Ramesh Ponnuru points out a puff piece in the WaPo about Tom Daschle, with the reporter crying in his beer about the loss to the nation of this noble statesman.

But he also points out this strange rewriting (or miswriting) of history:

…Daschle and Lott believed that conservative House Republicans had gone too far by impeaching the president for essentially lying about his affair in a civil proceeding, and they worked successfully behind the scenes to avert a conviction.

Ramesh notes that there was never a chance of a conviction, but I think that’s wrong. The real point is that the reporter fails to point out how Daschle conspired with Lott–they worked behind the scenes to make sure that there was no real trial. They allowed no witnesses, with only videotaped testimony of key players. If all of the evidence that the House members had seen (resulting in the impeachment vote) had been shown to the public, it’s actually quite unlikely that Clinton would have remained from office.

In addition, Clinton wasn’t just accused of “essentially lying about his affair in a civil proceeding.” There was witness tampering and witness intimidation as well. These are serious federal felonies–the stuff of mafiosi, regardless of the subject matter.