But this challenge was implicitly thrown down by the purported victim of the slur, Paul Fray, Tuesday on the Fox News Channel. Fray, head of Bill Clinton's failed 1974 run for Congress, said he would be glad to take truth serum and a lie detector test to confirm the testimony by his wife Mary Lee Fray, businessman Neil McDonald, and himself that a raging Hillary screamed that he was a "F--king Jew Bastard!"

"She might have called him a bastard," said Bill Clinton following his wife's near-teary denial. "I wouldn't rule that out. She's never claimed that she was pure on profanity. But I've never heard her tell a joke with an ethnic connotation…. She can't tell an ethnic joke – it's not in her."

The President's statement continues his anti-semantic legacy of "I did not have sexual relations [technical legal meaning: sexual intercourse, not oral sex] with that woman." Fray's wife, quoted in the new Jerry Oppenheimer book State of the Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton, never described Hillary as telling a "joke" but as making a deadly serious and hate-filled ethnic and personal insult that left nobody laughing. Parse the words and you wonder why Clinton went out of his way to say Hillary never told such jokes – another evasive, non-denial denial.

Moreover, having Bill Clinton as a character witness for Hillary's purity on the issue of anti-Semitism is like having one member of the Ku Klux Klan swear that another KKK member never made racist remarks or took part in a lynching.

As this column documented last November, there is lots of other evidence for anti-Semitic speech and behavior by both Hillary and Bill Clinton. Larry Patterson, who was the up-close-and-personal Arkansas state trooper bodyguard to Governor Clinton and Hillary from 1986 to 1993, says he heard the couple use anti-Semitic slurs between 10 and 20 times. Patterson relates that he heard Hillary use the term "Jew Bastard" and call her husband a "Jew Boy" and a "M-----rF--king Jew." Patterson claims that as many as 15 other Arkansas state troopers heard similar racial and ethnic slurs by the Clintons. Former Clinton campaign advisor Dick Morris – also a victim of Hillary's anti-Semitic rhetoric -- is reportedly working with Patterson to secure legal immunity and job protection for these troopers from Arkansas's current Republican Governor if they go public with such information.

Patterson, as this column reported last November, also says Bill Clinton was fascinated by Adolf Hitler and carefully studied how Hitler manipulated people.

So what could Hillary do to overcome this issue? Unless a variety of witnesses are lying, for her to take a lie detector test would be political suicide. As Steve Dunleavy of the New York Post suggests, Hillary could sue those talking about her for libel or slander, as would be expected if they are lying to defame her. She could then take steps to insure that the case did not come to court before the election – and drop it the instant the voting is done. This is what Senator Edward Kennedy did against Reader's Digest during his 1980 primary challenge against incumbent President Jimmy Carter for its analysis of his behavior at Chappaquiddick.

Instead Bill and Hillary have fallen back to battle-tested Clinton tactics of attacking and destroying the character of anyone with evidence against them, be it a WOB (Woman of Bill's) or a reporter. They and their media allies have told us Jerry Oppenheimer is to be dismissed as someone who occasionally writes for the National Enquirer. This press smear ignores the other evidence, noted by Lloyd Grove in the Washington Post, that Oppenheimer has hard news credentials as a reporter for United Press International and the Washington Star and that he is former assistant city editor for the Philadelphia Daily News.

Likewise the Clintons and their media accomplices have declared Paul Fray mentally unstable, that in Bill Clinton's words this high official in his own campaign had begun to display "irrational behavior" during the 1974 campaign. And Hillary, who lost her own billing records and virtually every other subpoenaed document demanded of her, was instantly able to produce a 1997 letter from Fray apologizing to her for unspecified wrongs. But Hillary refuses to confirm whether those wrongs include the "F--king Jew Bastard" statement Fray and two other witnesses reaffirmed as true this month.

And Bill and Hillary have, without evidence, accused her Senate opponent Congressman Rick Lazio of somehow being behind this latest revelation. "They [the half-vast right-wing conspiracy?] can't defeat her politically, so they go after us personally," Bill Clinton told the ultra-liberal New York Daily News, in whose pages Hillary is depicted as the Statue of Liberty, never as the Statute of Limitations.

