Obsessing Over Bill Clinton And Sex Would Be A Dumb 2016 Campaign Strategy For Republicans

Going after Hillary Clinton by attacking her husband won't work.

Bill Clinton
As I’ve noted over the past couple of weeks, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has taken it upon himself to resurrect the Monica Lewinsky scandal from the early years of Bill Clinton’s second term on the apparent theory that it would somehow be relevant to a 2016 run for the White House by Hillary Clinton. More recently, he has tried to make the Lewinsky affair, and other allegations against former President Clinton that date as far back as when he first entered the race for the 1992 Democratic Presidential Nomination, in the Kentucky Senate race with his rather odd demand that Allison Lundergan Grimes should return the funds that Bill Clinton has raised on her behalf in that race. Not surprisingly, Paul’s attacks on the 42nd President and his wife have earned him kudos among conservatives. Given the fact that the Clinton Derangement Syndrome that typified much of the right during the 1990s, this isn’t entirely surprising. However, based on what I’m reading from many on the right, there seems to be belief in conservative political circles that Senator Paul is pursuing a strategy that would work not just in rallying the hard right in a primary campaign, but also in attracting the voters that the GOP needs in order to win a General Election. Unfortunately for those who may be tempted to follow in Senator Paul’s footsteps, though, there’s no evidence to support this position and plenty of evidence to suggest that bringing up 15 year old allegations about someone who isn’t even on the ballot would ultimately be politically damaging.

As a preliminary matter, it’s important to recognize the simple fact that, outside of the original negative reaction when the allegations of an affair by Gennifer Flowers first became public when Clinton was just beginning his campaign for the White House, there simply isn’t any evidence that the personal allegations against Clinton harmed him politically in any way. Even the Flowers allegations didn’t end up hurting Clinton all that much. Yes, he came in second in the New Hampshire primary that year, but the fact that he was running against Paul Tsongas from neighboring Massachusetts meant that he was something of an underdog in that race anyway. Indeed, in the end, Clinton ended up doing far better in the Granite State that year, earning 24.78% of the vote compared to Tsongas’s 33.2%, than expected, thus earning himself the moniker “The Comeback Kid.”  By the time of the South Carolina Primary in March of that year, Clinton was on a glide path that led him to win the overwhelming majority of delegates to the Democratic Convention. In the end it was apparent that the Flowers allegations had done nothing to dent Clinton’s ultimate victory, although its possible that they might have had he been running against a stronger group of opponents than Jerry Brown and Paul Tsongas. Ultimately, Clinton went on to win a solid victory in the General Election, although he garnered less than a majority of the Popular Vote due to a strong third party showing by Ross Perot.

The allegations against Clinton didn’t end once he became President, of course, and they didn’t just include allegations about his sex life. There were reports that the Clinton’s had profited while Clinton was Governor from a shady land deal that came to be called Whitewater, that Hillary had somehow profited from insider trading knowledge on the cattle futures markets, and of course the sexual allegations involving women such as Paula Jones and Juanita Broderick. On the more bizarre and paranoid side, there were allegations from the far right involving everything from drug running to black helicopters to the allegation that the suicide of White House aide and Clinton friend Vince Foster was actually a murder. Thanks to the burgeoning Internet and the rise of conservative talk radio, these allegations were aired far and wide and led to Congressional hearings, the appointment of a Special Prosecutor, and ultimately the impeachment proceedings themselves.1

Despite all of this, President Clinton suffered only minimally in the polls. Consider, for example, this compilation of Presidential Job Approval polling from the beginning of his term to the very end:

Clinton Job Approval

As you can see, there was really only one time when President Clinton’s Job Approval numbers were in negative territory, and that roughly coincided with the first full year of his First Term and the 1994 midterms. Not coincidentally, this was a time when the new Administration had made a variety of political missteps ranging from problems finding a nominee for Attorney General that didn’t have legal problems to misjudging public opinion on issues like gays in the military, health care reform, and gun control. It was largely because of these early mistakes that 1994 witnessed one of the biggest midterm defeats for a sitting President’s party ever, one that was even worse than the defeat Democrats suffered in 2010 because Republicans gained control of not just the House of Representatives but also the Senate. Aside from that  brief period, though, and despite the fact that after 1994 the allegations of improper sexual behavior by Clinton continued to mount, the American people continued to support him. Indeed, during the height of the impeachment proceedings, Clinton’s Job Approval number was at some of the highest points of his Presidency. No doubt, these numbers were helped by the fact that the ec0nomy was booming from roughly 1993 onward, but there simply isn’t any evidence to suggest that the American people even cared about the Lewinsky “scandal” while it was going on.

In addition to the reality of Clinton’s popularity while he was in office, there’s the fact that after being out of office four some 13 years now, Bill Clinton is the most popular living former President. A CNN/ORC poll conducted in July 2012, for example, put Clinton’s positive numbers at 66% and his negative numbers at 31%. In a Gallup poll released in the summer of 2013, those numbers were 69% and 27% respectively. How the GOP would be helping itself by attacking a former President with approval numbers like that over stories that are nearly two decades old and which did not negatively impact his Presidency when they initially became public is beyond me.

Finally, as I’ve noted in my previous posts on this matter, Bill Clinton will not be on the ballot in 2016, Hillary Clinton will be. Yes, the former President will likely be a strong stump speaker and advocate for his wife, but he also served in that role in 2008 and, other than the missteps he made during the South Carolina primary, he had absolutely no negative impact at all on Hillary’s campaign. The idea that allegations regarding Bill Clinton that by then will be 20 years old 0r more will somehow harm Hillary Clinton in 2016 is simply laughable. Some Republicans already recognize this fact, and are warning their party not to follow Senator Paul down this particular path:

Karl Rove took a shot at Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul on Tuesday for attacking Bill Clinton over his “predatory” behavior toward Monica Lewinsky, saying that it’s not good strategy for running for president.

But Rove said he’s not sure Paul has a strategy.

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.”


Candidates for the presidency need to do two things in 2014, Rove said: make their campaigns about something larger their personal ambitions and strengthen their skills.

“I’m not certain, again, that beating up on Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky is a particularly good thing to strengthen your skills,” Rove said.

Rove happens to be right in this instance. In fact, I’d say that his criticism of Paul is considerably understated. Going after Hillary Clinton by attacking her husband is dumb. Doing so based on things that happened 20 years ago is even dumber. Doing so despite the fact that the public clearly didn’t care then and doesn’t care now is quite simply downright politically stupid. If this is the kind of campaign Rand Paul intends to ruin in 2016, it isn’t going to last very long.

1 Recall that Kenneth Starr’s original mandate was to investigate only Whitewater and yet his final report spent more time talking about the affair with Monica Lewinsky than anything else. Ultimately, it seems, there was no illegality at all regarding the land transaction(s) known as Whitewater, or at least none involving either of the Clintons.

FILED UNDER: 2016 Election, Public Opinion Polls, US Politics, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug Mataconis held a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020. He passed far too young in July 2021.


  1. grumpy realist says:

    “Pleeeeze B’rer Fox, pleeeeze don’t throw me in that briar patch!”

    Dear God. I just do hope Mr. Aqua-Buddha continues down this road. He won’t be a smear on Hillary’s foot.

  2. Pinky says:

    Oh, yeah, pretty much you can’t walk two steps down the street without hearing a conservative talk about how the Republican Party should adopt Rand Paul’s strategy against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 general election.

  3. Just Another Ex-Republican says:

    You know, I didn’t think anything would make me actually vote for Hillary, but if the GOP continues to bring up the husband’s despicable behavior as a reason to not vote for the wife, they might change my mind.

  4. MikeSJ says:

    Blowghazi? Benghazi-Job? There’s gotta be a way to combine these two Republican party planks into one easy talking point.

