Rand Paul Uses Monica Lewinsky to Attack Bill and Hillary Clinton, Defend GOP Record on Women’s Rights

rand-paul-idiotAt this point I can’t quite figure out what’s more ridiculous – the actual stances Republicans take on issues pertaining to women’s rights or their comments trying to defend themselves against these often outdated and ridiculous political beliefs.

I’m sure by now most of you have heard about the “libido” comments “women’s rights genius” Mike Huckabee blessed with us with this past week where he basically said that Democrats are waging a war on women by forcing them to use birth control because apparently Democrats don’t believe women can control their libido.

No, really, that’s what he said.

Well now Kentucky Senator Rand Paul seems determined to top that idiocy by going back nearly two decades to use Bill Clinton’s Monica Lewinsky scandal to insinuate that it’s Democrats – not Republicans – who don’t respect women.

Senator Paul said:

“One of the workplace laws and rules that I think are good is that bosses shouldn’t prey on young interns in their office.  I think the media really seems to have given President Clinton a pass on this.  He took advantage of a girl that was twenty years old and an intern his office.  There is no excuse for that, and that is predatory behavior. And it should be something we shouldn’t want to associate with, people who would take advantage of a young girl in his office.  And then (Democrats) have the gall to stand up and say, ‘Republicans are having a war on women’?”

I love how even in this pathetic attempt to compare one situation against an entire party’s political attack on women (and by the way, I’m sure there are plenty of Republican politicians who are doing the exact same thing as well as Democrats), he still finds a way to demean women.

Basically to Paul, a twenty-two-year-old (not twenty) female is a “girl,” not a woman.  Great how he insinuates that a twenty-two-year-old “girl” would apparently be too gullible to know what was doing.  Instead, she would of course “fall prey” to the much more powerful older man.  You know, because she was just a little helpless twenty-two-year-old girl unable to think for herself.

But Paul couldn’t stop there – he had to bring Hillary into it by saying:

“Now, it’s not Hillary’s fault.  But it is a factor in judging Bill Clinton in history.  This is in regard to the Clintons. Sometimes it’s hard to separate one from the other.”

So it’s not Hillary’s fault (duh) but he just has to mention her name because “it’s hard to separate one from the other.”  Who the heck can’t separate Bill from Hillary Clinton in regards to the Monica Lewinsky scandal?

This was just a blatant attempt to take a shot at Hillary, even though the “shot” didn’t make sense whatsoever when you consider he was discussing Bill’s behavior during the Lewinsky scandal.

If this is the depth Republicans are having to stoop to in order to defend their record on women’s rights, that tells you all you really need to know about just how awful conservative policies are on women.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • pierider

    What is up with the STOP OBAMALOANS ads???

  • Jim Bean

    Well, Dems DID pretty much send the message that they believed women where so shallow that all that was needed to secure their vote was a promise of free contraceptives. (The word ‘free’ seems to be used liberally – pardon the pun – in Democratic Party politicians campaigns, come to think of it.) Those women who recognized they were being played might be indignant like Huckabee suggests.

    • BoiseBoy

      I can never understand why conservatives are so hostile to contraception. Why not make contraception freely available? Then the abortion issue goes away.

      Abortion rates are far lower in Western Europe than in the US. Europe has universal healthcare. The reason they offer free birth control is because it means fewer abortions, fewer unwanted pregnancies, which means fewer children in foster care or potentially abusive or neglectful family situations. Better to pay a little now than a lot later.

      Alas, the difference between Europe and the US is that in the US, the almighty dollar trumps everything. In this case, it is a matter of being penny wise and pound foolish.

      • freethinker666

        Trying to talk sense to a Teaapublican is like teaching a pig to sing, it can’t be done and it annoys the pig.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        or TRYING to mentor my pet TEGU to play the harp

      • Jim Bean

        I agree with everything you said except ‘conservatives are so hostile to contraception.’ I watch closely and I’ve never seen it. What I HAVE seen is conservative hostility towards people trying to force employers to buy contraceptives for other people when it conflicts with their religious beliefs and what I have also seen is unscrupulous Democrats perverting that into some kind of war on women. I have yet to see anyone attempt to prohibit women from obtaining contraception.

      • Cheri Borowiec

        What I will never understand is how the GOP and others can be so incredibly stupid as to think the majority of woman take birth control for contraception when in fact it is taken for health issues of the female reproductive system and its ailments that have nothing to do with controlling birth the ignorance is blinding , why shouldn’t the medication a woman needs be covered by insurance…why

      • Jim Bean

        Someone is trying to prevent you from buying insurance that will cover that?

      • Jim Bean

        Why they take it is irrelevant in this dispute. Why certain religious organizations don’t want to provide it is what is relevant.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        no sweat— I will a bit agree with jimbo here: and Im certain HE will agree that these religious organizations will pay taxes to be able to decide–as equal businesses– to NOT provide abortion (et al) to employees.
        its safe,,,so make it “over the counter” (OOOOPS: doctors lose MONEEEEE)

      • Mike Williams

        Your circling your argument.

        Women only use birth control to prevent pregnancy so employers should be allowed to exempt for their moral and religious beliefs. Yet those taking hormone therapy to control reproduction system aliments should be forced to suffer because of the employers should be allowed to prevent access to drugs that will prevent pregnancy via health insurance.

        That is the gist of your argument and the reason why. You can never exclude a why from the table of variables because without the why you only have the who gives a shit.

        Maybe we should just adopt a two law system.

        Employees should have access to hormone therapy but not access to contraceptives.

        Employees should have access to drugs that correct heart related issues but not boner pills.

        Equal access or no access. That works for me.

        Though the single payer systems works well and eliminates some problems. Universal health care provided by our government works even better because it eliminates the uninsured. That’s not Socialism, that is simply the government protecting it’s greatest asset.

      • Jim Bean

        I’m still OK with giving employers choice. Its the employers organization. They should have the right to control it. Kinda like the women and abortion thing. Why not apply the same principles?

      • Mike Williams

        Same reason that our government can not tell us what god to worship.

      • Mike Williams

        Contraception for women aka “The pill” is nothing more than hormone control. This process of controlling their hormones is nothing new, It is also medically advisable in many women. This does not mean that they want to go out and screw every guy that gets it up, regardless if it is natural wood or medicinally or mechanically augmented covered by medical insurance wood.

        If a Scientology believer is the owner of a company should that company then be exempt from providing any medical insurance?

        What if the owner of a company is a firm believer in khifaḍ? Should it then be acceptable that the condition of employment is that all females employed or under the care of the employee have their clitoris removed?

        Do you see what I did there?
        I compared two different religions with the analogous intent to show that if you cater to one business owners faith and allow that business to by policy force it’s employee’s to practice the same religious beliefs as the owner, you create a situation where you have a great many laws covering the same subject that differ based religious practice.
        Not only that but you then sanction corporate religious discrimination and violate everyone’s right to practice or not practice religion based on their own beliefs.

        By the way, nobody is forcing employers to buy contraceptives. It is providing access to healthcare.
        That helps control excessive abnormal bleeding or control hormones that unchecked create mental instability that could become homicidal.
        Just a few side effects of being a woman.
        Healthcare that happens to function as birth control. Just as Viagra is a medicine to help heart patients, that just happens to give them a boner.

        Not a war on women or access being blocked?
        Open your eyes, open your ears. Hell, read your own posts.

      • Jim Bean

        I see what you did, but do you see what you missed? NO employer, not even under Obamacare, is REQUIRED to provide health insurance benefits for any employee. Its strictly optional. If they don’t, starting in 2015 some will have to pay a small penalty but the penalty is much more economical than providing the health coverage. A simple line item deduction on your Fed tax return allowing you recover any out-of-pocket costs for contraceptives not provided by your employer sponsored plan is a simple and clean solution. Unfortunately, it doesn’t provide the unique satisfaction of shoving Left wing ideology up Christian’s butts.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        hows the forced ( state GOVT) ultra-sound to pregnant women seeking abortion sound? religious trash -in GOVT– forcing pseudo-morality upon WOMEN>?

      • acornwebworks

        Why not just move to single payer and get employers out of the picture entirely? Why should employers have to provide health insurance anyway? Do that, and the whole religious argument goes away.

        As far as the fine being cheaper than providing an employer’s share of health insurance? Not necessarily. While the fine is only $2,000 annually per employee, it’s not tax deductible, unlike health insurance premiums. For some businesses the fine would be cheaper…for other, it wouldn’t.

