Skip to main content

Split screen of Megyn Kelly interviewing Kathleen Willey with chyron saying
It's 2014. Hillary Clinton has not yet announced she's running for president in 2016, and this is where Fox News is: Megyn Kelly brought a 1990s-era Bill Clinton sexual harassment accuser on her show to declare that "Hillary Clinton is the war on women." According to Kathleen Willey, who repeatedly said that Hillary Clinton was guilty of "terror campaigns" and "terrorizing" people:
"If [Hillary's] going to run on women's issues like she says she is and she's going to accuse the Republicans of this war on women, I think she needs to be exposed for the war that she's waged against people like me. I mean, she has choreographed every single investigation and every terror campaign against every single woman practically who she thinks she might be a problem and that's how she handled it. How can you be a champion of women's rights and turn around and do what she's done to women like me?"
Hillary Clinton hasn't said she is going to run, let alone what ideas will be central to her campaign. So there is no "like she says she is." But set that aside. Once again we have Republicans (or Fox News, tomayto-tomahto) frantically trying to bring Bill Clinton's sexual transgressions, admitted and alleged, back into the public debate in order to preemptively block Hillary from running on the fact that Republican policies like opposition to raising the minimum wage keep women poor, that Republican opposition to policies like the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act mean pregnant women are often fired when they need income and health coverage the most, that Republicans are meanwhile trying to make it harder for women to avoid pregnancy by attacking Obamacare's contraceptive mandate, and so on through a long list of issues. When you step back and consider the logic here, it's genuinely stunning.

When Kelly got her prime-time show, she insisted that she wasn't going to be a partisan opinion host like Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity. Hers would be a news show. Maybe it was her gesture toward neutral reporting that when Willey started suggesting that the Clintons had criminally harassed her and others of Bill's accusers—"my car was vandalized, I had pets that went missing"—Kelly emphasized that "there's no direct evidence tying the Clintons to any of that" and quickly ended the interview. Because fair and balanced reporting means that when you bring on a woman to rehash 15-year-old claims about a potential presidential candidate's husband, you at least point out it's possible that they didn't personally have the accuser's pets murdered.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  BORG!! will be assimilated....eventually. (7+ / 0-)
    •  FOX scandle teams (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      What you will find on FAUX are paid liars to read talking points sent to them by the RNC. Megan Kelly just like the other so called commentators at FAUX are scandal mongers and liars and that includes Gretta. This is the most inaccurate and racist station in the history of the news media.

      •  I couldn't agree more (0+ / 0-)

        There are no journalists at Faux "un-news". Only poorly informed reporters. I don't know why Fox doesn't just hire Seth McFarland to create an entire cast of cartoon characters to replace Kelly, O'Really et al. Think of the money that Fox could save. In fact they could create an endless loop Bengazi, Obamacare, Hillary, Bill, etc, etc. Fox is a broken record. And what should one do with a broken record? Throw it in the trash.

      •  Is It Just Me Or Does Megyn Kelly Appear (0+ / 0-)

        Generally to have a look on her face as if she is suffering from hemorrhoids, or diarrhea?
        She appears to have about 3 carefully crafted facial expressions. 1 being poutrage.

        She sure has enough pancake makeup to Spackle an outhouse.

        Kathleen Willey is a proven liar, who is bitter precisely because Clinton DID NOT ASSAULT HER.

        Wiki Kathleen Willey, pretty enlightening.
        She appears to be some kind of genetic defective.

        If corporations are people now, can we deny them healthcare?

  •  pft (9+ / 0-)

    Anyone who believes anything Megyn Kelley says ever deserves nothing but contempt, just like her.

    ... all that oration sounds like capitulation now.

    by Darwinita on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:34:25 AM PST

  •  I know Fox News is nothing but garbage. (20+ / 0-)

    But I can't be the only one not wishing to go down memory lane with the Clintons.

    Kathleen Willey? Hell, there's a name I haven't thought of in about 20 years. Thank goodness.

    No, we can't do this again. What's next? An exclusive with Paula Jones? Is Socks the cat still alive? That dude knows everything, I bet.

    Anyone but Hillary. Please. For our sanity.

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:34:39 AM PST

    •  One thing Bill Clinton did do (5+ / 0-)

      was to deal a huge hypocrisy blow to NOW when they pretty much remained silent on his shenanigans.  

      The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

      by ctexrep on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:38:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But.. but.. he got a Red Dress Award last week! (7+ / 0-)

        So it's all OK now, right?

        Actually, it was his foundation that received it and he accepted it "for its work improving heart health by fighting childhood obesity".

        Go Red For Women Red Dress Awards 2014

        A good cause.. but the irony of a Woman's magazine presenting Bill with the "Red Dress Award" was too much for me.. lol.  It could only have been funnier if it was the "Blue Dress Award".

      •  Yes NOW had always been an enemy of equality (0+ / 0-)

        so it was such a good thing wasn't it. (sarcasm).

        Hypocrisy would have been calling out the Republican leadership which at that time included Gingrich for having affairs while staying silent on Clinton, oh and they were having affairs.

        NOW never spoke to the sexual activities of either party, therefore there was no hypocrisy.

        NOW has NEVER focused on the private lives of anyone.

        You can't name an instance can you.

        You just think they did.

        All in all pathetic proof of just how successful Republicans were in manipulating Liberals and progressives to turn on their own and be convenient idiots furnishing the right wing cause.

        And their success continues to pay dividends as people oppose HRC for NOTHING she did back then. Rather they oppose her for the reasons this woman spoke about.

    •  ^^^^This^^^^^ (13+ / 0-)

      I want to relive this all again like I need a hole in the head.

      If people don't think the Wurlitzer isn't capable of making people sick to death of Teh Clintons before 2016, I've got a bridge to sell you.

      •  Is it a bridge to a Benghazi? (4+ / 0-)

        Fox has been on these binges before and eventually people tune out.  

        Fox has an impact on discussion only when it's "breaking" something new (usually a distortion) and the lamestream media feel obliged to repeat and amplify it, including defining the vocabulary to discuss the distortion.

        I think the Clinton zombie scandal will only appeal to those already love to hate the Clintons anyway.  If Fox chooses the fill up its air time with nothingness, that's a win.

    •  Oh PUHLEEZE (28+ / 0-)

      I say BRING IT ON MOTHERFUCKERS.  If that's all the GOP has is to rehash shit from 20 years ago then they're more fucked than we're being led to believe.  It's not gonna help them win the war on women by bashing Hillary with shit her husband did 20 years ago.  The sins of the husband crap won't fly.  I for one hope they continue down this path because it'll only mean 60% of all women will vote Dem in 2016.

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:40:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This woman is not voting based on a soap opera (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ellid, schnecke21, blueoasis

        I really resent, and I'm not picking on you specifically when I say it, this idea that all women are just going to vote for Hillary because we're watching The Talk or The View or  Young and the Restless or something other than paying attention to her positions on policy.  

        It's just the mirror image of Fox.  We keep having these diaries about avoiding sexism but we seem to be gearing up to have a big cat fight.

        FOX is doing what it needs to do.  It's trying to goad us into the big cat fight and get the folks ready for the mud wrestling to come.  

        If you choose Hillary, the soap opera comes with it, so pay attention to your Social Security because they may just snatch it while you're eyes are glued to the entertainment.

