DailyKos attempts a rebuttal

DailyKos decided to put my story debunking the myth that Lieberman somehow betrayed Clinton on the front page of their website (I guess I should start by thanking Kos and Co. for driving some more traffic here). She called some of my arguments "absurd at best," accused me of trying to "rewrite history," and said that my pointing out Feingold's role in the impeachment era somehow constitutes "whin[ing] that Russ Feingold has gotten away scot free."

Well, I will now rebut their rebuttal. I have to get up early for work, so I'll only hit some of the parts of mcjoan's rebuttal that address my post directly:

Lieberman, as was and is his wont, craved the approbation of Republicans and the Media, and he got it big time for that speech. Damaging President Clinton and Democrats while aggrandizing himself. Sound familiar?

To put it plainly, I think Russ Feingold was wrong every step of the way in the Clinton/Lewinsky saga. But Russ Feingold did not deliver a speech on the Senate floor intended to garner the approbation of Republicans and the media. Feingold's criticism of Clinton stemmed from his personal sense of disappointment and principle, not for grabbing attention. Indeed, Feingold's position on the Clinton impeachment garnered almost no coverage at all. Funny how that worked out.

First off, this post should be taken note of by neuroscientists all over the world, because apparently mcjoan can read minds! She states with certainty that she knows the respective motivations of Russ Feingold and Joe Lieberman during the Clinton scandals. Well, since she never has talked to either of them about it, the only explanation is that she somehow has the ability to read and interpret their brainwaves from 1998. Professor Xavier would be jealous.

(I'm sorry to be snide, but claiming to know their motivations seems a little presumptuous)

The truth, of course, is that we have absolutely no way of knowing what Lieberman and Feingold's motivations were. All we can do is judge them by their words and actions. On that basis, no reasonable person could say that Lieberman's actions were somehow more critical or disloyal than Feingold's. Lieberman made one speech criticizing Clinton's personal conduct; Feingold said he was open to impeachment, said Clinton "disgraced himself," and was the only Democrat to vote with Republicans on the key motions which could have ended the impeachment trial's public humiliation of Clinton.

I can't explain why the press covered Lieberman's statements more than Feingold's; I don't know the motivations of the press any more than I know the motivations of Feingold and Lieberman. Perhaps the differential coverage was based on the fact that Lieberman had been a longtime political ally of Clinton's, and were both founding members of the New Democrat movement which swept Clinton into office. Perhaps it was because Feingold had already been a critic of Clinton during the GOP attempts to push the Clinton/Gore fundraising stories, so his calls for greater scrutiny seemed less surprising. The point is that there's no way to know. In any case, it's preposterous to blame Lieberman for the actions of the media.


Here's another interesting part of it:

(BTW, in bringing Feingold into this discussion, I take it the LieberDems have given up their false smears of anti-Semitism against Lamont supporters.)

I certainly have never made any such accusation, although I appreciate anything that stokes my ego by associating the entire pro-Lieberman movement with my pen name. If she's referring to me specifically, then I should point out that I have expressly said that I very much disagree with "John Droney's ill-begotten sentiments that Jews should vote for Lieberman just for the sake of 'supporting home cooking'."

If, on the other hand, she used "LieberDems" to mean all of Lieberman's Democratic supporters, then I have no problem agreeing with mcjoan that any Lieberman supporter who thinks that the Lamont campaign is somehow motivated by anti-Semitism is seriously deluding themselves. That's why I've never made any such charge, and never will.


I want to end with one last point - I don't think either Lieberman or Feingold did anything wrong.

My post was not at all about trying to criticize Feingold, since I think all his statements and actions were in good conscience. I personally believe the whole impeachment ordeal was a waste of time and taxpayer money, since it had no chance of actually succeeding and distracted the entire nation from far more important matters. But Russ Feingold thought Bill Clinton had done something wrong, and wanted to see something done about it. I find no inherent fault in that, even though I would not have done the same thing myself if I were in his position.

I only had two points - both of them related, both of them simple, and neither (I think) too controversial:

1. Joe Lieberman was not disloyal to Clinton, and Clinton will tell you so himself
2. Singling out Lieberman as disloyal because of his actions during Clinton's impeachment is hypocritical unless others (such as Feingold) are criticized as well

UPDATE: PoliticalWire linked to the Lieberman/Feingold story as well, and (like mcjoan) accused me of trying to "rewrite history."

It's interesting...they didn't take issue with any of the facts or votes cited in the post. So I'm not exactly sure what they're taking issue with.

I'll say it again - I have no beef with Russ Feingold. I'm simply pointing out that, despite the fact that Lieberman and Feingold's respective campaigns (Lieberman for Senate, Feingold for President) are much-talked about in the blogosphere, only Lieberman is skewered by the Kossacks for stabbing Clinton in the back. And since no one can honestly say that they know what was running through the minds of Lieberman, Feingold, and the media in 1998, we can only judge them by their words and actions at the time.

I laid out what those words and actions were, but I wasn't trying to interpret (much less re-interpret) those events and I certainly wasn't trying to pass historical judgment on Feingold and Lieberman. I think we should all leave that to the historians.