    Was Vince Foster was actually murdered by Bill while in Benghazi while Hillary was…yech..OK, not even the right wingers will try peddling that.

    Truthfullly I’m not looking forward to the forthcoming years of crazed wingnut freakouts over the Clintons.

  5. Rafer Janders says:

    What exactly would be a smart campaign strategy for Republicans?

  6. superdestroyer says:

    Who cares? Can anyone come up with any realistic scenario where the Republicans regain control of the White House. Whatever the Republican do concerning Clinton, the presidential election of 2016, and the general election of November 2016 is irrelevant.

    I guess the totally irrelevant, idiot Republicans will give pundits a long list of stupid statements and action so that most every wonk and pundit can ignore who is relevant to politics in the future. The only two question for politics in the future is how much longer can retain their majority in the House and what will happen to policy and governance at the federal government when the Democrats eventually regain control of the House.

  7. al-Ameda says:

    Rand thinks he’s smarter than everyone else, and yet …

    After a couple of years of “Sandra Fluke is a birth control slut” and a few “legitimate rape” advocates, and toss in a few states trying to require trans-vaginal probes or otherwise restricting non-abortion reproductive choices of women – and you can see why Rand wants to change the channel.

    If Rand really wants to dredge up those thrilling yesteryears, then how about we AGAIN talk about the family-friendly moral transgressions of Clinton’s House inquisitors – Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, and that holier-than-thou, “sacred oath” impeachment advocate, Rep. Henry Hyde?

    As to — Despite all of this, President Clinton suffered only minimally in the polls. Consider, for example, this compilation of Presidential Job Approval polling from the beginning of his term to the very end: — I’ve always thought that Clinton’s approval ratings stayed high because many people thought – correctly, in my opinion – that the Lewinsky Incident seemed like the result of a 5 year Republican effort to remove Clinton by any means necessary, by way of a sting.

  8. gVOR08 says:

    Doug–this is great politics for the primaries. You hear, “Someone who is not the candidate did something bad, but not particularly relevant, twenty years ago.” The GOP base hear, “Clinton. Bad.”

    As for the general, Paul is one or more of:
    – Hasn’t thought any of this through. (Has he struck you as one of the shinier tools in the shed?)
    – Thinking (perhaps correctly) that the electorate are so dumb he can move to the center after the primaries. I mean they elected him to the Senate, didn’t they?
    – Realistically aware that barring a miracle (read Hillary scandal) he can’t win anyway. So the best he can do is get the nomination and hope for the worst.
    – Only interested in the primaries for extending his fifteen minutes.
    – So wrapped up in the Conservative Echo Chamber he thinks this can work.
    – Or that perennial favorite, plans to have a book to sell.

  9. ernieyball says:

    Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has taken it upon himself to resurrect the Monica Lewinsky scandal from the early years of Bill Clinton’s second term on the apparent theory that it would somehow be relevant to a 2016 run for the White House by Hillary Clinton.

    Let’s climb aboard the WABAC Machine and see what sycophants of the Patriarch of The Paul Clan said when the Ron Love Paul Political Report was mentioned in 2011.

    Robert Davidson says:
    Saturday, December 24, 2011 at 00:18
    This is great news! The opposition has to go back 20+ years to find anything on Dr. Paul – and he didn’t even write them!

    Leonhardt says:
    Monday, December 26, 2011 at 19:12
    Ron Paul is not a racist. I am not interested in what happened in the ’90′s. I am interested in what is going on now.

    Michael Rivero says:
    Saturday, December 24, 2011 at 12:10
    The real import of this story is that after combing through Ron Paul’s life for the last twenty years, this was the best they could come up with to attack him; a subscription letter that “appears” to have his signature on it.

