In the event he is impeached, will Senate Democrats even have Obama's back?

[karynnj]

129. You know why there were no perjury conviction. Clinton essentially took a plea bargain

He lost his law license for 5 years, gave up any attempt to recover his massive legal costs, paid a $25,000 fine and issued a statement, that while contorted admitted that "I am certain that my responses to questions on Ms Lewinsky were false."

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/


I seriously don't know why you picked this particular fight. Arguments on Clinton's political acumen, or the accomplishments of his 2 terms are well worth fighting and defending him on these - even on DU (or maybe especially in places like DU) - is worth it.

In retrospect, I wish more Democrats would have joined Feingold here. Those votes were not going to pass and maybe they should not have even happened - other than obviously the votes needed as part of the process to start the hearing. (The censure bill was different - it was after he was acquitted and it was intended to help Democrats who voted to acquit who might have people in their state angry with them for doing so. After Gramm tabled it, the leaders abandoned the effort, saying that they should move on. )

I suggest you look at the Congressional record and read the statements before voting by Democrats. I have long said that reading the words by which they criticized Clinton on his actions or his not telling the full truth under oath tells a lot about the person. They then all pivoted - even Feingold - and made the case as to why this did not meet their interpretation of high crimes and misdemeanors.

I primarily blame the Republicans for starting an impeachment in the House they knew would fail in the Senate - essentially because they could. However, part of why they could do this was because Clinton gave them this huge gift. He actually did fail to tell the truth - and he cynically did it because he thought it would be impossible to prove he did. (Who in their right mind keeps a dirty dress - let alone sends it to their mother for safe keeping!) Between the Republicans and Clinton, considerable time and government effort was wasted to the detriment of the country.

Though I happily supported Clinton in 1992 once he became the nominee, he had been nearly my last choice in the primaries. In retrospect, I wish I would have retained my concerns that led me to not favor him in the primary - namely that he seemed to easily lie and blame others when faced with something he did that was seen as negative - whether it was Genefer Flowers or the letter he wrote to the NG official who had earlier gave him a way to beat the draft. I was also concerned about his bad environmental record in AR. However, it was the personal characteristics that ultimately made him a flawed man and President - in spite of his major talents, intelligence and abilities.

As to Feingold, I have said he was not my hero. In fact, there were many issues where I strongly disagreed with him - especially when he voted against the budget in 2009. I also hated his protest vote against Dodd/Frank, where he could have been our number 60 instead of Scott Brown. The cost Brown extracted wasto weaken the Volker rule and that instead of large banks being taxed to create an emergency fund for future bailouts, the government will pay. Had Feingold accepted that D/F was the best we could get and voted for it, we would have had a stronger bill.

Long ago, for completely irrelevant reasons, I seriously looking at the first half of 2009 votes Feingold made and determined that he was very independent and possibly more of a left libertarian than a liberal. For my study , I looked at ALL the votes where he and John Kerry differed. It is very hard to reach the conclusion that Feingold was my hero looking at this 2009 post that was the result of substantial work. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/karynnj/33 (In case, it could possibly be unclear, the politician I most admired then - is the statesman I most admire now and it is John Kerry, not Russ Feingold --- and that comparison was done to support Kerry.) You can look at my conclusion and see one similarity to the 1999 votes that bother you. Feingold is intensely independent and could never be accused of doing something just for his "team".