        •  The only thing the GOP (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dr Swig Mcjigger, Sue B, Darwinita, dewtx

          wants to talk about is the 20 year old soap opera, since they are an ongoing policy disaster.

          I don't think anybody here is saying women will vote for Hillary based on her having a vagina. Women will vote for her or any other Democratic Party candidate because the Republicans have nothing to offer besides these ghoulish attempts to bring this 20 year old story back to life.

        •  Have a small problem with this: (6+ / 0-)
          If you choose Hillary, the soap opera comes with it
          I agree that our focus should remain on Clinton's policy positions, but blaming her for the 'soap opera' is like blaming Obama for the 'Birthers'.  I won't be discouraged from voting for her because there are lunatics who invented much of what Fox is attempting to rehash.

          There was no Whitewater Scandal.
          There was no Travelgate Scandal.
          There was a concerted and vast Right Wing Conspiracy (confirmed by a one of the Top Smear Merchants who went on to admit that he and others just made shit up -- David Brock.) to discredit the Clintons by inventing scandals.
          Hillary did what every spouse of a politician as under seige as Bill Clinton was.

          Nope -- with Fox and the Republicans, this will be SOP for whomever ends up running and getting the Dem nomination.  At least with Hillary Clinton, much, if not ALL, of what will be said has been thouroughly vetted and debunked.  And the public will grow tired of such attacks in short order.

          all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

          by 4kedtongue on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:45:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  `this is the reason (0+ / 0-)

          I didn't support Hillary in 2008.  I don't want to hear this trash again.

          One of the stated reasons for the Revolution was "taxation without representation." Now we have "legislation without representation" or "representation without legislation."

          by regis on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 08:54:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Blaming the victim never works (n/m) (0+ / 0-)
      •  Hillary isn't this great symbol of womanhood (0+ / 0-)

        For me. She doesn't have my vote just because she's a woman. As of now, she doesn't have my vote period.

      •  Technically, they're bashing Hillary with shit... (0+ / 0-)

        Hillary did 20 years ago.  She did disparage, insult, and ridicule the women her husband has extramarital affairs with.  They are trying to reach the 2-4% of the population that might be influenced by that, and change an election.  The genius of Karl Rove was the strategy to attack strength (Kerry on Viet Nam, Obama for making great speeches) rather than attack weakness.  Attacking Hillary on women's issues is another version of that.  Will it work?  I don't know.  

        To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

        by joesig on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 11:14:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bill Clinton didn't have... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

 extramarital affair with Kathleen Willey.  
          She accused him of sexually assaulting her.  And, while it's impossible to know for certain what really happened, there were reasons to believe she was less than truthful.
          But the Willey allegations were not another Flowers or Lewinsky kind of thing, it was much more serious.

          •  You're right: it's tough to keep the alleged... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            sexual assaults separate from the proven and alleged extramarital affairs.  And again, the strategy is to turn 2-4 % of people that might have voter for her into people that sit out or vote against her.  It was the exact same strategy that worked against Kerry and failed against Obama.  

            And while I hate to have to say it, I'll offer the obligatory (and true) disclaimer: in the general I'll vote for Hillary over any Republican.  

            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

            by joesig on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 11:33:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Looks like it's all he said she said. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sharman, carrps

            That being the case, I will vote for Hillary in absence of an actual progressive candidate, just to keep republi-vermin from getting in.

            The Final Report of the U.S. Office of the Independent Counsel report noted that "Willey and President Clinton are the only direct witnesses to their meeting, and their accounts differ substantially on the crucial facts of what occurred." It also stated "Willey gave false information to the FBI about her sexual relationship with a former boyfriend, and acknowledged having lied about it when the agents confronted her with contradictory evidence. Following Willey’s acknowledgment of the lie, the Independent Counsel agreed not to prosecute her for false statements in this regard."[3] According to Independent Counsel Robert Ray’s report, "Willey’s [Paula] Jones deposition testimony differed from her grand jury testimony on material aspects of the alleged incident."[4]

            ... all that oration sounds like capitulation now.

            by Darwinita on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 12:00:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'd be interested to hear the evidence against (0+ / 0-)

            I recall the Willey allegations, and thought they were credible.

            IMO, the Big Dawg suffered from having so many women quite happy to accept his advances, that he foisted the same on less willing ladies.  And Willey was seeking help from him, so walking a tightrope between rejecting and not losing an important friendship.

            If there was sinister harassment like missing pets, that is serious.  That part I have a hard time believing though, a very hard time believing.

            Was Bill flawed, sure.  Does it have much to do with Hillary or his stature and accomplishments, nope.

    •  But don't (14+ / 0-)

      you see. This is exactly where the Fox News crowd wants you to go.

      They know they have nothing but crackpot candidates and this is their best hope for winning the presidency in 2016 is to make the Dems nominate someone who will lose a presidential election.

      And after Obama I'm kind of surprised what they are doing would have an effect on anyone around here.

      It's the policy stupid

      by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:43:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's a fair point. (10+ / 0-)

        Let me be clear, though: I'd crawl through shards of glass to vote for Hillary to prevent a Rubio or Cruz or Paul or Ryan presidency.

        I just think we can nominate a superior candidate who will have as good a chance -- if not better -- as Hillary at keeping the White House in our hands in 2016.

        Hillary is not a good politician. She proved that abundantly in 2008. What makes you think she's improved since?

        We can do better.

        How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

        by BenderRodriguez on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:50:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ditto (6+ / 0-)
          Let me be clear, though: I'd crawl through shards of glass to vote for Hillary to prevent a Rubio or Cruz or Paul or Ryan presidency.
          •  Me, too. And we need not forget this. (7+ / 0-)

            The louder the GOPers scream "blue dress", the more we know they have nothing and we have them with their hands empty.

            That being said, I will vote for Clinton, but if Warren runs, I will vote for Warren first in the primaries.

            GOTV. Vote a whole Democratic Ticket. Drive your neighbours to polling places. Canvas. Talk. Persuade.

            Who are they we need to convince?

            Women, People of Colour, Milennials, Seniors...

            Don't bother with the GOP/TPer memes.

            WE KNOW BETTER.

            Ugh. --UB.

            "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Randian Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of West Dakota!"

            by unclebucky on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:25:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I wish you- and others who share your (6+ / 0-)

          views on Hillary- would please offer your own candidate when you make comments rejecting her.  It isn't enough to say "I think we can nominate a superior candidate, etc…" and then fail to say who that might be.  Name names please.  If she is going to have opposition, those candidates need to become visible and work for support.

          It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

          by Radiowalla on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:04:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Okay. (7+ / 0-)

            Kirsten Gillibrand. Martin O'Malley. Sherrod Brown.

            I don't think Elizabeth Warren is running, but I wish she would.

            How about Deval Patrick?

            I think we'll have good candidates, and I'm no doubt forgetting names.

            Please don't misunderstand me: If Hillary is our nominee, she will have my vote and full support.

            I just think we can do better.

            How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

            by BenderRodriguez on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:08:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you! (5+ / 0-)

              I'm not sure any of these have shown interest in running, but perhaps if they were encouraged by the netroots they might be more inclined.  I am supporting Hillary, but I think we need a real primary.  

              It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

              by Radiowalla on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:12:50 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Other than Martin O'Malley (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dr Swig Mcjigger, Penny GC, sharman

                none of them have expressed any interest whatsoever.

                Furthermore I'm not even sure that outside of Warren any of them will get above single digits in the primaries.  Most are too young with limited experience.  Deval Patrick?  It would be another 8 years of Barack Obama from the GOP race baiting to the policies.  Gillebrand is still very green and would never be take seriously as anything other than a VP candidate.  Brown had a tough fight with the uber weasel John Mandel in Ohio.  I don't even know if O'Malley has the name recognition to get out of single digits.

                Outside of Warren our options amount to barely better than Kucinich in terms of electability.  

                This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

                by DisNoir36 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:18:27 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  My memory's cloudy (0+ / 0-)

                  I may be misremembering, but didn't Obama also "express no interest whatsoever?"

                  Sidenote: Is there really nothing we can do to convince Warren to run?

                  God used to be my co-pilot, but then we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.

                  by Eagles92 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:30:11 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  But I want to talk issues and how do we do that (5+ / 0-)

                  if we just have this coronation.  I really want to know where Hillary is on the big economic issues.  I know where is on Roe v Wade.  Where is she on Social Security and trade agreements, labor, Wall Street.  I mean I FEAR I already know but she could convince me otherwise.  I could be MORE enthusiastic about supporting her if I felt she was on my side.  

                  I feel she's on the side of the lobbies shoveling money at her for the next war.   Again, I could be wrong but I don't know how you get that idea out of my mind if she doesn't have to address progressive issues.

                  If she doesn't address progressive issues in the primaries, they won't be addressed at all.  

                  It's just going to be a debate over how many wars we're going to have with Republicans cheering for war with N Korea and Hillary cheering for war with Iran or whatever and both rallying behind austerity budgets on everything else.

                  •  How about focusing instead (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Bill W, Dr Swig Mcjigger, cassandraX

                    on Senate and House races.  If you feel as many do that this is a coronation.  

                    This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

                    by DisNoir36 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:13:43 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And focus on the ones this year. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Dr Swig Mcjigger, bluemeanies, carrps

                      Right now, I'm satisfied if Clinton is our nominee, since I think she has the best chance of winning and I'm okay with most of her positions.  But, I'd certainly be open to a more progressive candidate if I'm convinced that candidate can win the general election. And the best way to convince me is to show me a progressive populist wave impacting this year's elections. That would impress me greatly.  But if this year's is another status quo election, I'm a lot more inclined to play it safe in '16.

                  •  You keep making the accusation (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    That Clinton supports war with Iran, but where is your evidence?

                  •  I don't think you really want that (0+ / 0-)

                    Your language gives you away.

                  •  You're doing a fine job... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    ...discussing those issues.  And her potential candidacy should not deter you from discussing those issues.

                    And I agree, I'd love to see a vigorous Democratic Primary.  I do not think that Clinton, if she decides to run, should run unopposed.

                    But neither Fox nor Chris Matthews will be determing my reasons for either supporting or not supporting Hillary Clinton.  I know enough about her wrt what they will want to talk about to tune them out.

                    all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

                    by 4kedtongue on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:58:21 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Hillary was ranked more progressive than Obama (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Ga6thDem, sharman, carrps

                    ...when they were senators.


                    Here's an old post from 2008 at Talk Left on this issue:


                    And people who do not think Hillary Clinton is more progressive than Bill Clinton need to learn more about her. Read Carl Bernstein's biography of her. It's pretty illuminating.

                    Unfortunately, a lot of people who identify as progressives--and I am one--have views of Hillary tainted by the right's negative attacks and the negative attacks of the Obama campaign in 08.

                    Do some research on her positions on the issues and you'll feel much better about supporting her.

                    "This is a center-left country. Democrats can act that way and win. In fact, they must." -- Markos

                    by cassandraX on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 10:48:47 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Sherrod Brown (3+ / 0-)

              could win

          •  Russ Feingold? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TKO333, Penny GC


        •  I don't (6+ / 0-)

          know where you get this she was a bad politician. She won a lot of primaries and got 1/2 of the votes of the party. She got the coveted working class white voters that everybody is talking about now but wasn't too keen on back then.

          She got stronger as the primaries went on while Obama started to sag.

          Who is this superior candidate? I certainly can think of none right now.

          And don't say Elizabeth Warren because she would not win a presidential election the way things are right now and she also has made it abundantly clear that she is not running.

          It's the policy stupid

          by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:07:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  We like Hillary in New York State (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dr Swig Mcjigger

          We think she's a pretty good politician. She crushed every Republican that went after her up here. And some of us even think she got shafted by Howard Dean and the Democratic establishment in 2008. That's water under the bridge, but still...

          There's no such thing as a moderate Republican.

          by maksutov66 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:12:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  How Hillary has improved (as a politician) v. 2008 (3+ / 0-)

          1. The resources of the sitting POTUS will likely be at her disposal
          2. She seems to have picked up some significant foreign policy experience
          3. The experience from 2008 is unlikely to have hurt

          •  Plus, her accomplishments as Secretary (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            of State on global women's issues can't hurt. She changed the narrative on women by championing their social, political and economic rights around the world.

            "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

            by ssnbbr on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 02:20:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Sadly for Fox though (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sue B

        their audience is teensy, relative to the size of the electorate. And I recall a study that found Fox "News" viewers vote Republican in larger percentages than registered Republicans do, so it's not like this group is persuadable. They're not making any inroads with this, just giving their diehards something  more to seethe about.

        Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

        by anastasia p on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:57:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          unclebucky, TKO333, Penny GC, carrps

          pretty much. It's all about fleecing the rubes who watch Fox and more or less this kind of stuff is telling them what they want to hear--lots of conspiracy theories.

          I actually have asked some conservative friends of mine why they continue to watch Fox after the last election and they repeatedly lied to them. Most have no answer but one said because it makes me feel better about my political views. And I think that's the crux of it.

          The people who watch Fox news are convinced that everybody thinks like they do and can't believe that there are people who think otherwise. Fox feeds this kind of dilusion but feeding that delusion makes them money.

          It's the policy stupid

          by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:12:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Self-awareness apparently (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ga6thDem, carrps

            not leading to self-reform.  That is so beyond sad.  Al Franken's friend said the same thing, when asked why he still loved Rush after having lie after lie pointed out:  Rush told him what he wanted to hear.

            Even the ones who are able to perceive the gap between reality and the views they espouse, are unable and unwilling to give up their fantasies.  And we have to live with the world they vote in

    •  No, Socks died. n/t (5+ / 0-)

      Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

      by JeffW on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:51:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is sad. (12+ / 0-)

      There are many compelling reasons Hillary should not be our candidate, but few are LESS compelling than this. And it's going to backfire. Other than a few bitter old white guys glued to their Fox "News," most people are just going to roll their eyes at the exhuming of this issue. They didn't go for it in the ’90s and they won't want to hear about it now. And it has nothing to do with Hillary. If anything, it will create more sympathy for her except among that rapidly dying off demo of bitter old white guys who watch Fox.

      Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

      by anastasia p on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:55:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You know (8+ / 0-)

      I agree and disagree with you.

      Why the hell should Hillary be judged for the antics of Bill's wandering penis?  

      But, I would like to see someone other than Hillary, for reasons that have nothing to do with Bill.

      •  Below Bill's Belt. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        unclebucky, carrps

        They are hitting Hillary below Bill's belt.

        Kelly's face gives me the willies.

        Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

        by 88kathy on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:12:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The Nuance (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        What they will end up trying to "prove" is that H knew of his wandering member and led efforts to "strong arm" his accusers into silence. Doubt it will work, but that will be the theme - discredit the war on women by making H complicit.

    •  ???? (7+ / 0-)

      So Hilary shouldn't run because of the Right's crappy opo research and the fact that they got nothing in the last 20 years and want to re-hash all of that ancient history again?  I can't wait for Fox's fresh take on Whitewater.  I'm just the opposite.  I want Hilary to run just she can rub it all in their face.

      “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - John Steinbeck (Disputed)

      by RichM on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:05:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, Hillary shouldn't run... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        because she's not a good politician, and she actually could lose were she our nominee.

        I don't see an easy path to 270 for her, and if the GOP were to nominate someone seen as a fresh face with new ideas, we could be looking at a replay of 2008, except this time we'll be the ones getting McCained.

        How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

        by BenderRodriguez on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:18:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not a good politician? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dr Swig Mcjigger, RichM, Matt Z

          Didn't she win a few senate races in NY?  You're basing your opinion on one race where she and the rest of the political establishment got blind sided by some skinny upstart with a weird name.  

          This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

          by DisNoir36 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:20:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  One race? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            There were a whole series of primaries and caucuses, no? And the "skinny upstart" won most of them. In fact, at one point, he won 11 of them in a row.

            I don't remember Hillary having difficult opposition in her Senate races. Little-known Congressman Rick Lazio?

            How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

            by BenderRodriguez on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:29:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Lazio outspent her (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Penny GC

              and almost everyone was actually predicting a tight race, with the possibility of an HRC loss. Polls showed the race very tight and she really didn't start to pull away until they debated and HRC won.

            •  Hillary won twice (5+ / 0-)

              and you downplay the fact that the race for the US Senate of NY is not an easy race.  Lazio lost because he blundered in a debate by advancing on Hillary.  The fact that she had token opposition in 2006 showed that she was a good politician who the GOP couldn't even mount a semi credible opposition against.  

              Oh and Obama DIDN'T win most of them.  Clinton won many of the bigger Super Tuesday states with CA, NY, NJ, MA.  Clinton also won NH after coming in third in IA.  Where Clinton lost and Obama won was in that he picked off the smaller caucus states while she focused on the larger primary states.  It was a different strategy that paid off for Obama.  He was better prepared and he had the better strategy.  He also controlled the narrative by winning seemingly insignificant smaller states.  The 11 races in a row he won were in many cases small otherwise insignificant states.  Even when Hillary won Ohio in March and PA in April the narrative was set and it didn't matter.  By the time she won Indiana in May it didn't matter much, she lost.  But don't for a second think Hillary ran a terrible campaign.  She ran a safe one, one that would have won her the nomination in any other year.  Obama had nothing to lose and took great risks which in the end paid off.  Had he lost Hillary would have been president and maybe he would have been VP and perfectly lined up for a 2016 run.      

              This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

              by DisNoir36 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:48:23 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

              there were and she did quite well in quite a few of them in pretty important states like PA, FL, didn't she win TX and Ohio too?

              You seem to be forgetting a lot of the stuff that went on back in 2008. Obama was not that great of a candidate and exit polls showed that Hillary would have won bigger in 2008 had she been our nominee than Obama.

              Obama's problem was that he fades at the end and kind of runs out of steam. She's the reverse. She learns and improved.

              It's the policy stupid

              by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 10:34:15 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Seriously? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dr Swig Mcjigger, RichM, Matt Z, Penny GC

          Why do you say she's not a good politician?  Because she lost to Obama in '08?  No one could have beaten that movement

          I see an easy path.  She doesn't really give up any states that Obama won in '12.  She's probably a little stronger than him in Ohio, maybe a little weaker in Florida.  I have a hunch that Gov. McAuliffe will go all out for her in Virginia.

        •  Explain the 270 thing? nt (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          "If this Studebaker had anymore Atomic Space-Age Style, you'd have to be an astronaut with a geiger counter!"

          by Stude Dude on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:30:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  She wins most, if not all... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Stude Dude

            of what's known as the Kerry states.

            Then, I think it gets tricky.

            Bill Clinton and Obama had wiggle room. Hell, had Obama lost Florida, Virginia, and Ohio to Romney, he still would have prevailed.

            Hillary seems to have less margin for error, and that scares me.

            Keep in mind, I'm not a professional and could be 100% wrong!

            How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

            by BenderRodriguez on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:33:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  HRC is probably (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              stronger than Obama in Florida. She does better with Jewish voters than he does. Probably does better in OH, too.

              •  Hillary takes all Obama states and (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dr Swig Mcjigger, Stude Dude, RichM

                then some.  She'll certainly get AR and MO closer.  WV, TN and KY will also be closer.  Hell at this point even TX looks close.  If Obama campaigns for her in NC, SC and GA she may even pull those off.  Hillary will not only get 270 but she'll get over 370 and be in the 400's.  Obama got to 365 in 2008 and 332 in 2012 so I don't know how you can realistically say she will have a hard time getting to 270.  

                This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

                by DisNoir36 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:53:31 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Honestly (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Dr Swig Mcjigger, sharman, RichM

                  she would have less of an uphill struggle than Obama had to win. I don't know why people who are constantly looking at demographics don't see that. Obama managed to win in 2012 with the Dukakis coalition. Hillary would have that PLUS an increase in working class white votes.

                  It's the policy stupid

                  by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 10:37:35 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Exactly, she doesn't have it locked up in the (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Stude Dude, BenderRodriguez

              middle west swing states.  If the Republicans can find someone to repackage that nice young Irish Catholic Ryan into a more consumer friendly guy with a smile or even dust off Jeb she might have more trouble there than people think.

              •  Jeb Bush (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dr Swig Mcjigger, carrps

                has a poisonous last name and that can't be changed and also how does the GOP scream about the dynasty thing when they are putting up another Bush? Not that they're probably going there in the first place though because they would have to admit that George W. was a big mistake.

                It's the policy stupid

                by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 10:39:11 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Name your candidates, then... n/t (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dr Swig Mcjigger, Penny GC

          "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Randian Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of West Dakota!"

          by unclebucky on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:34:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Apparently it's Hillary's turn (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenbell, BenderRodriguez

      She didn't make it last time, so it is decreed she get the nomination in 2016. I'm so excited.

    •  Socks died a few years ago. (0+ / 0-)
    •  Hopefully Bender, you are a rightwing troll - (0+ / 0-)

      I would hate to believe any liberal would say "Anyone but Hillary" just because Fox is attacking her for having a husband who could not keep it zipped.  
      And do not forget - the US was better off under Bill Clinton, oversexed or not.  

  •  Fair And Balanced? (9+ / 0-)

    Fox hasn't used that phrase in years. They've clearly given up the ghost on that. Why bother hiding it anymore?

    "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert

    by Rob Dapore on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:35:16 AM PST

  •  its official (5+ / 0-)

    the right's brief flirtation with HRC when they thought it meant driving a wedge between democrats is over.

  •  Actually, it's easy. (4+ / 0-)
    How can you be a champion of women's rights and turn around and do what she's done to women like me?
    What people do in aggregate is often different than they do on an individual scale.  While Clinton is known to have made her time as the SoS a campaign to raise the rights and status of women worldwide, that certainly doesn't preclude her being vindictive to individual women who were involved with her husband.  (And no, I'm not saying I believe the woman on Fox, just that it's easily believable.)