      • strayaway

        Vermont attempted to set up an Canadian like affordable single payer plan but was denied the affordable part of their plan by (un)ACA bureaucrats. Why do you imagine that the same thugs who stomped on Vermont’s affordable plan would do any more to get rid of the attorneys, bureaucrats, and corporate profits if they managed a federal single payer plan?

      • acornwebworks

        What are you talking about? The Vermont single payer system is still in the works. It was never intended to be implemented until 2017 at the earliest.

      • strayaway

        If I insinuated that Vermont presently has a single payer plan, I didn’t mean to. My point was that Vermont had to swallow an unaffordable pill to be allowed to set up its plan.

      • acornwebworks

        That’s what I can’t figure out (or find). What “unaffordable pill” are you talking about? Thanks in advance!

      • strayaway

        I answered above by error. So I’ll try again here. Start with trial lawyers whom were included in the (un)ACA and therefore cannot be removed from Vermont’s plan because the (un)ACA was required to be part of the Vermont plan. Since the (un)ACA was written by insurance company lobbyists, research Kate Fowler, this is no surprise.

      • acornwebworks

        Sorry, but I think you’re honestly confused about this.

        In the first place, the ACA is not “required to be part of the Vermont plan”. Heck, surely you can see that doesn’t even make any sense.

        Since you also mention “Vermont had to swallow an unaffordable pill to be allowed to set up its plan, perhaps you’re just confused about the fact that Vermont would likely eventually need the feds’ permission (in the form of a waiver) to spend federal health care exchange funds on the state health insurance program?

        But the fact is that they don’t need the funding now…nor have they asked for it!! Indeed, they first need to have a financing plan in place…which they don’t…and don’t expect to have one till next year, so a waiver isn’t even an option now!

        So how could their plan have been “stomped on”? And how could they have had to “swallow anything”?
        Indeed, I don’t understand why you think that this process hasn’t gone on just as everyone expected.

        In the second place, what is this whole “trial lawyer” thing you mentioned? You seem to think there’s some mandate about them. What gives you that idea? Either in the ACA *or* the Vermont plan?

        (And who the heck is Kate Fowler??? I can find no mention of a Kate Fowler in reference to the PPACA, the Vermont plan, lobbying or insurance companies. Sorry. But I’d really appreciate a link or two about these claims of yours. Thanks again in advance!)

        Frankly, it sounds like maybe you’re confusing the Vermont single payer plan with the fact that Vermont has had to set up an ACA health care exchange. I mean, THAT is what they’ve been working on and training people on. And THAT is the program the Vermont governor has been talking about in terms of delays as he, for example, extended existing coverage from December 31st to March 31st. In other words, there have been problems with the Vermont ACA health exchange…not with the Vermont single payer plan.

      • strayaway

        That’s great news to hear that the (un)ACA won’t be part of Vermont’s single payer plan. That will mean that Vermont can do radical tort reform. I heard it from you, here, first. Why would they need the feds permission then given what you claim and the language of the 10th. Amendment? I never claimed Vermont asked for any funding or mentioned the Vermont health exchange. If You don’t think this process has gone as everyone has expected, I probably can’t help you but I would start with 5M Americans who lost their health insurance coverage. That soundls more like what Fox news viewers expected. Could we write those 5M off as collateral damage?

        Getting back to my qualifying term “affordable”. No plan is gong to be affordable without beginning with radical tort reform such as Canadian single payer plans have.

        Kate was wrong. Try Liz Fowler the former VP and lobbyist of Wellpoint, now of Johnson & Johnson, whom Sen. Baucus credits with being most responsible for writing the (un)ACA.

        I

      • acornwebworks

        Vermont would need the feds’ permission to use the money specifically designated for the ACA in Vermont for their single payer system instead. It has nothing to do with the ACA not having to be part of single payer or or the 10th Amendment.

        And tort reform is NOT prohibited by the ACA. Heck, it’s not even mentioned in the ACA! Why do you think it is??? (Is this misunderstanding on your part why you kept bringing up lawyers in earlier posts?)

        As far as a supposed 5 million people having lost their health insurance “coverage”??? Sorry, but what you truly are referring to is that they’ve lost a specific “plan” because, after all, that number is acknowledged as being merely an estimate and exclusively for “plan” cancellation.

