What's amazing to me about this story is not the contents so much as the fact that it's actually appearing on Yahoo News, instead of just places like Newsmax. It's still hard for me to imagine any story with the title "Demands Mount for Clintons to Acknowledge Intimidation, Rape" appearing at CNN or the other major networks, though:

"The history of Bill Clinton"s relationships with women has been one of physical and sexual harassment often followed by threats and intimidation," says Jackson. "Over and over he has proven himself to be a "liberal misogynist" -- a man who feels that his professed concern for women"s political rights gives him free rein to treat individual women like chattel."

Kind of like Bob Packwood, until it finally caught up with him, because he was, after all, a Republican. Clinton apparently gets a permanent pass from the NOW gang, though.

Whether it was assembling a smear team to attack a grief-stricken widow, threatening a reporter for research an Arkansas health-care scandal, or hiring private investigators to bully an ex-flame"s family members, Jackson says that Clinton showed no reluctance to go after any woman who inconvenienced his political career. But the blame, according to Jackson, also falls on his wife"s shoulders.

"Hillary could have exercised her influence over him, instead she has stood beside him every step of the way, doing whatever was necessary to keep the Clinton political bandwagon rolling," asserts Jackson. "The bottom line is that Hillary has enabled a rapist, and she needs to be called to account for her actions."

As I've said before, if Hillary runs for president, the "Slick Grope Vets For Truth" will have their say.

Yes...One web article. There will be no others in the MSM. They still know who butters their bread.

Um, the "article" in question is actually a press release. Yahoo News carries raw PR (like this one put out by Travelaxe.com) in addition to actual news stories.

That's not to say anything either for or against its content, just to note that this isn't even *one* MSM news story.

Good point. I hadn't noticed the "PRWEB" attribution.

I view Hillery as the modern-day version of Mario Coumo, with regards for running as president. Like Coumo, she is immensly popular with the democratic party and they want to draft her to run as president. Also like Coumo, she has secrets to hide and would probably result in a PR distaster if she actually runs.

Mario Coumo's secret was that much of his family is mafia. Apparently this is not a problem for New York state politics, but would be a complete disaster for him (and the democrats) if he had actually run as president.

Likewise, for Hillery, its all of the unresolved scandals from Bill's governership and presidency. In much of this, she was the henchman who did the actual dirty work so that Bill could be squeaky clean for his political career.

I'll have to see more facts to back up accusations before I buy this story from someone with a book to sell. The swifties had facts to back their accusations.

Slick Grope Vets?!

Perhaps going 'Amnesty International' on Hillary is a bit premature just yet?

Thanks for the excellent blog Rand!

These stories have all been well established for years, with first-hand accounts from the victims. They have simply been ignored by the MSM. Are we supposed to believe that all these women are lying, and that only Bill and Hillary are telling the truth? On what basis?

I hope I'm not coming across as a troll. I was basing my statements on the article you quoted. In he said she said situations, if one side seems to have something to gain (book deal), it makes me suspect that side. I am not aware of any rape accusations, but then again I was in my mid twenties, in the Navy (gone ALOT), and /was/ a Clinton supporter at the time the scandals where unfolding. All of my information (when I was paying attention at all) came via CNN and the occasional Newsweek article.

That being said, I still think the swifties had some advantages over the "Gropies" :D. A shifting storyline from Kerry and an actual written military record Kerry refused to release. The sex stuff seems to me more of a he said she said thing. Of course, as you said, in the 90's the Blogosphere didn't exist so if the rape claims are legitimate, this time it will stick.

Again, thanks for the excellent blog Rand!

You're not coming across as a troll. You're coming across as someone who got all their news from the MSM in the nineties. ;-)

The only person making any money from this book is the author. She wasn't one of the gropees, or rape victims...

Following standard procedure the Clintons will launch a smear campaign against this author if the msm is unable to cork it themselves. Somehow, I think...

"About the Author:
Candice E. Jackson, a libertarian feminist, is an attorney and commentator from Los Angeles. She formerly worked for Judicial Watch, a public watchdog group, and is a graduate of Stanford University and Pepperdine Law School. A recovering victim of domestic assault, her articles have appeared in Reason magazine, The Independent Review, and other publications."

... would be able to handle it, unlike other women they have attacked in the past.

At the time, I thought the SCOTUS decision to allow a sitting President to be sued was a bad idea. I figgered it would open the door to silly law-suits and efforts simply to bog down a President w/ various charges and "scandals."

Sadly, I may well have been wrong, in the case of Bill Clinton. Is there much doubt that, despite having perjured himself (but "only" over sex), he still has credibility w/ the media?

More to the point, had the suits been delayed until now, after he'd left office, is there any doubt that the MSM would be united in declaring that these issues are "long past," that they're simply digging up stories, and that none of this is even worth covering?

One wonders....