    Unless you're a dyed in the wool saint, you're occasionally going to be a bit contradictory in your own life.  I'd be more concerned with Clinton's overall effect on women's rights than on how she may have behaved towards a few individual women.

    (And I say this as someone who thinks HRC absolutely sucks on economic issues, and would rather have a non-Clinton candidate in 2016.)

    •  In addition (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN

      What the conservative never seem to get, and maybe never will get, is that women are equal and intelligent persons, just like men. They get to make decisions about their own life.  Men don't get to force them to make those decisions differently.  No one gets to say because they made a decision means they are a bad person.  We can disagree just like we would if a man brought his mistress into the white house as his wife and forced the tax payer to fund her for 40 years, but that does not make anyone a bad person.

    •  We need to retain an understanding of (3+ / 0-)

      the difference between those who were "involved" with Bill Clinton and those who claim to have been sexually harassed by him.  This woman has never claimed to have been involved with him.  

      While it's easy to understand a wife wanting to believe her husband and be angry with someone who claims to have been sexually harassed by him, I don't think we'd either be saying "let bygones be bygones" or "who can blame her" if we were talking a Republican.  We need to be consistent in our positions.

      Having said that, obviously Hilary Clinton should not be held responsible for Bill's actions, regardless of when they were.  If there's evidence that Hilary acted inappropriately during any of these incidents, then let's see it and we can decide what, if any, impact it should have on whether she's presidential material today.  But don't complain about Bill and claim that somehow makes Hilary inappropriate.

      •  Shoudn't our positions be supported by evidence? (3+ / 0-)

        There's no evidence to support Willey's claim and there's plenty of evidence to suggest that she had problems with telling the truth and allying herself with Clintons' foes. She also appears to have a vindictive streak.

        •  Just as with rape, evidence is usually (0+ / 0-)

          difficult to produce when the allegations are sexual harassment.  So, no, I don't think we need evidence in order to be concerned about the allegations.  I will, however, agree with you that in the instance of Wiley, there does exist evidence that her claims are false.  Since none of us were there, I don't choose to hold an opinion on whether the allegations were true.

    •  except that she gives no real examples or evidence (4+ / 0-)

      of how Hillary supposedly wronged her - just vague accusations and name calling

    •  Yeah I don't get this (4+ / 0-)

      She was vindictive towards a woman who was supposedly fucking her husband so that makes a her a woman hater?  

      Well hell then I hate all men because I had a fucker thrown back in jail for parole violation after he screwed my ex and threatened to kill me.

      That line of attack won't get them anywhere.  Hillary was the wronged party.  She did nothing but be human after she found out some bimbo tried to steal her man.  Hell I can't even fault her for sticking by Bill's side through it all.  I did the exact same thing.  Love will make you do crazy things.      

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:35:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just remembering the time... (9+ / 0-)

    I saw a headline, "Willie's willy gives Willey the willies."

    Their desperation, I must say, is entertaining. They know they can't stop her (IF she runs!).

  •  Ummm, Kathleen, if you were sexually harassed, (9+ / 0-)

    I'm sorry that happened to you and Bill Clinton deserves to be punished.

    But it's a) unfair to punish Hillary because she might have been married to a criminal (that's pretty anti-woman in itself by the way)  b) it's fairly dickish and c) it's not going to work.

    So whatever.

    I ride the wild horse .

    by BelgianBastard on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:42:05 AM PST

  •  I guess I'm slow or something but I don't (16+ / 0-)

    understand how being cheated on by your husband and pointing out that Republicans want women to have their rapist's baby should somehow cancel each other out.

    Conservatives seem to believe that the rich will work harder if we give them more, and the poor will work harder if we give them less. E.J. Dionne

    by blueyescryinintherain on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:42:08 AM PST

  •  The More The Hard Right Goes After Hillary (10+ / 0-)

    the more it will make women hate the GOP.

    "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

    by rssrai on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:42:32 AM PST

  •  The 1% is playing the US electorate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MrJersey, bygorry

    like a finely tuned fiddle.  Amazing how they use the "news" media to work both sides - GoP and Democrat - to their benefit.

    Well, I guess you could say they are job creators, they're certainly funding a boom in the political consultant class sector.

    Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

    by Betty Pinson on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:44:47 AM PST

    •  Yeah, that worked so well in 2012 (0+ / 0-)

      "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

      by kovie on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:06:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well it worked well enough (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Betty Pinson, Penny GC, sharman

        that over half the state governments are in the hands of Republicans.  And that's their plan this year and for the foreseeable future - take over governments at the state and local level, keep at least one house of congress and it won't make much difference that they can't win the presidency.

        "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

        by SueDe on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:49:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's already reversing (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Penny GC

          Look at what's happening in KS & FL, and likely to happen in NJ. ALEC gained the GOP a lot of state-level wins, but using extremely deceptive methods requiring immense amounts of money that are likely not sustainable long-term, especially given voter remorse backlash. We won't know for sure for another few election cycles, but consequences have elections, so to speak.

          "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

          by kovie on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:58:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It appears they want to use the 2016 race (0+ / 0-)

          to divide and conquer the electorate to keep 2014 in the hands of the GOP.

          DC Dem leaders are either too dumb to figure this out or are willing to go along with it for short term financial gain.

          This stuff isn't just unethical and immoral, its illegal.

          Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

          by Betty Pinson on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:00:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  vapid. (4+ / 0-)

    if this is all they got, then Hillary is on easy street.

    "Legalizing pot won't make more pot-smokers. It will just make fewer criminals. - Me

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:49:53 AM PST

    •  They are zipping up below Bill's Beltway 20 years (0+ / 0-)

      too late.

      Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

      by 88kathy on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:14:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  "War on Women" is KILLING the GOP (9+ / 0-)

    That's all I can figure....they can't counter it, because they can't help themselves from doing stupid anti-women things, so maybe this is a Karl Rove "attack your opponent's strength" thing where Fox is trying to confuse or weaken what is otherwise a completely devastating tagline applied to the Reps.

    •  Bingo (5+ / 0-)
      maybe this is a Karl Rove "attack your opponent's strength"

      And people should remember that this stuff does work.  Stupid and ironic is a very powerful formula.  Ask John Kerry what it was like to run against War Hero George W Bush.  

      When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

      by Sun dog on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:06:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm banking on the idea.... (0+ / 0-)

        ...that women are not that stupid.  Especially when their own rights are at stake.

        •  The margin by which we win among women (0+ / 0-)

          has to outweigh the margin by which they win with men.  

          I don't really like the implication that by saying there is no guarantee against this GOP strategy working that I'm somehow saying, "women are stupid."  

          There were millions of women who voted for Mitt Romney in spite of their rights being at stake.  In my opinion, they were acting stupidly just as were the men who voted for Romney.  That's not the same as saying "women are stupid."  

          When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

          by Sun dog on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 11:35:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly my thought (n/t) (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, Penny GC

      God used to be my co-pilot, but then we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.

      by Eagles92 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:09:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Kathleen who™? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BlueKS, 88kathy, Tronsix2

    Srsly? This what they got?

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:50:43 AM PST

  •  Rethugs' Fear of Hillary Clinton Comes From (4+ / 0-)

    the fact that she can think and will stand up for her rights.