        Heck, insurance companies are, themselves, trying to get these people to sign up for new “plans”…not to go without coverage…which would cost the insurance companies themselves tons of money. (Plus this estimate also assumes no one will sign up for a new “plan” through the exchanges or Medicaid…which is demonstrably not true.)

        And surely you aren’t assuming that none of these folks have gotten (much less can’t get) replacement insurance plans already?

        My gosh, many were simply victims of their existing unscrupulous insurance companies ignoring grandfathering of their existing plan? Or of their trying to sell them more expensive plans by cancelling their current plan?

        And how about those stubborn folks who foolishly decided to not even heck out alternate plans on their state’s health care exchange because it is “Obamacare”. They weren’t forced into losing coverage.

        You’ve got to understand the difference between losing “coverage” and losing a “plan”.

      • strayaway

        Lawyers and law firms gave $28 million to Obama’s reelection effort, compared to $14 million to GOP candidate Romney. From 1990 to date, the American Association for Justice, previously called the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, doled out 95 percent of its $25 million in contributions to Democrats. ” -the Fiscal Times

        “But for all of the Obama administration’s work in creating this 906-page federal law, there is one glaring omission that could decrease the costs of health care and help relieve the upcoming physician shortage. Medical liability reform.
        -Dr. Anthony Youn in his CNN article

        Why, by the way, should the federal government even have a say or veto power in what states do regarding their own health care systems given the 10th. Amendment?

        The number of people who have signed up for the (un)ACA is also an estimate and includes those who just have it in their shopping cards or who have failed to make their first payment. No doubt the insurance companies are trying to attract the 5M who lost their insurance coverage. Some are, no doubt, among those included in the number who have had to buy an (un)ACA policy. It was one of the cruelties of this Obama administration and its lies that 5M Americans lost coverage in the first place.

        I do understand the difference between losing coverage and losing a plan. It’s sort of like people being stripped naked by the government and standing there freezing with the only option being to buy a government approved set of new clothes with frills they might not necessarily want or need and at a usually higher price.

      • Guest

        answered in wrong place. see below

      • Mike Williams

        Employers use health care as an incentive to work for them. A single payer is much better, however remove the health care incentive and compensation packages are significantly altered.

      • Mike Williams

        Nothing is simple when you involve the IRS.

        They have 15 different forms to cover a simple line item check.

        Anyway, contraceptives are already covered by insurance companies. Most companies do not provide 100% coverage, they cover a portion of the premium. The only time I have ever had 100% coverage was as a Teamster working in the metals trade. The non union employees working for the same company had only 30% of their premiums paid. the Union workers who were the minority of the company and still out produced with quality and quantity consistently for over 60 years.
        I earned my 15 and hour 30 years ago. The company still profited still expanded and remains a global industry leader still working with it’s Union.
        However that is another issue.

        The point is, religious exclusion is not a viable solution as allowing it means your are enforcing the violation of another person’s religious rights.
        The many out weigh the few. If a company wants to exempt itself, don’t offer insurance. Pay the fee, and face the consequences of it’s decision.
        Boycots will happen, and if they do, the public is not restricting the 1st , they are enforcing their right to the 1st. One does not get “dibs” on the constitution. The loudest voice is the voice of the people not the person and half a dozen more sayings to that same effect.

        Companies who run contrary to the law will pay.
        Via penalties and ultimately via consumer wrath.

        Insurance companies who have used this law to raise rates without foundation of cost will wind up repaying those premiums to the very people they tried to cheat.

        Give this Law a year and see how things look, give it 2 and see how well it works.

        As for contraception. Only the GOP can look at women’s healthcare and decide that contraception, abortion, or prevention of disease is satanical and then cut funding to the very programs designed to care for the people born into this world because of a lack of women’s health care, or laws protecting women from men who just can’t keep it in their pants. Let’s be honest about this, the funding was cut because the gop did not get their way. I would never in my life have bet that that would hear things like women have a magical vagina capable of preventing pregnancy if raped and if pregnancy should occur then she must have liked it or god wanted it that way. The real issue is that women are being denied equal access to health care. That is discrimination and that is not acceptable.

        What if’s and hypothetical arguments are just excuses for avoiding doing what is right.

