown and really return any contributions that Bill Clinton’s either raising for people or given to people," he continued. "I think for the movement to proceed on or have any consistency, they need to disassociate themselves from him."
Which begs the question: Why didn't Rand Paul have any objections to the constant stream of Republicans who lined up to talk about what a wonderful president Clinton had been at their 2012 Republican National Convention?
The reality is that Rand Paul's problem is not with Bill Clinton's sexual escapades. It's that he has 2016 presidential aspirations that will likely never be realized if he has to endure any reminders of how great the country had been when a Democrat was in the White House.