    (The self-named Party of Stupid likes their women to be submissive to men and unable to think.)

    •  They're still pissed off that she had the gall (0+ / 0-)

      to call out their "vast right-wing conspiracy."  Of course they pummeled her righteously for accusing them then, but just look what we have now.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:53:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  How weird to make these assumptions about Clinton (0+ / 0-)

    running, like Kos did the other day, when he preemptively called the primary for Clinton , right?

    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

    by greenbastard on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:54:54 AM PST

  •  Kathleen Willey? (0+ / 0-)

    The women who had an ax to grind and convinced Monica Lewinsky to keep her blue dress because 'you never know'?  Bwahahaha.  Kathleen Willey would have less affect on a Clinton run that William Ayers had on the Obama run.

    “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - John Steinbeck (Disputed)

    by RichM on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:55:01 AM PST

  •  I think the right fears Hillary because they (9+ / 0-)

    know she won't "play nice" like Obama did in the beginning.  She KNOWS how they think and behave.  If she runs and wins, her first action won't be to reach across the aisle...unless she reaches across to back hand them.

    “To the world you may be just one person, but to one person you may be the world.”-Brandi Snyder (in memory of my Nick)

    by YellowDogInGA on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:55:38 AM PST

    •  They are hitting her under Bill's Beltway. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      When she gets to DC she will be hitting them inside the Beltway.

      Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

      by 88kathy on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:17:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The epic part of this is... (8+ / 0-)

    ....what an epic LIAR and sleazeball Kathleen Wiley turned out to be (making her a perfect FoxNews guest, I guess):

    From Wikipedia:


    Willey has a history of controversial claims including telling the FBI she was pregnant and she had a miscarriage when she did not.[7] On the evening of March 19, 1998, Julie Hiatt Steele, a friend of Willey, released a sworn affidavit, accusing the former White House aide of asking her to lie to corroborate Ms. Willey's account of being sexually groped by President Clinton in the Oval Office.[8] An attempt by Kenneth Starr to prosecute Steele for making false statements and obstructing justice ended in a mistrial and Starr declined to seek a retrial after Steele sought an investigation against the former Independent Counsel for prosecutorial misconduct.[9]

    Wars not make one great. - Yoda

    by Volvo Liberal on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:57:20 AM PST

    •  Thanks for that (0+ / 0-)

      Her allegations sounded plausible to me.  These new (to me) allegations of pets killed were chilling, if less credible.  Having this other evidence of Willey suborning perjury makes her story much less credible all around.

      Good to know.  It would not have been the end of the world, but the Willey story, if true, would have been a black mark against Bill in my eyes.

  •  Hers would be a news show. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Noamjunior, starduster, sharman
    ...she insisted that she wasn't going to be a partisan opinion host like Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity.
    I see. Megan Kelly is doing a parody of a right-wing news show, like Steven Colbert, but not funny.

    Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherfu*king snows on this motherfu*king plain!

    by shoeless on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 07:58:42 AM PST

  •  Up next: (3+ / 0-)

    Linda Tripp does Fox.

    I'm not always political, but when I am I vote Democratic. Stay Democratic, my friends. -The Most Interesting Man in the World

    by boran2 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:00:07 AM PST

  •  What a convoluted snarl the right wings' (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aquarius40, Chas 981, starduster, sharman

    attacks against Democratic presidential candidates do become. Kerry, the Vietnam vet, becomes a swift boated coward, in their worldview. Obama, a constitutional lawyer and US Senator, becomes an unaccomplished "subhuman mongrel" and now Hillary Clinton is a puppy killer.
    You can't reason with these folks. Puppy killer. Just oh my god.

    "Let's stay together"--Rev. Al Green and President Obama

    by collardgreens on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:00:25 AM PST

  •  I aint buyin it (0+ / 0-)

    She is as ugly as homemade soap. Bill had better taste than that. j/k
    I think they will have to do better than bringing up Bill's Highlight reel.
    Whipping up on a scorned woman is bad juju. Hell hath no fury.

    “He talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans.” James Carville

    by Mokislab on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:01:49 AM PST

  •  These people are unteachable (5+ / 0-)

    The government shutdown was a disaster for them when Newt did it, so they rolled it out again last fall, convinced this time it'd be a big win. And what do you know? It was another huge disaster.

    The witch hunts against Bill Clinton blew up in their faces the first time around, making Bill and Hillary both more popular and showing Rs for the petty, incompetent fools they were, so now they're going to try it all over again, convinced that this time it's the winning strategy.

    What is that called again when you do the same thing over and over, hoping for a different result? We used to call it insanity, but now I'm just going to call it Republican.

  •  Republicans are frightened. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    With Hillary's polling numbers as high as they are, this kind of exercise is an indication of how desperate they're feeling.

    The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.

    by Pacifist on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:04:57 AM PST

  •  Was anyone... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aquarius40, here4tehbeer

    who watches FOX inclined to vote for Hillary anyways?

    Ms. Willey seems to be a wasted effort appearing on FOX. Lemme know when she does another network. I won't wait up though.

    "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

    by JackND on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:05:09 AM PST

    •  Hey, they will soon be offering her (0+ / 0-)

      a gig as "Fox News Analyst," along with Linda Tripp and Ken Starr.  Oh, and where is Paula Jones these days?  Maybe she is free.

      It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

      by Radiowalla on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:14:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  ahem, that's "noise analyst"... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ... since there's absolutely NO news to analyze on the Fox Snooze channel.

        America's LAST HOPE: vote the GOP OUT in 2014 elections. MAKE them LOSE the House Majority and reduce their numbers in the Senate. Democrats move America forward - Republicans take us backward and are KILLING OUR NATION!

        by dagnome on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:58:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Please proceed, Republicans (n/t) (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BlueKS, 88kathy, hayden
  •  This is less about Bill's sexual transgressions (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Penny GC, starduster, carrps

    and his lying about it in public and to investigators, which voters repeatedly indicated they aren't that bothered by, at least in terms of how they viewed him as a leader (given his '92 win and '96 reelection and how Dems gained seats in the '98 midterms), than about Hillary's allegedly being (as the GOP has tried to cast her) some paradoxical combination of a loyal "stand by your man" battered wife (and thus too weak to deserve to be president) and a power-hungry Lady Macbeth who will literally kill to gain power and tolerate a creep husband as a path to it (and thus is too craven and evil to be president).

    I.e. they're trying to use Bill's extracurricular sex life as a way to cast her as Blanche DuBois meets Dick Cheney:

    So? I have always depended on the kindness of husbands. Now excuse me while I shoot this puppy in the face...
    My god, they really do have profound castration anxieties with strong women. I'm not a Hillary fan by any means, but damn, it's SO obvious.

    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

    by kovie on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:06:20 AM PST

    •  They're also trying to puncture the serious and (0+ / 0-)

      wise persona that she's adopted.  They want to use ridicule to knock her off the pedestal.  She's counting a lot on that pedestal.  It's all about the coronation and making it a done deal and the Republicans need to attack that and not let her define herself without getting into the ring.  

      •  In itself that's not such a bad thing (0+ / 0-)

        That is, challenging that presumptively entitled and already anointed attitude that Hillary's been putting out for years, ever since she ran for the senate.

        I do believe that it needs to be challenged, both because it's insulting and arrogant, and because I think it's unhealthy politically. It's the specific way in which the GOP is trying to do it here that I find offensive.

