Keep Going, Rand Paul. You’re Doing Great!

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has decided to inexplicably invoke Monica Lewinsky as a serious problem for the would-be Hillary Clinton campaign. On a recent Meet the Press appearance Rand Paul said the following about Bill Clinton:

“He took advantage of a girl that was 20 years old and an intern in his office,” Paul told host David Gregory. “There is no excuse for that, and that is predatory behavior.”

He repeated the same charges on C-SPAN and Newsmax.

Great! Seriously, this can only be good news for the presumptive Clinton campaign, and as difficult as it might be for Hillary to be reminded of it, it’s excellent news for her in 2016.

You know how I know this? Today, Karl Rove basically told Paul to shut the fuck up.

“Frankly, Rand Paul spending a lot of time talking about the mistakes of Bill Clinton does not look like a big agenda for the future of the country,” Rove said on Fox’s “America’s Newsroom.”

If Karl Rove thinks it’s a bad idea, it’s probably a bad idea. Of course if you’re a Clinton supporter, you’re probably hoping Paul doesn’t pay any attention to Rove.

Meanwhile, let’s look at the numbers. How is Bill Clinton faring in terms of popularity right now? Via Peter Beinart, here are some recent numbers:

A July 2012 Gallup poll found [Bill] Clinton’s approval at an impressive 66 percent, higher than it had been since he left office. Among women, [Bill] Clinton’s approval rating was 63 percent. It was 44 percent among Republicans.

Playing the Lewinsky card, even in 2001 when Bill Clinton left office, was ineffectual as he departed the White House with an approval rating in the mid-60s. Meanwhile, it only generates more sympathy for Hillary.

As for Paul, this might help him among the far-right in Iowa and South Carolina, but it’s a free advertisement for the Clintons and makes Rand Paul seem churlish and petty, digging back to 1997 for a sordid sex scandal of which Hillary was a victim.

  • jbfaust

    Look, I am bascially a conservative,however, I loved Bill Clinton as a politician.
    He was very smart and was willing to meet people halfway. He is what we southerners call a “good ole’ boy”. The only thing I hold against him and Hillary for this whole thing is trying to make all the women he had a “good time” with look crazy.
    Is this not what so many women go through and have fought against? I believe Hillary is only for “women’s rights” as long as they do not get in her way.
    I will say this, I dropped out of the feminist movement when this all occurred. I knew then, they were only for “women’s rights” when it came to conservatives!

  • Peter James

    It’s in keeping with the current Republican strategy of mining disastrous strategies from the 90′s in an attempt to see if they can get them to work the second time around.

    We saw it last year with their attempts to resurrect the “Government Shutdown” strategy, and how well that worked out for them even after everyone warned them it would backfire spectacularly on them.

    Someone should remind Rand that the Monica Lewinsky angle only ended up driving Clinton’s approval numbers up, once the whole Impeachment fiasco washed over, and with Republicans looking the worse and more petty for it.

    Or maybe not.

    Carry on Rand.
    Carry on.

  • ruth crocker

    I hate to say it, but Rove is right. No one ever trash talked their way to the presidency. But Hillary needs to work on her over-arching vision as well. Who else have you got? is not an inspiring message.

    • Razor

      She hasn’t even said she’s running and currently holds no position in the government, what vision is she supposed to be talking about?

  • Scopedog

    And to think that some wanted to “stand” with this guy because of his so-called filibuster on drones…

    • Peter James

      That really did my head in, watching all those so-called Liberals embarrass themselves by jumping on this guy’s “Drone” bandwagon.

      And the same usual pathetic explanation or excuse over and over again that “It’s not Obama whom we fear misusing drones or launching strikes against American citizens on American soil. It’s the next Republican president who we fear will abuse them”.

      Well……

      There’s an easy solution to that provided in the Constitution.

      MAKE A FREAKING LAW THAT WILL NOT ONLY TIE THIS PRESIDENT’S HANDS BUT ANY FUTURE PRESIDENT’S HANDS AS WELL!!!!.

      (And if Obama were to veto such a law if it somehow miraculously passed both Houses and came to his desk – then we’d know where the real blame would lie. Except that wouldn’t happen because in the same speech that Obama gave about Drones, he asked Congress specifically to pull back the Patriot Act and remove the AUMF (Authorization of Use of Military Force) powers that had been granted as a blank check to Bush.)

      At which point I would ask them to remind me, which body of the American system of Government Rand Paul belonged to, – one which, oh I don’t know, might be involved in the business of MAKING LAWS… and why it was that none of them bothered asking why Mr. “Drone Crusader”, hadn’t, in his capacity as a UNITED STATES LAWMAKER put a freaking bill on the floor of the Senate restricting the president’s powers on the use of drones.

      Of course none of them had an answer for the obvious reason why he hadn’t sponsored such a bill (which even if it had likely gone down in flames, would still show that he was being sincere and principled) – which is that Senator Rand Paul would still like those same powers to be available for when future President Rand Paul gets to the White House.

      And it’s always the same crowd from the so-called “Progressive” wing or Far Left of the Democrats (the Emoprogs) that keep falling for these kind of stunts for the Libertarian types like Paul (both papa and son) and the Greenwalds and Snowdens.

  • kfreed

    Yeah, yeah, yeah… Rand Paul’s idiotic contention that Democrats are warring on women… because Bill Clinton… certainly is a black eye to those on the left legitimately concerned with the Tea Party’s legislative war on women, documented in excruciating and overwhelming detail here: http://www.politicususa.com/proof-war-women-2

    Rand Paul’s additional “reasoning” for revisiting the Lewinsky episode: “Paul: Candidates should return ‘predatory’ Bill Clinton’s donations”
    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/197734-paul-candidates-should-return-bill-clintons-donations

    Before Rand Paul slings another handful from atop Bullshit Mountain, he might consider returning those donations from the neo-Nazi camp: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/05/24/869320/-SCANDAL-Rand-Paul-MUST-return-Neo-Nazi-funds-NOW-and-DENOUNCE-Stormfront-org

  • Razib_Taif1

    Sen. Rand Paul isn’t from Texas – it the other retrograde backwater…

    • kfreed

      Rand Paul (R-KY) from Texas:)

    • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

      My fingers automatically type “TX” after the names of crazy people.

      • formerlywhatithink

        Me too, BobTX, me too. :)

        • Peter James

          Aaaw….poor widdle Texan got his feewings hurt by Bob’s slam on Texas.

          poor baby.

          At the end of the day you come from Texas.
          Isn’t that insult enough?

          • formerlywhatithink

            Ummm, might want to peruse my comment history before jumping to conclusions. Also, I’m from Florida, so I have enough shame in my state the way it is.

          • Aaron Litz

            Yeah, that little insult was both misaimed and uncalled for.

    • Draxiar

      Kentexy?