his continued attacks on this young woman. He needs to leave her the hell alone, but given his track record, I'm wondering when he's going to send his little stalker producers out to harass her.

If they do show up, I hope she takes Keith Olbermann's advice and makes sure to mention these three words over and over again so the footage is unusable -- Malmedy, Mackris, loofah.

Our friends at News Hounds have more on O'Reilly's latest attack -- Bill O’Reilly Has A New Conspiracy Theory About Sandra Fluke:

Bill O’Reilly just can’t stop attacking Sandra Fluke. Fluke, as you probably know, exercised her American citizenship to testify before Congress on a subject she cared about – contraception coverage in health insurance – and the right has been going after her ever since. Rush Limbaugh’s shocking smears have cost him dearly in sponsors. But Fox News, which is largely ignoring the Limbaugh controversy, has gone after Fluke with its own smears, albeit less inflammatorily. So, for example, Bill O’Reilly implied Fluke is a slut instead of coming right out and saying so, as Limbaugh did. He followed that up with a convoluted conspiracy theory in which he “connected” Fluke to President Obama based on the fact that former Obama aide Anita Dunn works for the (large) PR company representing Fluke. Never mind that Dunn has already said she has nothing to do with Fluke’s account. Now, O’Reilly has some new information: Fluke’s boyfriend is the son of a “Democratic stalwart” who “has made at least 56 donations to many Democratic candidates or organizations.” Apparently, that’s proof enough that Fluke is some kind of Obama plant.

“There is more to Sandra’s story than just contraception,” O’Reilly said insinuatingly. “Right now she is on spring break, in California, with her boyfriend, who is the son of Democratic stalwart William Mutterperl. He has made at least 56 donations to many Democratic candidates or organizations. Nothing wrong with that. Just pointing it out.”

Riiight.

“The whole ObamaCare mandating contraception business is a huge canard,” O’Reilly said. Then he began the Fluke smearing. “Ms. Fluke can afford to go on vacation… she can dress very well, she gets all over the place, but she doesn’t have $9 a month for (birth control) pills?”

For all we – and O’Reilly – know, Fluke could dress well from a thrift shop, have a rich boyfriend and sleep on a cot at a friend’s house when she goes on vacation. But more to the point, Fluke never said she couldn’t afford $9 a month for birth control pills. She was talking about the importance of the insurance coverage for women, in general. If O’Reilly actually saw or read Fluke’s testimony, he’d know that. Read on...

h/t Media Matters