Rand Paul; Bill Clinton's "predatory behavior" undermines war on women claims

[dmmidmi]

WaPo The Fix has a good blog post analyzing why Paul is going all 90s on the Clintons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/02/07/rand-paul-keeps-attacking-bill-clinton-why/

#3 is really the only explanation that makes sense to me. This whole line of attack is a real head-scratcher, and Rand Paul has repeatedly proven himself prone to make off-the-wall anecdotes.

[dmmidmi]

*bump*

Paul continues in this vein.  He now attacks Grimes for appearing with Bill Clinton at a fundraiser:

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/rand-paul-bill-clinton-alison-lundergan-grimes-kentucky-103975.html?hp=r1

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Repeatedly attacking a guy who is almost as popular as oxygen is extremely short-sighted for someone who may or may not have Presidential ambitions.

[dmmidmi]

*bump*

Paul continues in this vein.  He now attacks Grimes for appearing with Bill Clinton at a fundraiser:

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/rand-paul-bill-clinton-alison-lundergan-grimes-kentucky-103975.html?hp=r1

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Repeatedly attacking a guy who is almost as popular as oxygen is extremely short-sighted for someone who may or may not have Presidential ambitions.

I don't see that.

It hurts Clinton a bit in 2014, and reminds younger Democratic activists of stuff that occurred before they paid attention to the news. It also helps Paul with Republican primary voters.

The only thing he has to do is not bring it up in the General Election. And I don't see Hillary mentioning it either.

There isn't the slightest shred of evidence that this has done anything to hurt Bill or Hillary. Other than pure speculation, can you point to any polling--or anything, for that matter--that would substantiate either of these claims?