      • Jim Bean

        Nowhere in that did you give any consideration to the employer. Its all, Me, Me, ME. There’s is no reason we can’t respect them. People are not forced to work anywhere that doesn’t suit them and no employer can prevent an employee from getting contraceptives and abortions on their own dime and time. Liberty for all. Free choice for all. I like that. It works.

      • Mike Williams

        Consideration for the employer?

        The employer is not what we are talking about.
        We are talking about the employee.
        Stay on topic.

        He is some consideration for the employer.
        The employer has no rights that allow the employer to force employees to observe the employers religious beliefs.

        Same goes true the other way. Employee’s can not force the employer to observe the employee’s religious beliefs.

      • Jim Bean

        I KNOW you’re not talking about the employer. You’ve decided that the liberties of those people don’t count. That’s my point. The employee/employer relationship is one of free will for both parties.

      • Mike Williams

        The employer has many laws that must be observed by the employer because of the way employers behaved towards their employees in the past. As well as the many ways employers seek to screw employees through loop holes that need legislation to close them. Plain English just doesn’t cut it anymore. Now a “part-time” employee can work 70 hours in a 7 day period as long as the 7 days are in two separate pay cycles 36 hours in one 35 hours in another… Praise Jesus, Amen.
        Back on topic, giving one type of employer the ability to “waive based on religious belief” establishes the ability to waive on other laws for the same reason.

        This discussion about the employer and the employees rights. The employer does not have rights that can be extensionally forced upon another simply because they are an employer.
        When they do that they are no longer acting as an employer they are acting as an individual.
        A company does not have a religion, the company does not have a soul, will not go to heaven or hell.
        A company is just a thing. A person who runs the company does not infuse the company with any spirituality it remains with the person and as such is not transferred. I point to Wal-mart as an example of this. Sam Walton, a fine human, built a very good company and a legacy of doing what is right because it is right. Sam is no more and Wal-Mart is now a cess-pool of moral contradiction to what Sam Walton built.

        Observation:
        Unfortunately when the supreme knuckleheads set aside the constitution and recognized corporations as people (see super pac laws and election contributions ) they created a situation where a company could be considered a person and possibly be given rights as a person. more constitutional laws for corporate citizens…my how asexual a society we became catering to corporate need for greed.
        (in other words we screwed ourselves)

      • Jim Bean

        Yes they do. If you have blue eyes and your working some place and then a new supervisor comes along who doesn’t like blue eyes, they can fire you for that. You understand virtually nothing about employment law and its a shame you carry around all this pent up anger because you think someone is violating some standard that doesn’t even exist. They have the right to discriminate against you for anything except those few things specifically prohibited by specific law, ie, race, religion, age, gender. etc.

      • Jbh Jbh

        hormones do not make women unstable or homicidal.

      • Mike Williams

        I’m sorry I misspoke. I was using medical evidence as well as personal knowledge and experience as a source. You are absolutely correct. (If your female) otherwise I suggest you look around.

      • Jbh Jbh

        I guess that’s why the violent crime rate dropped so drastically in 1962, when they were finally able to get their violent impulses under control. too bad women statistically still commit 73% of all violent crime. (that’s all sarcasm btw). If women were really that unstable and prone to violence, the world would be a very different place.

      • Mike Williams

        Before you speak on this topic again, do some real research. It’s not just about mental stability. As I have stated there are also medical reasons such as uncontrolled bleeding, ovarian cysts and worse.
        All related to the menstrual cycle and all of them life threatening if not for Hormone “Birth Control” Therapy. I suggest you start with a pb-gyn and just ask some simple questions about the nature of reproductive system dysfunction and consequences of not treating with preventive medication.

        I just love it when someone turds up a good stat based on phalacy.

      • Jerry Graybosch

        If an employer wants to be in the business of providing insurance ( their choice), they need to provide a certain minimum standard of coverage. Their religious beliefs should have nothing to do with it.

      • Jim Bean

        Says you, the person willing to risk other peoples loss of employer sponsored coverage to serve your own selfish agenda.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        cherry picking is the way of the religious white trash in america

      • FD Brian

        so if I work for a Jehovah Witness then my boss has the right to tell my insurance company they won’t pay for a blood transfusion in my policy?