The truth, like the devil, is often found in the details. One tiny detail that fascinates me about the national liberal media's cover-up of Hillary's obvious anti-Semitism is its routine mention of how Hillary in 1974 passionately supported her husband Bill. Trouble is, Bill and Hillary Clinton were wed on October 11, 1975. In November 1974 Bill and Hillary were "living in sin" (their thousands of other sins have continued to this day). She was not "Hillary Clinton" in 1974 – and in fact retained her maiden name for years into the marriage, eventually re-naming herself Clinton only to help Bill's election prospects. The national media's refusal to include this telling detail is one more evidence of its bias in Hillary's favor. It's one more lie in the bodyguard of lies the national media is sending forth to protect her blond ambition.

And Bill Clinton has warned Hillary's Clintonoid robot followers to expect "a lot more" of this. "Apparently there's a whole warehouse of insults that they're [ that half-vast right-wing conspiracy again?] going to be putting into motion for this campaign," he preemptively predicts. What that really means, surmises radio talk host Rush Limbaugh, is that there is a lot more such behavior that others have witnessed. Where there's smoke, there are cigars. [Which leads us to wonder if, as trooper Patterson testifies, Bill Clinton shares Hillary's apparent feelings about Jews, did this play a part in his choice to sexually exploit and degrade a Jewish girl, Monica Lewinsky?]

New York Congresswoman Nita Lowey, herself Jewish, has rushed to put her lips at the service of the Clintons, declaring that Hillary could not possibly have uttered the anti-Semitic slur alleged. Of course some Zionists were tricked into supporting Adolf Hitler early in the Nazi butcher's career – because he pretended to want a racially separate nation of, by, and for Jews. Or perhaps Ms. Lowey and Rep. Charles Shumer are what psychologists call "self-hating Jews" who because of some deep inner loathing are eager to embrace anti-Semites such as Hillary Clinton.

Other New York Jewish leaders such as Democrat Assemblyman Dov Hikind have shown far more integrity. "If this was only a remark made 26 years ago, then it wouldn't be a big issue," says Hikind, "but with the other baggage that Mrs. Clinton carries [on Jewish issues], it is a big issue and the time factor should not matter. This is not an isolated case…. A lot of people don't trust Hillary…." Hikind months ago called on Hillary to drop out of the race.

Perhaps the ugliest and least discussed aspect of this issue is that the Democratic Party itself harbors a streak of anti-Semitism. This is, after all, the traditional party of the KKK, of Jim Crow, of Bull Connor, and of the slave owners. It is the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who ordered Jews shipped back to die in Nazi Germany. It is the party that in 1984 at its National Convention refused to permit a delegate vote on a simple resolution condemning anti-Semitism – because Democratic leaders feared this would be taken as an insult by the Rev. Jesse (New York City is "Hymietown") Jackson and his first lieutenant Rev. Louis ("Judaism is a gutter religion") Farrakhan.

In her Senate bid Hillary Clinton has embraced Rev. Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton, some of whose openly anti-Semitic links have been documented in this column. Others have followed Sharpton's verbal attacks on Jews with violent and even deadly physical attacks. Mara Liasson, chief White House correspondent for National Public Radio, notes that Hillary Clinton has refused to criticize Rev. Sharpton or to distance herself from his behavior in any way whatsoever. In this as in her own apparent anti-Semitism, Hillary Clinton does not deviate from the Democratic Party. She is the Democratic Party.

Hillary has come a long way from supporting the first Jewish candidate for President, Barry Goldwater (who was an Episcopalian, but whose Jewish ancestry would in the eyes of anti-Semites certainly make him a "Jew"), as a "Goldwater Girl." Perhaps it was an act of teenage rebellion against a family where reportedly unpleasant things were regularly spoken about Jews and Catholics. But she would turn against Goldwater and his party to embrace the extremism and anti-Semitism of the Left, and of her roots.

And now, the latest polls show, she clings to scarcely half the Jewish vote in a state where liberal Democrats usually win more than 3 of 4 Jewish votes with ease. If she cannot win this key Senate seat as a stepping stone to national power, Hillary can kiss her aspirations to rule America and someday the world good-bye. More than seven decades ago, some Jews were tricked into supporting an anti-Semite – and unwittingly helped bring about the Holocaust. As part of the vow "Never Again!" to let anti-Semitism come to power, Jews who love life and want a world safe for their children and grandchildren should vow never to vote for or in any way support Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat.