For years, the media has been aggressively and obsessively pushing a particular kind of story. Any time a woman claims that she was raped, and that her rape was ignored by the male power structure around her, she will immediately become an object of fascination for the media. This is true even when there are serious glaring factual implausibilities with the woman’s story. See, e.g., “mattress girl” Emma Sulkowicz, virtually every person profiled by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, and the subjects of CNN’s recent hour long special “The Hunting Ground.”

Whenever these stories come to light, we are lectured on two Great Truths by the feminist left: a) we should honor the courage of these women for calling attention to the problem even if their personal stories are not corroborated by facts and/or are facially implausible and b) the actual factual veracity of their story is beside the point, because their story highlights a greater truth about rape culture.

The one exception to these two Great Truths, apparently, applies if the accused serial rapist happens to be Bill Clinton.

Prudhomme-O’Brien’s crusade, captured on video yesterday, is tailor made for a fawning Rolling Stone profile. As a rape survivor, Prudhomme-O’Brien was trying to highlight the fact that one of the most powerful men in the world was repeatedly accused of rape while he held a succession of powerful government offices. These alleged rapes were aggressively covered up by the political machine that protected him – a political machine that intentionally cast aspersions and slung the most despicable personal mud at this man’s accusers. Most insultingly, this man allegedly repeatedly used the Arkansas State Police to shuttle his victims into and out of his presence, a sure recipe for intimidation if ever there was one.

Instead of slinking away into obscurity, this powerful man is now back on the national scene, and a prominent American politician (Hillary Clinton) is campaigning with him and touting his endorsement. Prudhomme-O’Brien, a rape survivor, confronted this politician in public with the accusations of rape. For her trouble, she was called “rude” by the politician in question, and “obnoxious” by virtually every media outlet, especially including the leftist ones.

Imagine, if you will, anyone in the media, or anyone in the Democratic party – especially including Hillary Clinton – calling Emma Sulkowicz “rude” or “obnoxious.” This, despite the fact that Sulkowicz basically ruined someone’s life in the most public way imaginable by making him a part of her “performance art” because, basically, he wasn’t all that into her. Compared to Prudhomme-O’Brien’s one-time questioning of Hillary Clinton during what was, by all accounts, a publicly open political town hall, Sulkowicz’s crusade against an almost-certainly-innocent college student took “rude” and “obnoxious” to previously unheard of heights.

However, it was considered impolitic – especially for liberals – to call Emma Sulkowicz anything other than a courageous hero. The outrageous fawning over her (probably fake) crusade even got her invited to the State of the Union as the personal guest of United States Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. I suspect that Katherine Prudhomme-O’Brien will not be invited as Senator Gillibrand’s guest to this year’s address.

The lesson here is clear: rape allegations are to be believed, and those who raise the allegations are to be praised. Unless, of course, the allegations are against a prominent Democrat.