    (Disclaimer: Rand Pot Paul is not Ron Love Paul. Neither of them are related to my 1st grade valentine Suzanne Paul circa 1954)

  10. Kari Q says:

    I was never a Bill Clinton fan. I never voted for him. I saw him in a debate with four other Democratic contenders for the nomination in early 1992, and my feeling about him was ‘fifth of five.’ I have never changed that opinion. In fact, the only thing that ever made me like him was the way the so many in the GOP went stark raving mad during his time in office. I found myself in a position of thinking “I don’t like the Democrats, but some of the Republicans are nuts!” 22 years later, the only thing that’s changed is that there are no longer sane Republicans.

  11. mike says:

    I would go with the strategy of Lewinsky and running on Bush’s record – i mean he brought us Iraq, Afghanistan, and the gov’t spending.

  12. M. Bouffant says:

    Considering that “Obsessing Over … Sex” is half to two-thirds of Republican policy, identity & ideology, why would they think that would be poor campaign strategy?

    Just wait’ll Santorum grifts himself enough C.E.O. money from Christian show biz & starts making campaign noises again.

    I’d just as soon not be discussing 2016’s G.O.P. Goat Rodeo before the mid-terms (like we have a choice when Paul & Cruz are already chomping at the bit) but it will be fun. They’ll be tripling down on the lunacy in the primaries, & when/if Clinton takes a 10+ point lead over the eventual G.O.P. nominee in every (skewed, of course) poll, well, stand back from the spillway!

  13. rudderpedals says:

    HRC and the Big Dog’s role at this point in time reminds me of Operation Fortitude, specifically of Gen. Patton’s FUSAG deception army and its effect on the other guys.

  14. M. Bouffant says:

    And, this is Rand (“Aqua Buddha”) Paul trying in his own odd way to establish “Libertarianism is not libertine license, oh no, I can wag my finger w/ the best of you!” credibility w/ the base Bible-thumpers.

  15. C. Clavin says:

    Stupid idea… But what else do they have?
    I guess they could run on repealing Obamacare…and taking Heath care insurance away from millions of people.

  16. C. Clavin says:

    Maybe they could run on nat’l security…I’m sure everyone has forgotten 9.11

  17. C. Clavin says:

    Or perhaps the economy…I mean, who remembers Bush43’s last quarter and a 9% contraction in GDP? Probably no one.

  18. C. Clavin says:


  19. Gromitt Gunn says:

    I’m pretty sure that the only thing the impeachment did was make people who were totally indifferent to Bill get on his side. The constant assault on the Clintons, culminating in the impeachment, was so over the top that you couldn’t help but have some degree of sympathy for what they had to endure.

    I began the 1990s as a Rockefeller Republican and ended them as a Democrat. It was definitely a “the party left me” sort of thing, and its only gotten worse.

  20. C. Clavin says:

    I’ve got it… They can run on the Republican war on the middle class…and their efforts to kill the unions at the V-Dub plant down south. That’s an awesome one…we want to repeal Obamacare so you working class losers are tethered to your employer….and at the same time we are going to make damn sure that employer doesn’t have to pay you a decent wage.
    That’s f’ing perfect.

  21. With your research, you have spent more time obsessing about Bill Clinton and sex than Rand Paul.

  22. Hal_10000 says:

    Ultimately, it seems, there was no illegality at all regarding the land transaction(s) known as Whitewater, or at least none involving either of the Clintons.

    What were all the felony convictions about then? The Clintons were never charged with anything, true, but 15 other people were convicted. Was this of stuff unrelated to land transactions?

    (Honestly asking for clarification; not being snarky.)

    I do agree that in 2016, no one is going to give a crap about anything that happened in the 90’s other than the economy was good.

  23. john personna says:

    I think it’s just a sign of how empty this political season really is.

    Nothing to fill the vacuum.

  24. Kylopod says:

    And you want to know just how pathetic Paul’s argument about hypocrisy on the part of Democrats for supporting Bill Clinton is? Dems can point out that just last year Paul himself endorsed a well-known philanderer for public office. If you’re going to try to make the “war on women” issue about personal behavior rather than (as it actually is) about public policy, two can play that game, and it’s pretty much a draw at that level.