        I find that people who act entitled and above it all tend to be insecure and empty inside, and make really poor leaders. The best leaders are those who have to earn it and take nothing for granted.

        "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

        by kovie on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:48:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Gotta love that GOP bubble. (3+ / 0-)

    So. Out. Of. Touch.

  •  The shorter strategery: (0+ / 0-)

    "Hillary (Bill Clinton did xxxx), and besides, Benghazi and Obama-care was her idea, and you know... Bill Clinton!!!! and don't forget Benghazi!!!!"  "Oh, and isn't that curly-haired imp Rand just the best MAN we can hope to nominate to take her on, because he's a man and men are just great and ..."

    Whig: A political party that picked the wrong side of an important issue, then collectively insisted on carrying its wrong-sidedness into elections where that stance relegated them to the political has-been pile.

  •  Not sure (0+ / 0-)

    just what the strategy is here...damage HRC with the women's vote?  Or just try to cause general HRC exhaustion prior to 2016?  Might solidify the 35% zombie right wing which would not vote Dem no matter what anyway.  Anyway it is just terrific that we get to here this claptrap beginning in early 2014.

    "Men go and come, but earth abides." George R. Stewart

    by mojavefog on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:13:09 AM PST

  •  On a "Side Splitting Laughter" scale (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    of 1 to 10, 10 being "uncontrollable laughter" this new FOXNEWS scam is a 10+

  •  Fox is no news. They might as well be a propaganda (0+ / 0-)


    And when did we start associating the word propaganda with commies and nazis and all those bad guys?

    Fox therefore is Commie!



    Ugh. --UB.

    "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Randian Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of West Dakota!"

    by unclebucky on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:17:34 AM PST

  •  Everything you need to know (5+ / 0-)

    about Kathleen Willey and, by extension, both Faux Noose and the trembling GOP.

    Did someone fire a cannon across the Potomac? A 15-year-old body just rose to the surface, and it has a new book to peddle.*

    * Oblique Mark Twain reference

  •  I saw some of this, and M. Kelly pokes holes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Swig Mcjigger

    in Willey's veracity.  Truth be told it was an embarrassment of an interview, looked pretty desperate.  She should go to news, not olds.

    If love could have saved you, you would have lived forever. &

    by weck on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:25:06 AM PST

  •  does anyone else find the timing suspicious? (4+ / 0-) seems very odd to me that Republicans, including Rand Paul, Reince Priebus and now FOX News itself, are beginning their character smear campaign against Hillary so early.

    We all know that it was inevitable that Republicans would engage in character smear against Hillary should she run, it was just a matter of time.

    But, why now? The primaries are two years away and Hillary hasn't even announced her candidacy?

    My guess is that this has something to do with Chris Christie's scandals and Republicans are living in stark terror that their perceived front-runner for the 2016 nomination (or at least the one who had been their front-runner) may have lost some of to speak.

    Oddly enough, soon after Christie's scandals started breaking loose all over the place, we suddenly started hearing Republicans trying to resurrect Clinton scandals of the past. It's particularly odd because, even during the 2008 election, Republicans hadn't brought up any of this stuff against Clinton (likely planning to save it all for the general election campaign, no doubt). me all of this sudden talk about the Clinton scandals of the past, seems likely to have something to do with Christie. Republicans seem intent on trying to mitigate some of Christie's scandals by bringing up the Clintons'.

  •  leave Morgan alone... (0+ / 0-)

    She is such a hottie....


    "Love is what we were born with. Fear is what we learned here." Marianne Williamson

    by Canadian Green Card Alien on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:26:36 AM PST

  •  I'm ok with this, as long as they also bring back (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Penny GC

    grunge. Ahh, the '90's. Good time, good times.

    Imagine the most profound idea ever conceptualized occupying this space. Now expect exactly the opposite. You'll never be disappointed.

    by Gurnt on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:35:44 AM PST

  •  next: a reality show on Linda Tripp: Xmas Slay (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chitown Kev, sharman
    Now: Tripp, through a friend, declined an interview request for this article. "I know I'll be a footnote to history, and I've learned to live with that," Tripp told CNN in 2005. In 2003, she settled with the Department of Defense for $595,000 in a civil suit in which Tripp charged the Pentagon had violated her privacy by releasing personal information to the media. She has since taken pains to escape the harsh glare of public opinion. Tripp underwent plastic surgery, moved to Middleburg, Va. and married Dieter Rausch, a childhood boyfriend who had been Tripp's first kiss at age 14. He helped her through a bout with breast cancer, and together they opened a holiday gift store in Middleburg called the Christmas Sleigh, which sells holiday items ranging from baked goods and calendars to Sugar Plum fairy figurines. She appears to have higher esteem for President-elect Barack Obama than for his Democratic predecessor. Tracked down at her store by the website in the days following the election, she wrote in an email: "I believe President-elect Obama possesses an instantly recognizable purity of soul that, coupled with his brilliance, and, of course, his eloquence, brought quite unimaginable and long-awaited magic to the country, transforming red and blue states, quite literally, into 'The Color Purple.'"

    Read more: Linda Tripp - Where Are They Now: The Clinton Impeachment - TIME #ixzz2tmqXx4Uu

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

    by annieli on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:41:05 AM PST

  •  actually a Bravo series on Bubba's pecadilloes - (0+ / 0-)

    "The Real Elizabeth Hurleys of the Global Clinton Initiative"

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

    by annieli on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:42:56 AM PST

  •  Pets went missing? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    And here I thought Foster was the only victim. It's monstrous, I tell you!

    (My laughter just died in my throat as I realized I'm probably going to read this on Facebook before the day's out).

    I live under the bridge to the 21st Century.

    by Crashing Vor on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:43:31 AM PST

    •  I was just checking out teh Wikipedias (because I (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      honestly couldn't remember who this gal was or when the "affair" took place, and I happened to see:

      Willey's second husband, Edward E. Willey Jr., committed suicide on November 29, 1993 — the day she claimed Clinton's sexual misconduct took place. She wrote in her book and acknowledged in a 60 Minutes interview her suspicions of the Clinton's involvement in her husband's suicide pointing to similarities of White House aid Vince Foster's death which was also determined as suicide.
      Huh. Imagine that.


      Signature (this will be attached to your comments)

      by here4tehbeer on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:03:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ok, maybe I'm losing me (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Swig Mcjigger, starduster

    Aren't these people (FOX fake news reporters) always saying that we (liberals) need to stop living in the past, stop blaming Bush for everything, and look at the present?  If so, then why the hell are they dragging on someone from a 20+ year old scandal?  Why are they living in the past?  Why are they not looking at the present?  

    If Hillary runs, it should be based on her record.  Not on what her husband may or may not have done over 20 years ago.  

    Get with it FOX.  Your hypocrisy is blatantly obvious.  (it's ok for them to drag up the past, but not for any liberals to do it)

    •  Correct (0+ / 0-)

      That statute of limitations on W ran out the second Obama was sworn in in 2009.  For Democrats, they never expire. So you get "Democrats=party of slavery" attacks on in the internet discussion forums but Obama is whining about the past, while discussing economic problems in March 2009.

