Normally I see Reagan-credentials-anything and I head for the hills. But I'm a little more tolerant if the person's cause seems genuinely nonpartisan. That, to me, is indicative of a consistent truth, value or conviction underneath, which makes me better able to hear what the person has to say. Moreover, he really is lovely to listen to on the subject. It's the type of eloquence that comes with a healthy mixture of intellect and passion.

I thought the Clinton Impeachment was as silly as silly could get - huge shocker for a poster on Air America, I know. :) But I guess one could argue that that *was* true until Clinton committed actual perjury, which is when the academic set like Fein seemed to really get in a twist.

In any event, part of the point he's been making to anyone who will listen is that Impeachment has a somewhat puffed-up importance in light of the fact that it's the only legal recourse against certain elected officials in the event of any manner of serious crimes - *or* mere misdemeanors. The cultural march toward imperial presidencies over the years is exactly the type of mind-frame that has led to Impeachment gaining this false patina of gravity, when it should be considered as no more or less unusual as any other process of government. And if one views it in that light, Clintonesque perjury is as much under its aegis as the suspected High War Crimes of the current administration. At least, that's what I think constitutional scholars like Fein would argue. :)

But either way, I feel fairly certain he and Rachel would have a very illuminating and engaging conversation. I'd love to hear it. ;)