  25. Woody says:

    Not my original thought, but Senator Paul needs to signal the social ultra-cons that he’s trustworthy – but he can’t go mega-Baptist, or his libertarian cred will suffer (no one would believe him in any case).

    Again, too, many of our intrepid courtier media would love a high-larious scamp down Memory Lane. I predict noted hardcore liberal “Dancin’ Dave” Gregory to be the first to convene a balanced roundtable of a Republican, another Republican, a favored courtier, and Ann Coulter for a Serious Look Back . . . and Forward?

  26. MBunge says:

    Paul’s argument is dumb but focussing on polls over actual political events isn’t much smarter. Bill couldn’t get 50% in 1992, couldn’t get 50% in ’96 against the discredited Perot and pitiful Dole and then couldn’t get his VP elected in ’98. The public’s feelings toward Clinton have always been more complicated than supporters or detractors want to admit.

    But unless Bill gets caught with another 20something chick, it’s laughable to think rehashing this stuff is going to be good for any Republican.

    Mike Bunge

  27. john personna says:


    Sorry Idiot Downvoter. Boehner plans to offer up a straight debt-ceiling bill, and the chattering classes turn to Paul’s reheated controversy from deep in the political deep freeze.

    Sadly predictable.

  28. Kylopod says:


    Paul’s argument is dumb but focussing on polls over actual political events isn’t much smarter.

    I disagree. Polls very often tell us a lot more about the public’s specific views than “political events” (in this case, elections) do. Elections, in themselves, tell us nothing about the reasons people vote the way they do.

    Bill couldn’t get 50% in 1992, couldn’t get 50% in ’96 against the discredited Perot

    If you have any evidence to offer that this happened specifically because suspicions about Bill’s marital habits drove away a majority of the voters, as opposed to a myriad of other possible reasons, I’d love to hear.

    and then couldn’t get his VP elected in ’98.

    It would be a pretty impressive–not to mention utterly unprecedented–accomplishment for a president to get his VP elected in a midterm year.

    Seriously, though, the fact that Clinton couldn’t secure his VP with more than a measly half-million more votes than his Republican opponent doesn’t prove that it was due to public disgust at Clinton’s sexual behavior that was strangely hard to find on surveys. I actually think the Lewinsky scandal did negatively influence Gore, but not in the way you’re implying. I think he tried too hard to distance himself from Clinton, reducing his opportunity to link himself in the public mind with Clinton’s popularity. It was a definite factor in the selection of Lieberman, and probably helped push away some of those Nader voters on the left.

  29. OzarkHillbilly says:

    If this is the kind of campaign Rand Paul intends to ruin in 2016, it isn’t going to last very long.

    HAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAAHAHAHAAHAAHAA……gasp….. wheeze…. Fruedian slip of the day Doug. Thanx.

  30. grumpy realist says:

    I’ve never really liked Hillary (I feel she triangulates like mad and is too much a tub-thumper for that little piece of Mideast territory We Must Support No Matter What), but dear god, the opposition.

    If Paul goes down this road, he will drive a huge number of women (and men) to vote for Hillary because they simply don’t believe that a wife should be blamed for the transgressions of her spouse.

  31. wr says:

    @Hal_10000: “What were all the felony convictions about then? The Clintons were never charged with anything, true, but 15 other people were convicted. Was this of stuff unrelated to land transactions? (Honestly asking for clarification; not being snarky.)”

    In the time it took to type this message you could have Googled and found out for yourself.

  32. stonetools says:

    I’m thinking that Doug’s post is showing beginning of a disenchantment with Rand Paul as a libertarian standard bearer. This strategy is so stupid its not even wrong.
    Its hard to champion Rand Paul is he is going to be this stupid. Luckily, its far enough before the 2016 presidential campaign that if Paul discards this strategy, he can hope people will forget he even pursued it.

  33. Pinky says:

    @john personna: That idiot downvoter was me. If I’d noticed it was your comment, I probably wouldn’t have downvoted it and risked upsetting you, but seriously dude, you need to toughen up. The truth is, nobody’s talking about this story, and it doesn’t tell you anything about the political season.

