Senator Joseph Lieberman's bifurcated Monicagate speech in 1998 on the floor of the Senate was almost universally misperceived as an act of honesty and courage.
In reality, it was neither.
Reduced to its essence, Lieberman's argument was this:
clinton is an unfit president;
I have called this argument "The Lieberman Paradigm."
Lieberman's argument that sorry day was rightly headed toward clinton's certain ouster when it suddenly made a swift, hairpin 180, as if clinton hacks took over the wheel....
Which they probably did.
What was Joe promised? A place on the 2000 ticket, perhaps?
To be fair, it was not the Lieberman speech but rather a New York Times apologia that institutionalized this shameless scheme to protect a thoroughly corrupt and repugnant--and--as everyone except The New York Times now knows-- dangerous -- Democrat regime.
The Lieberman Paradigm made its debut in the Times' utterly loony 1996 endorsement of clinton. The Times actually argued--I kid you not--that although bill clinton was a "corrupt," "dysfunctional personality [with] delusions" -- the Times' own words -- we need not--we must not--remove bill clinton; we need only remove.the character lobe of bill clinton's brain.
THE SHAYS SYNDROME
Not an aberration, the Shays Syndrome was quickly adopted by the entire Senate as its impeachment show trial deus ex machina of choice.
Shays, you may recall, examined the evidence in the Ford Building, concluded that clinton did, indeed, rape Broaddrick -- "VICIOUSLY!" AND "TWICE!" he declared at the time-- and was planning to vote to impeach; he changed his mind, however, after a tete a tete with the rapist.
Any cognitive dissonance Shays may have experienced rendering that verdict was no doubt assuaged by the political plum clinton had given Mrs. (Betsi) Shays...
Each of the 50 senators, on the other hand, cured the cognitive dissonance problem pre-emptively by making certain not to examine the damning Ford Building evidence in the first place.