Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul Has decided that he is willing to bring up the controversies surrounding Bill Clinton’s indiscretions a generation ago as his tactic to win the Presidency of the United States in 2016.
This is a strategy that will fail, as it does not dignify Rand Paul to talk about an issue that is dead and gone a long time ago.
Let me make it clear, that this author deplored the behavior of Bill Clinton, and at the time, took the position that the President should resign over his misbehavior, but should NOT be impeached.
Be that as it may, Bill Clinton suffered total humiliation and exposure, was impeached, was found not guilty by the US Senate, finished his term, and has gone on to achieve a level of popularity for a former President unmatched by any in American history, even Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, or Ronald Reagan in their retirement years.
Bill Clinton has done a lot of good with his Clinton Initiative, following the work at good deeds only matched in retirement by former President Jimmy Carter, who has not been as fortunate to be as popular and respected and admired as Bill Clinton.
While his private behavior then, and by rumor even now, is reprehensible, Bill Clinton is no worse than millions of American men, and many Republican and Democratic Congressmen, Senators, and Governors. The difference is that he was a President, but then when one examines the sexual exploits of other Presidents, he is far from unique.
The point is that no matter how much one might condemn his behavior, he did not create any “victims”, as Monica Lewinsky was not a child, was not an innocent, knew precisely what she was doing, wanted to do what she did, and is responsible for her own behavior.
If anything, Rand Paul needs to answer for his voting record, for his statements against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and if one is going to bring up the past, let him explain the wacky behavior and voting record and associations of his libertarian father, former Congressman Ron Paul, with racist and secessionist groups over his long career.
One might say that would be unfair, but would it be any more unfair than to try to harm Hillary Clinton by attacking her husband’s behavior, which has caused much grief for her, behavior which she personally is not responsible for, and for her to have to hear him being called a “sexual predator” by a man who cannot walk in her husband’s shoes in his level of intelligence, accomplishment, and historic role in American history?