      • Jim Bean

        Correct. You seem hung up on the notion that an employer legally ‘owes’ you things beyond the basic minimum wage. They don’t. Everything else is optional. At their discretion. Voluntary. If you’re getting more than that and choose to bite the hand that feeds you . . . .well. . . . .

      • FD Brian

        Maybe an owner can just provide insurance coverage for white people and not the black ones because his religion doesn’t allow him to offer blacks the same rights as whites.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        wanna bet jim ( drinks a lot) bean doesn’t reply to that?

      • Jim Bean

        Agreeing to cover all uniformly with the same level of coverage is not comparable to refusing to cover some and not others.

      • Mike Williams

        darn Canaanites, always with the want…

      • Mike Williams

        Back to the hypothetical.

        What if it rained Jameson?

        The point isn’t what if, the point is employers that do.
        Employers that do not, have the real problem of finding employees. Compensation packages are always negotiable even at McDonald’s. The problem with most cases is the available pool of workers. If the workers don’t want to work for you company because it is a corporate douchespigot then you really have no company. Your alternative is to pay wages that will allow an employee to purchase their own insurance.
        Which now is no longer UN-attainable. However if your competition cover 50% of insurance guess where the best workers are going to go. Free market society rocks.

      • Mike Williams

        See what he did there, Jim?
        He took a different religious view and tossed it into the hat…
        This is why we have separation of church and state.
        Make a law enforcing one belief and then you have to add another for another…

      • white trash religious teaparty

        those same (texas) religious beliefs which ( until yestreen) had a LONG ( brain) dead women kept alive so the deformed baby could be “born”– which was BIG GOVT legislating MORALITY against a family’s wish….
        funny how U Christian scum avoid THAT fresh topic

      • FD Brian

        winner

      • white trash religious teaparty

        thank U sir!!! ( sadly; regressive such as jim (drinkie poo) bean don’t wanna see,,,,,,,,,,

    • Pipercat

      Your hiding your straw much better, I had to read it twice to find the condition!

      • Jim Bean

        You like that word ‘straw’ don’t you? I get hung up on word like that too. Words like ‘maladaptive.’

      • Pipercat

        If the foo shits…

    • white trash religious teaparty

      im uncertain where U get your “FACTS” but U do remain reeeee-markably consistant–
      whats JEEEESUS’s ‘take’ on contraception and abortion? ( please stay topic specific in any answer)

  • Mike Williams

    The message was missed. What was said is the GOP wants to impeach Clinton again. It apparently didn’t take the first time. Or is it that the GOP feels it is a Clinton thing and he wants to make sure that Mrs. Clinton isn’t going to force herself on a twenty something FEMALE intern.
    Or is he just jealous because even if he could find a girl to service him he would come up short. I defer all answers to Newt.

    • Jim Bean

      This thought just flashed through my mind after reading your comment: “What does it say when the POTUS most admired by the Left wingers is the only one in recent history to be impeached?”

      • Gary Smith

        If you think Bill Clinton the the president most “admired by the Left wingers”, you don’t know any left wingers.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        there U go again,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,annoying a regressive rightwing crybaby with FACTS

      • Charles Vincent

        Counter question;
        Who was the most admired president according to left wing people?

      • Mike Williams

        Your talking about Andrew Johnson!!!

        Wait a minute….He was acquitted three months later.
        The impeachment was initiated by a Republican congress pissed at Johnson for the removal of Stanton as Secretary of War…Hrmm.

        If you were incorrectly talking about Clinton I refer you to another post about Clinton and why he was really impeached and how effective that was.

  • white trash religious teaparty

    rand paul be pissssssed off as Clinton was basically a chic magnet–and still is
    ……………..now: about those chick “magnets” such as Huckabee and beck and Tcruz———- ( and the KING: Limbaugh)

  • Rachel Anne

    I never thought I would say this… But I actually agree with Rand Paul on one thing: Monica Lewinsky DID fall prey to Bill Clinton. Older men (and older people in general) are very good at manipulating younger people, especially men (yes, men too) and women in their early twenties before the impulse control center of the brain is fully developed (that happens around age 25). Especially when they are in positions of power, such as a professor or employer (or you know, the President of the United States).

    Now, I don’t think he really cares about protecting young women (or men) who end up in these situations. Nor do I believe he cares much about holding the men (or women) who do this kind of thing responsible, as they should be. But that one point of his holds more validity than the author gave it credit for.