Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has been on something of a tear lately on the topic of ex-prez Bill Clinton. Referring to the 42nd POTUS as a "sexual predator" and lambasting his lording over a young Monica Lewinsky, the Tea Party favorite is pushing back against the GOP's "War on Women" meme by turning the tables. The Washington Times quotes Paul's challenge to Democrats who've accepted Clinton's financial support:
They can't have it both ways. And so I really think that anybody who wants to take money from Bill Clinton or have a fundraiser has a lot of explaining to do. In fact, I think they should give the money back. If they want to take position on women's rights, by all means do. But you can't do it and take it from a guy who was using his position of authority to take advantage of young women in the workplace.
Paul's playing of the "hypocrisy" card couldn't be any clearer.
Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post asks, why does Paul keep trashing Clinton, anyway? His sexual indiscretions are old news, after all. One big reason to harp on it: the other Clinton, and the concept of guilt by (intimate) association.
"Paul, like everyone else with a brain, knows that Hillary Clinton is as strong a frontrunner for their nomination as Democrats have had for three decades and that the effort to define her in a more negative light than the public currently views her needs to start now," Cillizza writes.