Rand Paul

What’s he doing?

It’s not often that national politicians do something totally unpredictable, but Rand Paul—often mentioned as a contender for the Republican Presidential Nomination in 2016, and thereby the Presidency—recently tried to change the conversation a bit, or at least start his own conversation… about Monica Lewinski.

See this excerpt from David Corn, via Andrew Sullivan:

On Meet the Press at the end of January, Paul accused Clinton of engaging in “predatory behavior” and taking “advantage of a girl that was 20 years old.” (Lewinsky was 22 years old, when she and Clinton hooked up.) And Paul griped, “the media seems to have given President Clinton a pass on this.” (Paul must have slept through much of the 1990s, for the media granted nonstop coverage to the affair and the subsequent investigation and impeachment.)

These were not random remarks; it seemed Paul was waging a one-man campaign to revive an old scandal. Afterward, he told New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, “In my small town…we would in some ways socially shun somebody that had an inappropriate affair with someone’s daughter or with a babysitter or something like that.” Days later, Paul, during a C-SPAN interview, said that any Democrat who raised campaign money with Bill Clinton ought to return the donations because of Clinton’s dalliance with Lewinsky. In another interview, he called Clinton—who is scheduled to campaign later this month for Alison Lundergan Grimes, the Kentucky Democrat challenging GOP Senator Mitch McConnell—a repeat “sexual predator” and suggested that Hillary Clinton should return any campaign money gathered with Bill’s help.

Why? Why bring this up?

The answer seems fairly clear to me. Peter Beinart, via the same Andrew Sullivan post, suggests it’s to shore up the values vote, i.e., the Christian Right. “Look I track down sexual predators, I will help pursue family values.”

That’s plausible, but I think it’s slightly more specific than that. Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee, barring something unforseen or an Elizabeth Warren run, which isn’t going to happen. Paul is framing himself as the anti-Hillary—the anti-Clinton.

Paul will be the candidate on the warpath for Clinton in the primary → A Clinton will be the nominee. Ergo, Paul is the candidate to take down Clinton.

Only, of course, it is not Bill on the ticket, it is Hillary. Which is why I see this strategy as counterproductive, at least with an eye on the general election. Bill was, ok, let’s just say for the sake of argument, a sexual predator. Senator Paul, (I’m pretending I’m David Gregory/any news reporter), why do President Clinton’s misdeeds discredit Senator/Secretary Clinton’s candidacy for President? “They don’t,” he responds.

See it’s tough.

“But funds raised by Bill should be returned.” In my opinion Paul is beginning to look a little silly at this point, and it’s a campaign about the past, and a small issue in the past, at that.

I like Hillary’s chances in this matchup, though you never know what revelations a campaign will unveil.