  34. john personna says:


    I think this was a case where you gave me more an opportunity than a … conniption.

    Personally, and I mean that in the sense that this a purely personal opinion (YMMV), I think OTB needs some more themes so that on the slow days or weeks they can be … interesting.

    This Paul thing is two steps removed from that, again IMO. It is a minor theme floated by a left field candidate.

    I have so many other things to think about in early 2014.

    How about … Uber Is Driving Us to Thunderdome?

    IMO, a good think piece for 2014. YMMV.

  35. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Pinky: Nobody’s talking about it? Seems this thread is full of people talking about it. 😉

  36. Moosebreath says:

    And Ann Coulter weighs in on Rand Paul’s side. Yep, this seems like a real Republican strategy, to blame Hillary because Bill cheated on her in a sleazy manner and lied about it.

    I guess if Jeb runs, Republicans will be good with Democrats attacking him for starting the Iraq War and for the economy cratering on his watch, right.

  37. The Clintons’ Greatest Shame: Chelsea is the biological daughter of Webb Hubbell http://1984arkansasmotheroftheyear.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-clintons-greatest-shame-chelsea-is.html

    Hillary and her Terror Campaigns on Bill’s Sex Victims & Former Girlfriends

  38. @grumpy realist:

    Clintons’ sex abuse and Hillary’s nasty intimidation tactics is the point of weakness in the Clintons, especially as a demolishing counter to the “War on Women” meme.

    Hillary and her Terror Campaigns on Bill’s Sex Victims & Former Girlfriends

  39. The Clintons have not been tested in a national general election since 1996. Hillary NY Senate does not count. Obama 2008 simply could not publicly talk about the things the GOP will use to eviscerate the Clintons with in 2012. Hillary ultimately will not run.

    The Clintons’ abuse of women is potent angle of attack, in fact, the most important one to use.

    Bill Clinton 1996 – makes a pass at another man’s wife, is rebuffed & then masturbates until completion:

    On page 162 of Michael Isikoff’s Uncovering Clinton, the author tells about an incident by Bill that is similar to the time Bill masturbated into the Oval Office sink (in a side room) during one of his “sessions” with Monica. An anonymous, but convincing, woman – the wife of a prominent Democrat- told reporter Isikoff what happened when Bill got her in that same side room:

    “Clinton started getting physical, trying to kiss her, touching her breasts. The woman said she was stunned. She had no idea how to respond. “I’ve never had a man take advantage of me like that” … As Clinton pressed himself on her, she said, she resisted- and finally pushed him away. What happened after that? I asked. Clinton turned away, she said. She hesitated, and she said softly and with apparent discomfort, “I think he finished the job himself.”” [ Isikoff, Uncovering Clinton, p. 162]

    Then Bill started calling this woman at her work; he called her many times in January, 1997, around the time of his 2nd inauguration.

    Biographer Roger Morris recounts another savage assault by Bill

    Biographer Roger Morris, on page 238 of his book Partners in Power, tells of another savage sexual assault by Bill that involved his lip biting modus operandi for sexual assaults (Juanita was savagely bitten as well).

    “A young woman lawyer in Little Rock claimed that she was accosted by Clinton while he was attorney general and that when she recoiled he forced himself on her, biting and bruising her. Deeply affected by the assault, the woman decided to keep it all quiet for the sake of her own hard-won career and that of her husband. When the husband later saw Clinton at the 1980 Democratic Convention, he delivered a warning. ‘If you ever approach her,’ he told the governor, ‘I’ll kill you.’ Not even seeing fit to deny the incident, Bill Clinton sheepishly apologized and duly promised never to bother her again.”

    Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddick twice within 30 minutes and Bill nearly bit her lip in half as a way to disable her while he raped her on April 25, 1978. Hillary: aware of the rape in real time.