  •  getting the bs out of the way (0+ / 0-)

    Kathleen Wiley looks like she's holding on to her 15 minutes hard and trying to revive life to a rag doll caricature of Hillary Clinton. Too bad she seems to be mostly showing her lack of character and looks pretty sad.  As for Meghan Kelly, one woman trying to bring down another is a sport few journalist would have anything to do with.  So the interview revealed miles more information about the Meghan and Kathleen than it did about Hillary.  Even Mitt Romney says Bill Clinton's history with women is not relative to the job Hillary Clinton would do as President.

    Peggy Reskin

    by preskin on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:23:33 AM PST

  •  Well (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Swig Mcjigger, BlueKS

    at least there are right wingers now admitting the existence of the war on women, so there's that.

    Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

    by democracy inaction on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:25:25 AM PST

  •  Yea Fox News - keep up this line of attack (0+ / 0-)

    signed- every democratic voter in America

  •  Woo, 90s nostalgia! (0+ / 0-)

    Can the return of the Backstreet Boys and "Frasier" be far behind?

  •  pets may be missing... (0+ / 0-)

    but obviously a pig and a dog are around and making animal noises.

  •  It makes no sense to me (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It is clear the Republicans have both oars in the water on this issue and they are using them the way two men in a boat trying to get to two different places use them.

    They make a lot of splashing which accounts for them being all wet and dead in the water.

    How abortion and birth control stopped being personal choices and the center of the Repukes political agenda somehow just doesn't make sense.

    These are not Barry Goldwater conservatives.

    "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness," Allen Ginsberg

    by Hermenutic on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:51:31 AM PST

  •  I think this is hilarious (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    starduster, Chitown Kev

    If you're the Republicans, the LAST thing you want to do is invoke memories of Bill Clinton.  After the perpetual shitstorm America has been through since 2000, when you think of Bill Clinton, everyone holds hands, gets into a circle, and sings:

    Those were the days, my friend
    We thought they'd never end
    Those were the days, oh yes, those were the days
    We'd live the life we choose, we'd fight and never lose
    Those were the days, oh yes, those were the days...

    This is like watching a TV show which for some reason mentions the Olympics (which are on another channel), and you go, "Oh my God, the Olympics!", and you quickly change channels to watch the Olympics.  Memo to other channels: do not mention the Olympics.

  •  Doesn't change my opinion (0+ / 0-)

    I don't want to see another Hillary run. Time for her to go as far away from politics as possible. She needs to retire the bloated ego. The last thing we need is another 4-8 years of Reaganomics. Hasn't 36 years (by 20JAN2017) been enough?

  •  Wait for it. Vince Foster will be next (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chitown Kev, carrps

    I can imagine some creative play with the timelines.

    Hillary had Foster murdered because he was going to reveal her future plans to stage the Benghazi attack and if elected, Hillary will personally murder your beloved pets.

    Honestly, I think the Clinton insanity will dwarf the Obama rightwing madness.

  •  I can't stand Hillary, but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    wouldn't blaming her for her husbands pecadillos be considered part of the "war on women"?

    This strikes me as a variation of some twisted 1950s logic like:  "if the husband is straying, the wife must not be servicing his needs properly".  Which is about as sexist as one can be.

    "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

    by Subterranean on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 11:00:27 AM PST

  •  If Megyn ever needs a hatchet... (0+ / 0-)

    She can use her chin.

    Yeah, I'm mean.  So sue me.

  •  All this for a bj (0+ / 0-)

    Back then i was mad at Clinton for what he did. But then again it took 2 didn't it  he didn't rape her. I believe it was consensual and as it related to us, well I am sure he is not the first president to get some on the side. I felt for Hillary but she stayed and that was her decision to stay and in the end he did nothing really illegal did he? And in the end it was just a bj. It's their personal family life and unless he was molesting children it was non of our business anyway. There is a line there but the gop had nothing else on him so they turned it into the most expensive bj in history that the taxpayers paid for in more waysthen one. If she was strong then she is even more so now. And  it's time for a woman in office a democratic woman. The men are going to be red faced for another 8 lol. And as for fox news the hate for anything they don't want just drips from their mouths, my mother is hooked on these morons and she gets upset when I prove they were out right lying about something. The sad part is she was Democrat until Obama was elected. I think a lot of the old old school just can't accept him as a president and when i confront her she gives me he isn't American. I say even if they had news coverage and tape of his birth she still would not believe it. You can see the look on all their faces you talk about him or anything he does. They put upa  wall and nothing but what they believe is allowed in. It's sad.

  •  The Taming of the Shrew (0+ / 0-)

    So Fox Fraud can do no better than dredge up shrews like Kathleen Willey.  Keep it up, frauds, and we'll have not only a Democratic Congress but a filibuster proof one as well.

  •  willey nilley (0+ / 0-)

    What kind of person is this Willey person anyway ???

  •  Hillary Clinton (0+ / 0-)

    I did not approve of Prsiden Clinton's behavior with women
    But I do approve of all he has done to try and alleviate suffering in this messed up world.

    He is not sitting on any Boards of large companies collecting a lot of money for doing so.  He is not riding a mountain bike, playing golf all the time or cutting brush.  He did not LIE this country into a war and then not have the proper equipment to protect the men he sent to fight.
    He has raised hundreds of millions of dollars and his foundation spends the funds raised all over the world in a prudent manner.

    Lying is never the answer but this country just wasted a couple of years and a great number of votes and a whole lot of money on a Republican candidate who has spent the better part of his life lying about everything important or not important about killing a 16 year old boy in France in a car accident in which he was the driver when he was there on a mission for his church. He has constantly and consistently lied about his involvement.  He has so many versions of his life that he ends up lying about his lies.  The press and very few host's of television and radio programs even when they knew he was lying ever challenged him.  The only news programs I trust are on PBS.

    So before we demonize the Clintons again we should look around at all of the talking heads who lie as a way of life and do nothing to make life better for anyone but themselves and theirs.

  •  Is it just me... (0+ / 0-)

    or has anyone else ever noticed that most of the Fox Noise female personalities all look like Bleached-blond headed bimbos.  

  •  Danger! High winds. (0+ / 0-)

    You do realize that putting these 2 empty heads next to each runs the risk of creating a wind tunnel, don't you? Fox News might have killed thousands of innocent people when the gale force winds generated by those two powerful vacuums coupled together at the ear, were released on an unsuspecting populace.

  •  Don't target the pets... (0+ / 0-)

    target the pet owners. Seriously, who leaves their pets where dastardly pet assassins can get to them?


    Couldn't believe that faux fox would stoop that low and try to call it reporting,they had that woman whoever she is telling all kinds of lies,and by the way she looked like she was either drunk or was on drugs,either way she needed a fix of some kind,this woman would say anything you wanted her to say.This station is a complete circus,and it is really loaded with clowns of all kinds.please don't call this a news station it is more like the BIG TOP CIRCUS TENT.

  •  You've GOTTA be kidding me! (0+ / 0-)

    How can Hillary Clinton POSSIBLY be linked to or be considered complicit in the long-ago tawdry affair between her hubby Bill and Monica Lewinsky? That's just a ridiculous premise, and it has ZILCH to do with a possible Hillary presidential candidacy or the war on women. Fox News in general, and Megyn Kelly in particular, are guilty of premature speculation regarding a Hillary campaign, as well as trying to say she's somehow responsible for Wild Bill's wandering eye (and wiener). I mean, it's not like SHE was giving after-hours hummers to that troll Newt Gingrich back in the 1990's. This is old news. Move along, Fox News.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site