Rand Paul calls Bill Clinton a sexual predator - cue the phony media freakout

"Bill Clinton had sex with someone other than his wife. It's none of your business, and you prudes should just drop it."

That's the narrative about the Lewinsky scandal that we're all supposed to embrace. It exists solely because Bill Clinton has come to be identified as one of the greatest Democrats ever to hold office. He is, perhaps second only to JFK or FDR, the liberal that liberals adore. If he were a Republican, things would be very, very, different. If he had an (R) after is name, here's what the media would have said:

"Bill Clinton, who has come to embody everything conservatives hold dear, was the most powerful man in the world. He used his position to take sexual advantage of a young, wide-eyed intern who was barely out of her teens. He defiled the sanctity of his marriage, and that of the Oval Office, by molesting an innocent, probably frightened, young girl with a cigar.

---

...Since that's a tobacco product, he may also have exposed her to a cancer risk."

Sunday, Rand Paul appeared on Meet the Press. There, he essentially made that argument by saying:

"I think, really, the media seems to have given President Clinton a pass on this. He took advantage of a girl that was 20 years old and an intern in his office. There is no excuse for that and that is predatory behavior and ... we shouldn't want to associate with people who would take advantage of a young girl in his office." "This isn't having an affair, I mean this isn't me saying 'he's having an affair and we shouldn't talk to him. Someone who takes advantage of a young girl in their office? I mean, really, and then they have the gall to stand up and say 'Republicans are having a war on women?'"

Keep in mind that the Clinton scandal wasn't dependent on some nebulous, trumped up charge. It wasn't a he-said-she-said situation with a woman his own age, and no one needed to employ vultures like Gloria Allred to gin up a media circus.Thanks to some (rather creepy) DNA evidence, Bill Clinton's impropriety was a recurring, provable, fact. Eventually, he admitted as much. The proof was the only thing that forced him to admit that he'd committed perjury in the first place. Now, the media is having a collective conniption fit about Paul's comments. The Senator has dared to apply their own standards to their favorite President, and they don't care for it one bit. However, that alone is not the issue. If they weren't beholden to the terrifying concept of "President Hillary," they probably wouldn't be so upset. As Dan has repeatedly pointed out, Hillary is a woman with no tangible accomplishments. Her only real achievement is 'getting hired' - first as a New York Senator and later as Secretary of State. However, once she was in those positions, her record is paper thin at best. At worst it's lethally incompetent. The elephant in the room is that she only managed to get those jobs because she rode her husband's coattails to Washington. In order to do that, she had to shut her mouth and accept Bill's insulting, disrespectful, behavior - not just once, but over, and over, again ...fordecades. We know they don't actually want to be anything more than a propaganda arm for the DNC but, if media members were interested in doing their job, that would be the real story. Rather than freaking out over Senator Paul's comments, reporters should be asking a simple question. Why would the "smartest woman in America” subjugate herself to a philanderer who spent 30 years embarrassing her at every turn? Answer that question, and you know everything about Hillary that you will ever need to know. Senator Paul's comments appear below.