I thought it was beyond interesting to hear today that Rand Paul has decided that Bill Clinton's sexual high-jinx while in office were so offensive that anyone who has received campaign contributions from him should return them. In fact, he called Clinton a "sexual predator." The reason I did a double-take at this presumed moral attitude, is that I recalled an incident from Rand Paul's college days which came up during his 2010 campaign.
Paul, who was (seemingly appropriately) known as "Randy," was a member of a "secret society." Their goal in life appears to have been to have a high time and pull pranks. The incident that was made public in 2010 involved the kidnapping of an undergraduate woman. Talk about your pot calling your kettle etc.
But here's what makes the attack even more terribly wrong.
Bill Clinton, regardless of how stupid was his extramarital pursuit of women, was not taking them anywhere or anyhow against their will. The Rand Paul incident was quite the opposite. The young woman was blindfolded and tied up, taken to Paul's apartment where he and a friend attempted to force her to smoke pot. After she refused, they forced her back into the car, took her to a creek, and made her perform a bizarre worship of a god they invented for the purpose of the prank. Hilarious, right?
So you have to wonder about the incredibly bad judgment that would cause him to attack Clinton for behavior that was not even as bad as his own.
I can only assume that the incredibly warped logic had to do with attacking Hillary, who he sees as a likely opponent in 2016, through her husband. And making it seem as though he is a defender of women.
I just wonder if when it all comes down to it, this kind of crazy stuff will result in Rand Paul lasting little longer than Rick Perry, Herman Cain or Rick Santorum when he actually hits the campaign trail. I am hoping it will be a brief but thoroughly entertaining run.