    On April 25, 1978, Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton, the state’s highest law enforcement official, raped Juanita Broaddrick (without a condom), and while doing so he savagely bit her top lip to subdue her. Juanita was a county coordinator for Bill and a volunteer in his ’78 gubernatorial campaign. Juanita says she will never forget Bill putting his sunglasses on afterwards then telling her to put some ice on her mangled lips. Bill: “You might want to put some ice on that.”

    Juanita’s friend Norma Rogers-Kelsay found here in her hotel room after the rape. Juanita says “I was sitting there crying and so upset at the time … I felt like the next person coming through the door [was coming] to get rid of [my] body. I absolutely could not believe what had happened to me.” Reporter Jon Doughtery says Kelsay “found Broaddrick in a state of shock, her lip swollen, mouth bruised, and her pantyhose torn at the crotch.” Kelsay told Fox news on 2/2/99 that Juanita “was hysterical – her lip was blue and bleeding and her hose was severely torn in the crotch area.” Kelsay says Juanita “told me they had intercourse against her will.” Kelsay told NBC News that Juanita was in “quite bad shape” and her “lips were swollen, at least double in size.”

    Bill raped Juanita twice within a span of 30 minutes. Bill bit Juanita’s lip so hard he almost severed it in half. Then Bill raped Juanita again – for a second time – as he found he could get a new erection.

    Juanita says: “Then he said, “My God, I can do it again” and he did.” After he raped her, Juanita says “I felt paralyzed and started to cry.”

    Most significantly, Hillary knew about Bill’s rape of Juanita in real time and helped to cover it up. We know that because Larry Nichols was in the room with Buddy Young when Hillary came running in and said, “You will never believe what the motherfucker [Bill] did now, he tried to rape some bitch!” So, in other words, Hillary did not report Bill to the police.

    Hillary, interestingly, is the person who founded Arkansas’ first rape crisis center.

    Instead Hillary showed up at a campaign event and tried to intimidate Juanita into being silent about the savagery that Bill had inflicted on her. Juanita later wrote a public letter (10-15-00) to Hillary, shaming Hillary for her behavior:

    Juanita said in the letter:

    “Do you remember how you [Hillary] thanked me, saying “we want to thank you for everything that you do for Bill.” At that point, I was pretty shaken and started to walk off. Remember how you kept a tight grip on my hand and drew closer to me?

    You repeated your statement, but this time with a coldness and look that I have seen many times on television in the last eight years. You said, “Everything you do for Bill”. You then released your grip and I said nothing and left the gathering.
    What did you mean, Hillary? Were you referring to my keeping quiet about the assault I had suffered at the hands of your husband only two weeks before? Were you warning me to continue to keep quiet?” – Juanita Broaddrick

    Juanita said that she became physically ill within seconds of Hillary’s grasping behavior and had to leave the party/rally within minutes. Juanita says, “I could have passed out at that moment and I got my hand from hers [Hillary’s] and I left. She was just holding onto my hand. Because I had started to turn away from her and she held onto my hand and [Hillary] said ‘Do you understand? EVERYTHING that you do,’ cold chills went up my spine.” That’s the first time I became afraid of that woman.”

  40. al-Ameda says:

    @Robert Morrow:
    Does Ken Starr know about this stuff?
    How did Hillary force Bill to do all of that?

  41. Hillary did not force Bill to do anything – she only has been covering for a rapist, pervert and serial sexual predator her entire adult life, including hiring very nasty private detective goons to run criminal terror campaigns on Bill’s sex victims.

    Perhaps you should read the documentation on this:

    Hillary and her Terror Campaigns on Bill’s Sex Victims & Former Girlfriends

  42. Grewgills says:

    @Robert Morrow:
    Wow, conspiracy crank blogs, now I’m convinced. I eagerly await your Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate links and links showing that Reverend Wright is Sasha and Malia’s real father.

  43. rudderpedals says:

    Death to the entire family across and down three generations. Kim Jong Un would be proud of you, Robert Morrow.

