"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.