  44. @rudderpedals:

    In 1982 when Bill Clinton was running for governor of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton told Little Rock, AR private investigator Ivan Duda:
    “I want you to get rid of all these bitches he’s seeing … I want you to give me the names and addresses and phone numbers, and we can get them under control”

    [Edward Klein, The Truth about Hillary, p.99].

  45. When confronting the Clintons, don’t waste your time calling them “liberal, liberal liberal” … instead call Bill (rapist, rapist, rapist) and Hillary (criminal, criminal, criminal)

    Terrorizing Kathleen Willey; Stealing or killing her cat Bullseye, Nailgunning her car tires
    Tampering with a witness.

    Willey: I was “Very, very, very frightened”

    The near fatal attack on Gary Johnson by Clinton associates is exactly what I mean when I say that the Clintons are street thugs. Another example is the frightening harassment of Kathleen Willey just before she was going to give a deposition in the Paula Jones case on Jan. 10, 1998. Goons sent by either the Clintons or a major campaign contributor, perhaps Nathan Landow, conducted a terror campaign intent on silencing Willey, whose husband had committed suicide on the same day Kathleen was sexually harassed by Clinton on 11-29-93. Kathleen says Bill “forcefully attacked” her and “his hands were all over me. His hands were up my dress.”

    The terror campaign of witness tampering against Kathleen occurred in the months before her deposition which was scheduled for 1-10-98. Someone shot a nail gun many times into 3 of her tires. It was vandalism with intent to terrorize. Here is Kathleen telling author Candice Jackson about this psychological terrorism:

    “I remember standing at the tire place,” she told me, “on a warm September day, waiting for them to fix my car.” The mechanic approached her saying “It looks like someone has shot out all your tires with a nail gun; is there someone out there who does not like you?” I can hear the shiver in her voice as she says, “That really got my attention; that’s when I started getting worried.”
    [p.153, Their Lives: the Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine, Candice Jackson]

    Kathleen’s cat of 13 years, Bullseye, mysteriously disappeared. The next morning after she had given her deposition, Kathleen found the severed head of a small animal on her front porch – a few feet away and facing her. (Sellout, p. 118). Willey in her own words says she was “very, very, very frightened” [Their Lives, p. 154] That is 3 “verys” quoted verbatim. Also, on Jan 8th, 1998, just two days before her deposition, a menacing stranger man approached her and asked her about her car tires, her missing cat Bullseye and her children – by name. He said “Don’t you get the message?”

    Here is what Kathleen told CNBC’s Chris Matthews: “He asked me, ‘Did you ever find your cat [Bullseye]?’ And I said, “No, I haven’t and we really miss him.’ Then he said ‘Did you ever get your tires fixed on your car?’ And I said ‘No’ and that’s when the hair really started standing up on my neck.”

    The menacing stranger then said “That cat, he was a nice cat. Bullseye was his name, wasn’t it?” Kathleen added, “He asked me about my children by name. He said, ‘How are your children, Shannon and Patrick?’ It was a very insidious thing and it was meant to scare me.”

    Private investigator Jared Stern said in March, 1998 that he was asked by Robert Miller (then head of a private investigation firm Prudential Associates) to do a noisy investigation of Kathleen Willey – looking at her phone records, finding if she took medication, going through her trash. A “noisy” investigation was meant to scare and intimidate Kathleen. Miller was working at the behest of the lawyer of Nathan Landow (a huge Democratic fundraiser). Robert Miller told Jared Stern that the “WHITE HOUSE” was behind the intimidation campaign request. [p. 381, Uncovering Clinton]

    Kathleen tells what Hillary’s Goons did to her:

    “They threatened my children. They threatened my friend’s children. They took one of my cats and killed another. They left a skull on my porch. They told me I was in danger. They followed me. They vandalized my car. They tried to retrieve my dogs from a kennel. They hid under my deck in the middle of the night. They subjected me to a campaign of fear and intimidation, trying to silence me.”

    [Kathleen Willey, Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton, p. x]